Recently , we published a post by Tim Rogers titled “The Trustee System – Working as Designed.” Today we have been given evidence of the trustee system working, and working well, at something its designers never anticipated.
As you likely know by now, the trustees of the International Mission Board (IMB) voted in closed session yesterday to censure trustee Wade Burleson. The full text of the censure motion can be found by clicking here, and the trustee code of conduct is here.
Censure is defined by dictionary.com as a “strong or vehement expression of disapproval,” and as “an official reprimand, as by a legislative body of one of its members.” It is a concept allowed for by Robert’s Rules of Order, which govern the meetings of the IMB trustees.
But the events that led to its implementation in this case were, as I said, likely never to have been contemplated by those who designed the trustee system that serves us so well. Moreover, the idea that a trustee would be so publicly divisive, so openly critical of the board on which he serves, would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. And yet the trustees, under the capable leadership of their chairman, Dr. John Floyd, have dealt with the behavior of this errant trustee with great patience and grace, and I’m grateful for the course they have chosen.
Though many examples of the disciplined trustee’s behavior that led to censure could be cited, I’ll just offer the contrast between these two quotes, the first dating to March 22, 2006, when new trustee guidelines were adopted:
“I will abide by the new policies to the nth degree, and I will not be a party to criticism of any Board actions unless I am no longer a trustee of the IMB.
If for some reason conscience demands that I must criticize a Board action I will resign.”
Compare the acceptance of board-approved policy in those comments from some eighteen months ago with the outright defiance of said policy exhibited today:
“I feel I have repeatedly and conscientiously been supportive of the work of the IMB and the administration of the IMB, and even my written criticism of trustee guidelines or policies has been with the goal of showing a minority view, dissenting with kindness and grace, and never making the differences of position on these very important matters a moral issue. In other words, I have sought to live out grace and truth on my blog. Therefore, I cannot apologize for anything I have written when it involves my strong, courteous, and principled dissent concerning any board directive or policy that I believe encroaches upon the doctrinal parameters set by the Southern Baptist Convention or that in any way contravenes our cherished Baptist distinctives.”
I had heard from various sources that there was the possibility that the board may vote to remove Wade Burleson as a trustee altogether, a move also allowed for by Robert’s Rules. But while they would have been within their rights to do so, I am grateful that they have found another way to address the difficulty. While I would not object to the immediate result of such a move, the precedent set would be a dangerous one indeed. Imagine if, during the conservative resurgence, moderate trustees had simply removed each newly appointed trustee simply because they were conservatives. The resurgence never would have taken hold. Of course, this situation is different, in that the issues are not those of theology but of ethical behavior (or lack thereof). Still, I’m grateful that the precedent was not set.
I am grateful for our trustee system. In the last few months we have seen trustee boards face difficult challenges with flexibility and grace, and the wisdom inherent in this system is just one more reason I’m grateful to be a Southern Baptist.
I don’t think the conflict resolution aspects of the trustee systems is working in the IMB BoT. I don’t think the stakes are high enough to justify “effectively” kicking out Wade Burleson.
Regardless of what position you take on Wade’s blogging activities, I don’t think the downside from Wade’s activities justifies the action taken by the BoT.
Stated another way, if the BoT of the IMB did a “cost/benefit” analysis of what is in the best of the IMB they would have sought to “mediate” the dispute with Wade using the services of some neutral third party (such as the SBC executive committtee) rather than just effectively booting him out.
In the end, the IBM BoT’s “cure” will be worse than the disease due to the unintended side effects.
I don’t see any statesman “standing tall” in the IMB right now on this issue.
I’d be saying something different if there was a photo op between Floyd and Burleson and they were burying the sword based upon some type of “peace” settlement brokered by a “senior statesman”.
This whole thing is taking on a life of its own. Now that the bull is out of the pen there might be more than just some broken China.
This whole thing is just more fuel to the fire of the “polarization” of the SBC. I thought things were on a positive trajectory of “cooperation”. I guess I’m wrong.
Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
I guess your post in praise of the trustee system working and functioning correctly is indicative of just how deeply divided the SBC is these days. It’s all a question of perspective, isn’t it? While this blog and its supporters will celebrate the BOT’s action, readers of Wade’s blog and many others are decrying the unconscionable actions of those who will unscrupulously oust one of their own in an effort to silence dissent (and to do so I might add behind closed doors with a voice vote that allows for further anonymity). The SBC’s future looks bleak from my vantage point.
It is a sad day for the SBC that this had to happen. However, it did have to happen. The very public unrepentant repetitive actions of Wade are what precipitated this censure. The BOT acted in response to his sin and have rightly called upon him to repent.
I am grateful for the integrity of the IMB BOT that they had the courage to address this. However, because they did act, I am concerned that the attacks on the Patterson\’s (and others) will now become even more vociferous, impetuous and childish.
Let us hope not.
Ron P.
Actually, Wes, a dangerous precedent was set today–the silencing of dissent. The 2006 rules they used today were only established because they were upset anyone would dare challenge them. Since they seem to be unable to defend their positions, they instead toss out anyone who stands up.
Brian,
If there were no other trustees who disagreed with the baptism and “prayer language” policies/guidelines, your argument would have merit. But that is not the case.
This sad but necessary action is not the result of disagreement, but rather it is the result of wrong behavior and a refusal to accept correction.
Voting is not the same as speaking out. What they seem to want is people to vote but not talk afterward (unless only “positive”). That is not healthy.
kaylor,
I do believe you are missing the point in this. The board is not objecting to dissent. It is objecting to one of its own criticizing the rest and doing so repeatedly when the policies of the board forbid this. I agree with the policies and board action as would most who have served on a Trustee group.
Let me add some insight that those attacking the BOT do not understand.
I have served as a Director and board member of a non profit. I have worked for corporations that were both publicly and privately held. In all these instances, a board member would have been immediately removed if he or she conducted themselves in the same manner that Wade has.
A Director, Trustee, board member etc. has a responsibility that far outweighs their personal right for “public” dissent of their organization and board of directors. All members of any board I listed above would be expected and required to support all actions of the board, whether he/she personally agreed or not. The reason for this is obvious. No organization can succeed and grow if their is public infighting, backbiting, and gossip by those that are placed in trust of it. This is even more important for churches and Christian organizations (for the appreciable issues of giving the enemy and the lost cause to blaspheme God).
The place for dissent as a member of a board is not to be done in public. Once the board (or organization) makes any decision, all who serve the organization should support it, remain quiet, or if conscience prevents you from supporting it, resign.
Ron P.
The Trustees have betrayed our trust at the worst possible time. The board meetings have gone well since John Floyd took over and the meetings have focused on the Mission… until now. Now, one month before the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering they decide to toss missions to the wind and air their petty little kindergarten games before the whole SBC. It matters not if Wade is right or wrong- what if he is wrong? Does that give the Trustees the right to sidetrack the entire SBC from focusing on what God is doing in the world now? We here on the field would like to believe Wade when he says that all of his fellow trustees want the best for the IMB, for the Mission, for the Kingdom but after this meeting I can not believe that at all. They have demonstrated either that they do not care about missions at all or they have demonstrated that they have no sense at all. This action will hurt Lottie Moon support and CP support in a year that I have just had to cut my 2008 team’s budget by 27% because we are that far short of funds.
AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!
I HAVE LISTEN TO ALL OF THIS FOR 50 YEARS. IT IS ABOUT POWER AND MONEY. SBC LEADERSHIP NEED A LISTEN IN N.T. HUMILITY. THE ONLY WAY TO SPEAK TO THEM IS THROUGH YOUR MONEY. IT SEEMS THAT THERE IS LESS AND LESS OF IT FROM THE REPORTS I AM HEARING ALL ACROSS SBC LAND.
MY BAD! SECOND SENTENCE SHOULD HAVE READ “SBC LEADERSHIP NEED A LESSON IN N.T. HUMILITY.”
I am sorry this action was taken but I am much more sorry that it was necessary to take.
Brother Roger,
The IMB is on a positive trajectory. I am supporting the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering and I encourage every other church to do the same. Last year we gave 6% of our budget to Lottie. This year I am challenging the church to give 7%. What would happen if churches set their goal of increasing their Lottie Moon giving by 1% each year?
Brother Brian Kaylor,
Isn’t it amazing that the same man that posted on the door of Mainstream Baptist in OK a list of rebukes has now become their poster child? The trustees have made an accurate decision. Say all that you want, but when Brother Wade posted Brother Jerry Corbaley’s private email correspondence he violated numerous confidentiality issues. He made public in that one posting of a private issue within the IMB. Part of the BoT withdrawing their recommendation for removal in 2006 was that he stop violating confidentiality.
Brother Ron P.,
I too have served on a public board. It was concerning a local government/private joint venture. I was placed there by the local county commissioners. My job was to hold in trust the county’s portion of the venture. I did my job well. Were there things that were voted on that I did not agree with? Certainly! Did I go running to the media whenever I lost a vote? No! If I would have then I am certain that more than a censure would have come down on me.
Brother Wes,
You are correct. There are other trustees that voted against the policies. However, none of them are being censured. One thing that I see with Brother John Floyd. He has been racked over the coals by some, but he has not said a word. The IMB takes all the proper steps trying to deal with the issue. To the point of a senior staff member along with other trustees trying to work out a solution. But, to no avail.
You may ask why the trustees did not take Brother Wade up on his offer? I do not know. Why didn’t Brother Wade abide by what he said he would do–stop making public private conversations?
Blessings,
Tim
Wes, may I ask this question? In your blog, you made the statement: “I had heard from various sources that there was the possibility that the board may vote to remove Wade Burleson as a trustee altogether, a move also allowed for by Robert’s Rules.”
Can you please identify your sources?
In your commenting policy you state: “We ask that you link to evidence of claims you make. We will not allow gossip to persist in this forum. If you cannot reveal a source you will need to give more specific evidence for your proof.”
So, two thoughts: 1) If you can’t reveal your sources, then isn’t that gossip? 2) If you can reveal your sources of what the board was going to do, isn’t that board member guilty of the same things Wade was accused of doing?
Tim:
Regardless of this contretempts, my wife Donna and I’ll will also, like you, be making a record contribution this year to Lottie.
I know Wade is on the minority on this issue in the board. However, he is not the only trustee that is calling for what I call a “breath of fresh air”. He is taking all the heat because of his public stand.
As a layman, I decided to contact some other trustees for the first time. I wanted to get some other views and make my views known. My inside information is that the trustees are fractured maybe 90/10 on this but from the outside it looks like Wade is the only guy calling for more cooperation.
I think the majority of the BoT believe (apparently rightly so far) that they can just ride this storm out.
We will see if the storm diminishes or builds.
I have learned that suggestions were breached regarding some sort of mediation but they were rebuffed by the majority of the BoT.
For me, at least, one thing positive has happened as a result of this whole affair. It has enabled me to peek just a small bit into the workings of the BoT.
This is a governing body is that “broke”. You don’t need a 153 page diatribe to make that determination.
As a dumb layman I guess I have zero tools to fix this broken board. So I’ll just close my eyes and support missions anyway.
Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
member – First So. Baptist – Del City OK
MSH (Whoever You Are),
First of all, I’m not sure why you would assume that the “various sources” to which I refer means a “board member.”
Bart Barber posted thoughts similar to mine regarding a board removing one of its members, and was asked a similar question. Read his response by clicking here, as it serves well as an answer to your concerns.
Hope all is well there at the WMU. Thanks for commenting.
Wes,
Strider’s comments above are to me the most noticeable spot of common sense in an otherwise long string of comments indicating blind loyalty to the “system.”
YOu and I have talked, and you should know by now that I am not here to defend Wade. Perhaps he has done something worthy of the actions taken against him (regrettably Southern Baptists will never know because all such action takes place in “executive session.”)
What breaks my heart about this whole thing is Strider’s main point: AT a time when our focus should be on raising funds for our missions personnel through Lottie, the board decided to “air” their internal battles, which are in the end, petty personality differences that the average Southern Baptist could care less about.
In this “Lottie Moon “season, it is neither the time nor place for such trivial discussion. By introducing it at this time of year, the entire board of trustees has let us all down.
Joel and Strider
The board did not let us down. It showed patience, grace, and back bone against someone who has continually violated the policies set forth by the board. He even admitted to doing so. Look at the two quotes from Wade in this post.
BTW, I am sure that more things were discussed concerning trustee business. The only thing that has become an issue in the blog world is the censure of Mr. Burleson. Of which, he was the first to post on.
dr. john floyd is a good and honorable man who stands on what he believes. he is straightforward and truthful, and he doesnt mind telling you how the cow chews the cud. for some people to come into this blog, or any other blog, and put down a fine, man of God like dr. floyd is just wrong. i know him personally. i have had classes under him at seminary. i’ve seen how he operates. and, i will guarantee you that he made every effort to get wade to do the right thing before it came to this.
david
Joel,
I was preparing to address Strider’s comments when I saw yours, so this will serve as my response to both:
Nonsense.
The board has finally, after exercising much patience and grace in the face of continued, admitted violations of trustee guidelines, taken the regrettably necessary action to deal with a problem.
But to say that they have decided to “toss missions to the wind” is not just wrong, but insulting to the trustees and IMB staff.
Are you seriously suggesting that no business was conducted in Springfield? Were there no candidates interviewed? Were no new missionaries appointed? Was no budget adopted? Was there no report from Dr. Rankin on the progress of world evangelization?
All are welcome to disagree with the one item of business that is getting all the attention. But please, do it seriously.
Wes,
Nope, I’m not suggesting at all that relevant and useful business did not take place in Springfield. What I am suggesting, however, is already proven when you visit Baptist Press: that the leading story on this meeting is not all the things you mention, and for which I am thankful, but rather, the Wade story.
Again I contend, bad, bad decision.
Of course, none of this would have happened in the first place if trustees hadn’t decided to restrict private prayer lives and re-define Baptism, but that’s another conversation for another post.l
Kaylor, Roger, et.al,
The fact is, Wade DOES have the right to dissent… given that he is willing to suffer the consequences for having done so. Wade dissented, these are the consequences, now he must live with it. Because, just as he has the right to dissent, the board has the right to censure.
David (volfan),
Who on earth is “putting down” John Floyd? If I am the target of your accusations, I certainly take exception to them.
I don’t know John Floyd . . .never met him. He is the brother-in-law of one of my pastors, who also happens to be a very good friend of mine, and from what I can tell, he is a very honorable man.
I am also sure his actions were taken in good conscience. I give Dr. Floyd the benefit of the doubt that he is doing what he genuinely believes is right.
I’m not putting down the man. I’m putting down the decision. I’ve made “bone-headed” decisions in my life as well. That doesn’t make me a bad man, and those who called me on those decisions weren’t suggesting that I was a bad man.
Lay the personality issue aside man . . .this isn’t about people and personality. It is about decisions that are wise and prudent at this time of year.
John B:
I totally agree with you. Wade has the right to dissent and the board has the right to censure.
Sometimes, you have to take a step backwards in order to go forward.
Somehow, I don’t think the board’s action closes the book on this whole issue.
Roger K. Simpson
I wouldn’t start singing “Ding, Dong The Witch is Dead” just yet.
As one who can only watch the actions of SBC BOT’s such as the IMB and SWBTS from afar I don’t see how anyone can claim the current system is working.
If your litmus test is the ability to throw dissenters such as Dwight McKissic and Wade Burleson under the bus then I suppose the BOT system is a smashing success.
If you take a larger view and look at our aging congregations, plateauing growth, inflated membership numbers and — the list goes on — a BOT system that maintains control by resisting change is a recipe for failure.
If we cannot find unity around advancing The Great Commission then the SBC is not worth fighting over.
To those of you defending the board’s censure and 2006 rules squashing dissent, let me ask a question. Had this type of incident happened 25 years ago and the “moderate” leadership of a board passed new rules and then censured a “conservative” member for publicly dissenting with policies, would you have accepted it? I bet many of you would have rightly cried “foul!” Why are we scared of dissenting opinions?
This idea that one has the right to the right to dissent but must accept the consequences is true, but there is no legitimate right to dissent with the IMB board. Freedom to speak does not mean speak and be kicked out or don’t speak at all. True freedom means speak or not but exercising your right to speak will not get you kicked out.
Over the years I have seen a lack of transparency cost many proud groups their control. I hope that this will prove to be another example of that.
In the meantime, the IMB has $300 million in reserves and endowment. I think I’ll do my part to let them draw down on that a little and see if they will be more open then. That is all I have control of.
Bennett Willis
Kaylor
If the trustee of 25 years ago acted in the same manner as Wade, I would have approved of the censure.
Brian,
Once again, you miss the point. For your argument to fly, you must deny the experience of Rick Thompson, who opposed the baptism and “PPL” policies, and even (gasp!) blogged about it, yet managed to not be removed or censured.
You must also ignore the fact of the good standing with the board enjoyed by Dr. Allen McWhite, who wrote to the IMB’s personnel committee, all of the trustees, and even to every member of the Great Commission Council expressing his dissent against the policies. How can this be?
It can be because the issue is absolutely not dissent. The issue is flagrant, willful, admitted violations of trustee guidelines.
Had similarly objectionable guidelines been in place 25 years ago, it would have been the duty of conservative trustees to abide by them until they had a sufficient majority to overturn them.
On behalf of our missionaries and their efforts I beg any and all who have said they will not participate or will limit their participation in the Lottie Moon Offering to reconsider. Any shortfall in giving will penalize the missionary in the field and not the BOT. Please do not harm the servants of Christ who so desperately need us to keep on giving so they can keep on going.
If you want to support either Wade and those who agree with him or the BOT and those who agree with them then let’s have it fleshed out in Indianappolis, not in the far reaches of the lost of this world and those who so faithfully strive to proclaim the Gospel to them.
Chuck Bryce
Dacus Baptist, Montgomery TX
brycechu@mssblue.net
Wes,
So, as our good brothers are arguing, the timing was off for dealing with a rogue Trustee. After all, our Christmas Offering for International Missions suffers.
I heard a similar lament when the CR launched:
We all know there is never the ‘perfect’ time to deal with conflict. The Trustees have patiently put up with Wade’s perpetual pushing buttons. Indeed, Wade knew this was coming. Whatever my past disagreements with Wade, I have never questioned his slick maneuvering skills.
One may even reasonably argue that the Trustees could be faulted for dragging their feet on this. The evidence they considered is anything but new.
Yet, from my view, that is a mistake since ‘going the second mile’ is, as our Lord taught us, a wonderful virtue.
As for ‘kicking out Wade ‘ as our Roger has so opted to view it, we all know better. The Trustees knew they could not ‘kick out Wade’ since Southern Baptists are the ones who put him in.
It is humorous, however, to watch Wade’s community wimper, whine, pout and shout because their Micophone is, at least for a few meetings, dead.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
my church will continue to give 20% to the cp. we will gladly and joyfully give to the lottie moon offering….hopefully, we will go over last years amount of $53 grand plus. we will continue to pray for our missionaries. we appreciate dr. john floyd’s leadership. we hope that all people who are concerned with reaching this world for Christ will do the same.
david
Peter:
Those you find humorous watching “whimper, whine, pout and shout because their Micophone is dead” are your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
Repent.
With that, I am
Jack
Wes,
From the standpoint of someone that did not have a dog in this hunt, and the only quotes I am reading is from the folks involved, it appears that Mr. Burleson took actions into his own hands… “Seeing that the issue had become increasing personal……I chose to express my concerns to a broader Baptist constituency for further discussion and dialogue.”
Seems pretty clear to me,…. that Mr. Burleson did not like the rules established by the system ….as evidenced when the article noted that Burleson has made it clear that he had voted against the standards of conduct when they were adopted in 2006.
This political episode reminded me of a Little League coach of my son’s team last year. The coach said he wanted to coach, he also said he would abide by the rules which were clearly posted at the field and which were sent to him in letter form. The problem surfaced when he “cussed” the players (11-12 year olds) several times when things were not going his way. Well, I called him on his conduct and his response was, “if the league wants to kick him out fine”, he said “he didn’t like the rule anyway and thought it was not really important”. So the league did respond and suspended him for a couple of games,….but he still didn’t care nor did he change.
Some guys just don’t like obeying the rules in the system. This is a bit disingenuous, unless of course you are doing it for God.
It seems to me there is an easy solution. Wade needs to play according to the rules and try to persuade the board of his dissent and other disagreements and live with the results. This is why the game is played. If the majority disagrees with him then, …. He needs to abide by the rules, or He needs to either resign, …start another board,….but at least wait until he is out of the current system. The argument here is certainly not about being honest or doing the right thing for the missionaries. That was blown away a long time ago.
I am looking forward to some profitable blogs….
Blessings,
Chris
Dear Jack,
Repent? Of finding it humorous that my brothers and sisters wimper, whine, pout, shout over a dead Microphone? A Microphone through which they have wimpered, whined, pouted, shouted for almost two years now?
Let me think about it a while. Ummm…..O.K. I thought about it–I don’t think I’ll repent for you today, Jack.
With that, I am…
Peter
Chris said: “I am looking forward to some profitable blogs….”
Profitable for who Chris?? :)
Peter: For the record I am still standing tall, no whimpering and prouder than ever to call Wade Burleson friend and minister. :)
Peter: What you and others have not yet realized is that “microphone” has changed. With the Internet, the people have a much greater voice (as they should) and the powers that be cannot control everything with their old rules and privileged voices as they have in the past. This is the lesson that Dan Rather and other journalists have learned the hard way.
chris johnson,
you have hit the nail squarely on the head, sir. thank you!
david
Brothers Joel & Strider,
Let’s say that I concede to you the point about the bad timing, which I do not. Your argument of this decision being bad timing could be viewed as a valid point. Lottie Moon is about to take off and we are asking our churches to give to the IMB whose BoT are in an uproar over nothing more that personality disputes. I believe that would be a fair and accurate basis for your argument. However, one would have to call you back to Nov. 2005. It was at that time that a vote was taken by the entire IMB BoT and that vote put in place the policies of Baptism and PPL. Was that vote and the outcome from that issue bad timing? If it was, where were your voices concerning the timing of that vote? Also, wasn’t it Brother Wade that instigated that vote taking place? I believe you will find that it was Brother Wade that publicly reported that vote and his disagreement with the results. I also believe you will find that it was Brother Wade that publicly blogged about the vote and eventually placed an article on his blog about “Crusading Conservatives”. Was this article placed in Jan or Feb after the Lottie season? No, it was Dec. 10, 2005 that this article came to light. It seems that no one responded that his presentation of these issues were going to hurt the Lottie Moon offering .
Do you not see a common recurrence of the issues? What is the common recurrence? Brother Wade. This is not about personality, it is about an underlying agenda that he came on the board to get changed. He came on the board in July, 2005. He pushed for the policies to come to the full board and it did. Then he lost the vote on the full board. Since then, as we say around here, it has been “katie bar the door”. Our IMB BoT issued a directive to a trustee that has admittedly violated policy, just because he does not agree. Also, our IMB BoT issued a vote that was a majority. Are you truly saying that the Godly men and women who serve our IMB have no more understanding between right and wrong than to follow the Chairman?
Blessings,
Tim
Kaylor,
Why Kaylor, I am surprised you have so soon forgotten, my Brother. I know first hand, through our Brother Wade’s flagging my IP address on his blog, the massive capability of the internet. I just setup my hotdog stand on another street.
On the other hand, those in Wade’s community–including yourself, Kaylor, I cautiously presume–fail to understand the embarassment this censure should provoke for Wade and company, not to mention the sheer ineffectiveness of his tenure on the Board. No sub-committee appointments and now, no participation. Pity, really.
Yet Wade is determined to ‘attend’ on his own nickel–or rather the quarters & dimes you guys may send him–when the Board censured him. About the only accomplishment of a trip like that is the proverbial ‘photo-opt’. But surely Wade would not desire that, would he? What do you think, Kaylor?
I thought it interesting that, before the ink was dry on the Censure Document, Wade was out blogging about the entire affair, offering a personally annotated version of the censure. The very thing that got him in sticky goo in the first place, he’s out wallowing in again, similar to a freshly bathed and well-perfumed pig. Nature, I guess.
Grace, Kaylor. With that, I am…
Peter
Debbie,
I hope you know…I would desperately try to steer us back to the Gospel and leave this little political skirmish in the ditch where it belongs. I don’t know Wade at all, but it seems he could clear this thing up rather quickly.
A good example is Paul, willing to do “more than die” for the sake of the Gospel for his brothers,.. he was ready… “ to be eternally condemned”..wow!. And we sit around and think we are really doing something for the kingdom by not apologizing…..give me a break!
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
(Romans 9:3-4)
Again, I could actually care less what happens in these little senseless debates. It would be a pity to have a real problem.
I bet I would like Wade if a met him…..and would probably agree with him theologically on the majority of scripture,… but there appears to be an obvious motive (self proclaimed) on his part to let the world know his views, while also agreeing not to let the world know his views….. It is disingenuous to have it both ways. It doesn’t necessarily make the views wrong, just the methods.
Sincerely,
Chris
Tim,
As I said before, and will say again for the very last time (not sure I can make it any more clear) I am NOT defending Wade here.
But make no mistake, neither am I defending Jerry Corbaley!! I am contending that the recent “spitting contest” between these two guys should not be made center stage by an 87-member Board.
I will conceede that Wade’s timing was likely bad in 2005 as well. The problem I hope we can agree on here is that no one on either side seems to be able to get past Wade and Jerry and on to the issues that started all of this in the first place (i.e. narrowing of doctrinal and baptismal parameters, which many of us believe was uneccesarily divisive.)
Not sure why you think I’m trying to take “sides” in a personality dispute here, because I’m not. Maybe you don’t even see it as a personality dispute. On that point, we must simply agree to disagree.
I know we like to think that this confrontation is all the talk in churches throughout the convention and will destroy the Lottie Moon Offering. But other than a few churches and/or individuals, most of the pastors and all of the lay people I know ask “Wade who” or “Wes who?” or in my case “Tom who?”
They met today at WMU meetings to plan to increase giving to missionaries. They brainstormed new means to help the gospel get to the ends of the world.
Maybe this is a big thing to pastors… but to the rest of the SBC world, it’s preachers arguing and politics and they shake their heads and get back to business, which is what I’m going to do.
It looks like the IMB is not the only one that is disciplining a board member. The City of Fort Worth dismissed a longtime Sports Authority board member for violating the confidence and trust that was expected of him:
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/296304.html
I share this to emphasis the point that trust, confidence and support of ANY board is required by it’s members, or they face the consequences of their actions.
Ron P.
Brother Joel,
Please do not misunderstand my comments. I do not believe you are trying to defend Brother Wade. Neither have I, as you, tried to defend Brother Jerry C. I think if you will read my comment, you will see that I openly say it is not a personality dispute. I will agree that these two personalities are the one taking center stage.
There is more that was accomplished at the IMB meeting than the censure of Brother Wade. What exactly that is, it seems has gone unreported. Even we at SBC Today have not reported on the things that took place. I believe, and correct me guys, we are trying to get the audio of the open forum. If we are able to obtain that we will place it in our Resources. But, one should question the reason the only thing reported is the censure of Brother Wade. All I know is that Brother Wade was the first to report form the session and this was what he reported first.
Joel, I am not asking you to “take sides”. I am merely asking that you apply the same standard of observation to 2005 situation that you have applied to this one. You questioned the timing on this. It was you that stated it would affect Lottie. I choose to trust the leading of the Holy Spirit in the IMB BoT leaders life. They dealt with an issue they have been plagued with ever since they backed up on a decision in 2006.
If you will go back and read my blog posts from the time I began blogging in 2006 until June of 2006, you will see a change. Why the change? I was in agreement that Brother Wade did not need to be removed from the IMB BoT because of his opposition to the policies. However, his tone and his attitude seems to have changed from being one that opposes a certain direction. It seems that he is now getting what he has been pushing for all along. Tell me boys and girls can you say martyr?
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Ron,
Isn’t it amazing that a public government company makes certain their board members can be trusted with confidential matters?
Blessings,
Tim
Wes,
In your response to Brian, you infer that other trustees are against the new policies, but that Wade is the only one who has spoken publicly against them. I suspect you’re correct.
So here’s my question. If there are other trustees that were against the new guidelines, how many? Enough to raise sufficient questions about the guidelines in the minds of SBC constituents? Obviously, we’ll never know under the current gag order.
Aren’t we all worse off for that? Or at least those of us (which I presume would include you) who prefer to draw informed conclusions?
Stuart:
A BoT trustee that I communicated with via E-mail last night told me that there are “a small handfull” of trustees that voted to NOT censure Wade.
Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Stuart,
I didn’t simply infer that other trustees opposed the guidelines, I gave the names of two of them. And that is precisely the point: their disagreement with the guidelines was no secret. We know who they are.
But neither is it a secret that they were able to disagree, blog, and write letters even to those outside the board, and still remain in good standing.
Again, dissent is not the issue here. Behavior is the issue.
Wes,
I do not know who MHS is, but she seems to have struck a sore point with you. I’m sure your sensitivity with gossipping about me may be because of your repeated expression of righteous indignation over such a sin in others. Regardless, I do believe you owe her an answer to your question and probably should not attempt to avoid it by pointing out she works at a WMU building. Women, yes, even Women Missionaries, deserve your respect. As for me, I’ll not ask you to document your latest comment about my ‘behavior’ for I have simply accepted your propensity to gossip and harbor no ill feelings.
In His Grace,
Wade
P.S. The password to post this was LOVE. :)
Look forward to seeing you at the convention Wes.
So how do those who oppose the action of the IMB respond when someone says they can ignore, willfully violate, or just plain go against guidelines because they do not agree and live to a higher power? Can someone please show me scripturally where this is condoned, excused and accepted in the Bible?
I HAVE BEEN TOLD ALL OF MY YEARS IN THE PASTORATE THAT THE TOTAL FUNDS GIVEN TO LOTTIE MOON GOES OVERSEAS TO MISSIONARIES. ALSO, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT NO LOTTIE MOON MONEY GOES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES. IS THIS WHAT OCCURS?
Tim,
Try reading the first few chapters of Daniel.
Even a child is known by his actions.
Wades actions (principled dissent) are a violation of a very scary (Orwellian?) policy.
The Trustees actions are petty, childish, political, and not at all encouraging trust among the people they are suppused to be serving–the IMB Missionaries.
This is a sad day for IMB.
An imb m
Brother/Sister TMAX,
I do not know if you are aware, but when you use all caps on blogs it usually means you are yelling. If you know this please stop yelling. If you do not know this we understand and ask that you correct it.
Brother Wade,
Received word last evening that your Lady’s prayer group prayed for my mother. Please tell them thanks. She is doing well and plan to get her into a rehab. unit today.
Also, I do not want it to look as if I carry Brother Wes’ water, but in comment #16 it seems he answered her first question. With that answer it certainly seems that is makes her second question null and void. Wouldn’t you agree?
Blessings,
Tim
I am on the fence about this issue. I agree with portions of each perspective. I crave transparency but yet I also understand the need for respecting of the rules. I concur that some rules need to be broken but yet I also recognize that this should be a last resort and not a first stone thrown. And so my perspective on this whole sad event is somewhat different than most. And my thoughts perhaps are unusual as well …
Last night I bought my niece, as a part of her Christmas, the modern version of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs by the members of DC Talk called Jesus Freaks. Love Half-Price books!!!
I flipped through some of the pages and read the stories of those who have truly suffered for their faith. Those who have died. Those who have suffered unimaginable atrocities committed against them. I have a personal friend who has burn scars all over his person for his testimony for Christ.
In all of these stories, I never saw one who attempted to become a self-proclaimed martyr. However, in blog world we find many self-proclaimed martyrs and they do this from the comfort of their homes, their laptops, and this country. Interesting don’t you think?
I told you that I had a different perspective on this whole situation.
Wade,
In your reference to the book of Daniel,……Nebuchadnezzar would have already killed everyone by now and this problem would be over.
Isn’t the IMB playing the role of the King and the role of Daniel? And all that are in the IMB compose how decisions get made, of which you are a part? Or do you view yourself as independent from the IMB and your views (interpretations with reference to “Daniel”) should be independent of the IMB?
It should be noted that the IMB is not playing the role of a church, nor can it really,… but simply its power is in directing funds from and for the churches. So, it is important not to over spiritualize these processes within the IMB.
Curious bystander,
-Chris
Wade offered to resign. He took the initiative to bring resolution to this. Wouldn’t his resignation bring his time at the IMB to an end? Why then was it rejected? Some of you really seem to love the letter of the law more than grace. May you be judged as you are judging.
Let’s face it. Wade is an effective, winsome, and courageous leader with a large following which is growing bigger by the minute. Many of you who oppose him are simply jealous. You’ll never have the influence he has so all you can do is relish in his censure.
And it seems some of you really enjoy closed-door meetings. Maybe you will not be so happy and trusting in the trustee system after Wade is elected president in June and shakes up the good ole boy system some of you have come to love so much.
And Peter, there’s a nice picture of you over on sbcoutpost. They got your best side.
Steve
Tim,
Bart Barber simply said that he didn’t remember where he heard what he heard. If that is Wes’s response as well then I suppose he did, in fact, answer it and agrees that he is gossiping – something he seems to be getting rather proficient at, it seems to me.
On another note, it is rather interesting to me that even here at Establishment Blog Central those who oppose the action are more numerous than those who support it. Of course, the majority isn’t always right, but I just found that interesting.
Seems to me Tim G. that Jesus also broke a few religious rules such as the well known do not heal on the Sabbath among other rules.
paul,
most of the people in the blogging world are those who would fit in with the outpost crowd. they do not however, make up the majority of the sbc…as we saw in san antonio. most sbc people do not blog. it’s a small minority that blog. so, your view is a little skewed.
david
debbie,
we are all for breaking rules that are not scriptural, or that are legalistic. Jesus stood against rules that went against the Bible, or against His Word and teachings. the “rules” in this case were for being on the imb board, not rules for being saved, nor for living for the Lord.
david
Dear Wade, Kaylor, et al
The following email I penned in response to one who took the time to write concerning my comment above to Kaylor.
The concern rightly expressed to me from my brother concerned the analogy I employed concerning Wade’s ‘sticky-goo’ he continually seems to find himself wallowing, at least from my view.
The context reads:
And the specific concern is regarding “similar to a freshly bathed and well-perfumed pig.”
The following is the response I emailed him just now. The only thing I’ve veiled is to whom and to where I sent the response:
For the record, if my analogy miss-fired with others who read my comment–especially Kaylor and more significantly, Wade–seeming to indicate I meant Wade as a person is analogous to a pig, know that is definitively not what was intended in the simile.
I am deeply sorry the pig itself seeped through the image rather than the pig’s obstinance.
Grace to all. With that, I am…
Peter
Steve, now I’m really confused, since I am late to this little spat. (I’m easy to confuse btw)
If Wade resigned and then took back the resignation….then it appears all is well. What is all the fuss about?
Wade has fixed things,…by taking back his resignation, he has said by his actions of taking back his resignation that he will abide by the rules.
Right?
Blessings,
Chris
David,
Uh….I think that’s why I wrote (twice, mind you) that it was interesting to me.
Now, I’d really like to know where you get your data about how the blogosphere leans. Are you using the same polling service Jerry Corbaley uses?
I have been a Baptist for just over 2 years and they have probably been the roughest 2 years of my 7 year life as a Christian.
This summer I attended the Convention in San Antonio, getting introduced rather quickly to the political scene as it unfolded on the convention floor. Since then, I have seen nothing but fighting, name calling, and disagreements among Christian brothers and sisters, very public behavior easily seen by both the believing and unbelieving world.
I am greatly discouraged with my new family and harbor thoughts about leaving and would have left already if I didn’t believe I was where God wants me to be.
To even consider the idea of being under a leader who is a pastor also functioning in an elected SBC entity position, that believes he has the right to dissent, to promote disunity among believers because in his opinion the decisions made by the board he works on is wrong, is unimaginable to me.
In the business world his behavior is absolutely wrong and a offense worthy of dismissal. Leaders are to promote unity and harmony regardless of their personal opinions and agendas. If they disagree so much with decisions the business is making then they should leave the business or work quietly and by example to change the way things are done. Even the business world knows that you don’t achieve success and harmony by bullying others into accepting your point of view. The business world knows that the best way to change another person’s point of view is to win them over to yours by love, understanding, and reason.
When the business world naturally knows how to function with Christian principles, it’s hard to watch Christian’s violate them, never mind Christian leadership.
A key principal in the scriptures is unity, the example of which is seen in Christ, how He gave up His rights, gave up His privileges, became a servant, all to go to the cross, to death on the cross, for the purpose of glorifying God, accomplishing salvation, and reconciling us to God. This is the best example of unity lived out in humilty that God gives us in the Bible, this is the attitude that Paul tells us to have. At the very least, this is to be the example displayed by those in leadership.
Transparency may be desirable, but it is not necessarily the best. There are just some things all people do not need to know. God does not tell us everything, just those things we need for salvation and Christian living. The rest is just not necessary. If we are to use Christ as our model, as the example we live by, the one we are to become like, then we need to give up our rights and privileges and do what’s best for the whole and do it God’s way, not our way, not the world’s way.
If Wade is right, that the IMB is making wrong decisions, God will take care of that and correct it if and when he does things God’s way. He may even correct it despite Wade’s method’s, but if He does, I suspect it will be because someone else was working the problem the right way, in a manner that is behind the scenes, not for his own recognition, or the publication of his name. God will honor obedience, but not disobedience. And just because there is a huge following that agrees with Wade, does not mean that the way he is doing something is right. Remember, Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, and even Christians can fall prey to believing Satan’s advice in how to handle a situation.
I pray that God works in the hearts of all of us, myself included, to change it, to convict each of us of how wrongly we have behaved. I have been guility of thoughts towards some people in blogworld that is very unChristlike and I need to repent of that and remember we are all one family. We all need to get Christ back at the center of all this and ask ourselves what He would think of our actions, our words, even our thoughts. I believe He is terribly heartbroken about what has gone on in His Kingdom.
A house divided cannot stand, it will only be a matter of time if we don’t learn to work through our differences together in peace and harmony instead of with name calling, with an exercise of our right to dissent. This is not God’s way and therefore it is wrong, even if the reason’s behind it are right.
Blessings,
Trish Reilly
Trish: I’m glad that Martin Luther, John Calvin over even the apostle Paul did not think that way.
Peter,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment and gracious explanation about the pig analogy.
I did not take offense at your original comment, but thanks for your sensitivity and civility as a Christian brother displayed in your comment above.
In His Grace,
Wade
Please do not compare Wade Burleson to Martin Luther, John Calvin or Paul!
I could volumes, and did but deleted it for wisdom’s sake, but there is no comparison to WB and these men who were flawed but responded to either doctrinal heresy or for the Gospel.
Are you comparing the IMB of the SBC to the indulgences practices of the RCC? Are you comparing the SBC to the Rabbinic Judaism of Paul’s day? If not, the comparison fails. And trust me the comparison fails for this reason and so many others.
Amy: I believe in being honest. I have no problem with the comparison. None whatsoever. And I would check into the RCC and then I believe the answer would be obvious to you. So that there is no question to what I am saying. Yes, I would compare this with the RCC among other things.
Since the scriptures are my guide, I also have no problem using Paul or any other Bible figure in my comments.
Peter
I am just glad that you did not state that Wade is giving an obscene gesture to the IMB like he did concerning Dr. Mohler to the SBC.
I am also glad Wade is here to affirm your sensitivity and civility as a Christian brother.
Amy, thank you for your post and I agree with you, there is absolutely no comparison to be made between those men. We are all expected to stand in defense of the gospel and that is what Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Paul did. Not so, Wade Burleson.
I see no relation to the battle that he has engaged with a defense of the gospel. I have read his blog, I have read the comments, and I know they believe that the spread of the gospel is hindered by the actions of the IMB. That is their perspective, but it is also a far cry from the actual gospel message itself.
If the action of the IMB resulted in them changing the message of the gospel, every Southern Baptist, every Christian, should stand up and cry foul. But that is not what has happened in this situation.
Trish
Amy,
Analogies do not have to have a one-to-one correlation to be valid. If that were the case every analogy would fail. In fact, every analogy does fail at some point. Analogies are still instructive, however, and we continue to use them for that reason. Debbie doesn’t have to be saying that the IMB is the RCC nor that Wade is Martin Luther. The point of the analogy is that there are valid reasons why people in the past have not had a “go along to get along” attitude to the issues of their day. If Tricia’s comments are to be taken as absolutes then Luther, Calvin, Paul, Daniel, Moses, Rosa Parks and a whole host of other people Biblical and historical sinned in their accomplishments.
I think at least a part of Debbie’s point is that the path Wade Burleson has taken cannot simply be dismissed as a violation of a Biblical call to unity. If it is there will have to be specifics that show how it is such a violation. I suspect that Wes, Robin and Tim’s comments are attempts to do just that and we will likely continue to debate who has done a better job in making their case.
As it is, though, the analogy is completely valid. That is, if logic matters. It usually doesn’t.
TRISH: I appreciate your thoughts and specifically the point of God righting wrongs and “God will honor obedience, but not disobedience.”
I truly believe that most all who write opinions on this subject seek to follow Christ and do sincerely love Him, even if at times we all “forget our first Love”. As a long-time Southern Baptist, but more importantly, a believer in Jesus, I pray your introduction into our family will serve to strengthen you and give you insights into what Christ would have you be for Him. It appears to me that this is your focus.
As for fellow bloggers, some of which I disagree but rarely voice specifically to that which I disagree, I am grateful for many of the spiritual lessons I have learned in dealing with conflicts and seeking the Lord’s wisdom in resolving them as well as trying to reconcile to others. Forgiving is easy for me, as I have so much for what I’ve been forgiven that another’s offense is but a mosquito bite in comparison to mine toward my Redeemer. Reconciling can be a very slow, tedious, difficult process. At times all one can do is pray and leave it in the hands of our sufficient Lord. In my case, I exhaust every effort to do this and try to leave it in His hands each step of the way.
My anti-spam clearance word is “kindness”. I fail to see how many within our brotherhood/sisterhood have always exhibited this example of the fruit of the Spirit in blogland–no matter which position is being discussed. We all need God to break our spirits, our stubborn pride and be silent when our words do nothing or little to glorify His name.
For all those considering the transparency issue of our Christian BoT’s, I am always reminded of Mark 6:33 in which Mark writes: “And with many such parables spake He the word unto them, as they were able to hear it. But without a parable spake He not unto them; and when they were alone, He expounded all things to His disciples.”
There are things which can be spoken in public and things which should not. But most importantly, there are rules which must be followed and until such rules are changed, anyone subject to those rules must abide by them, lest they fall prey to the consequence of the rules. That’s why I don’t speed even though some limits are ridiculous in places in the wide open roads of Oklahoma. Blessings to all…selahV
Well ladies, we will have to agree to disagree. And I do disagree.
Trish,
Thank-you so much for those words! Amen! Amen!
Paul: Well said. Thank you.
Wade,
Do you think the policies and rules within the IMB need to be changed? If so, how does this get done within the current system?
-Chris
Amy, not all of we ladies, are endowed with the learned abilities discovered in college classrooms instructing us in “logic”. But my dear, I’m sure the Lord has somehow given you a teensey bit of common sense and ability to see where an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange. I may be mistaken in my attempt to understand your logic, but I think in your defense that is what you are trying to do, correct?
Paul’s defense of my sister Debbie is admirable. At some juncture I would hope he would see the validity of something I say that could reasonably be defended as well. However, without really knowing the exact point Debbie is making with her disagreement and comment, I’d love to hear specifically how they match up. Understanding, however, that Debbie, has already rubberstamped what Paul says, leaves me with more questions as to what she is agreeing to in his statement. If I know you at all, dear Debbie, you are probably going to say “all of the above”.
It seems to me in the areas which we often find ourselves in discussing topics, we each have a tad bit of difficulty addressing the questions of another because someone is always answering for us. I know from experience that Debbie has her own way of explaining her points and sometimes it is much easier to discern another’s point by asking that person what their point is.
I have never really divulged my exact position on any of the arguments per se, but many in blogworld seem to think they know what even I do not know at times. I do think one should abide by rules as I’ve stated above. And when Deb addressed the “ladies”, I don’t know if I was one of them or not. Could you clear that up for me, Debbie?
Thanks. selahV
I think at least a part of Debbie’s point is that the path Wade Burleson has taken cannot simply be dismissed as a violation of a Biblical call to unity. If it is there will have to be specifics that show how it is such a violation. I suspect that Wes, Robin and Tim’s comments are attempts to do just that and we will likely continue to debate who has done a better job in making their case.
Wade,
If you are trying to say that this mess at the IMB is close to the Daniel situation – then you and I will just have to disagree. I do not like the spiritualization of things and personally believe them to lead to other issues and problems.
Debbie,
The issues pertaining to Wade are anywhere near the issues relating to Paul in the New Testament. That is really jumping for stretch in my HO.
Have a great weekend.
I hope you realize I was posting the portion of Paul’s comment to Amy in which I was referring at the end of my comment. I forgot to put it in quotes and attribute it to him. selahV
Amy,
Our Paul writes “Analogies do not have to have a one-to-one correlation to be valid. If that were the case every analogy would fail.” For me that’s pretty hard to argue with.
Yet I do not see how what you have suggested about Wade’s contention being non-comparable to Luther’s et al. is supposed to be overturned by such description Paul offers of analogies. You made it clear that while the Reformers played ball for the purity of the Gospel, Wade pitches for another team entirely. I agree with you. The obvious difference is the content of the contention.
If Paul and Debbie desire to compare Wade as a man with Luther as a man, I’m afraid they’re one up on you. We gladly grant them their analogy.
Comparing Luther’s contentious substance of Gospel purity with Wade’s contentious relationship with the IMB, however, is an animal of another stripe entirely. Dig in your heels, my sister. Paul’s ‘logic’ works against him.
By the way, it’s humorous that while our Paul takes you to task for questioning an analogy, because “Analogies do not have to have a one-to-one correlation to be valid” before he’s finished, he’s pushing Trish’s analogy into an absolute:
Yet Trish, the way I read her comment, was merely suggesting an analogous relationship between expected unity in the business world on the one hand and unity in the IMB not being promoted on the other. Paul, nonetheless, presses the simple comparison to the status of absolute. If only ‘logic’ could have a role here:^)
Grace, Amy. With that, I am…
Peter
MMM sounds like the IMB exec’s offered Wade repentance, and he in return offered them a deal.
Repentance would ahve been preferable.
I wouldn’t be buying no used cars from that fella.
Steve
the seminary i went to required students to wear a tie everyday in class….it required us to witness to at least one person a week…and it required us to use kate turabian guidelines while typing our papers. this was before computers. in the age of typewriters. now, i hate wearing ties, and i couldnt stand having to go by kate turabian, as you all can imagine. of course, i was glad to witness for our Lord. but, you know what? i wore a tie to class. imagine that! i used turabian for typing. imagine that! i witnessed to at least one person per week the whole time i was in seminary for 4 years. imagine that!
debbie, these were not scriptural guidelines…they were the seminaries rules for attending that seminary. the freedom i had was to either go to this school, or to not go to this school. i chose to go to this school, thus accepting the rules. if i’d joined that school and then pitched a fit and tried to overturn all of these rules….would i have been correct to do so? if i wasnt abiding by turabian, would the school be right to tell me to use the turabian, or else get out? if i chose to never witness to anyone, knowing the rules, wouldnt the school been perfectly justified in letting me go?
and, for me to oppose tie wearing at this seminary and to oppose the other things, would not put me in the same category as martin luther and paul. lol.
paul,
i see again that it’s very difficult to speak logically with you, but from my experience of talking to many, many people, and from what i read in sbc publications and newspapers….most people in the sbc do not blog, and even fewer comment on blogs. some of the people who even come into blogs just read, never commenting. i have talked to some like this. thus, for you to make the comment that it’s interesting to you at the number of ones that favor wade in an establishment blog as being some kind of revelation of wade being right and the imb wrong….which is what i see you trying to say…is skewed when compared to the sbc as a whole. most of the sbc is not blogging. and, as you read the blogs, i believe it’s very apparent that most of the bloggers are people who have a bone to pick, an axe to grind. most of the conservative, evangelical sbc’ers like me are not blogging….ever. i wonder sometimes why i’m in it. greensboro got me into it after the boozers wanted to ok alcohol.
also, paul, from my experience, the reforming, anti establishment bloggers overestimated thier power greatly, and it was shown at san antonio in m;any ways…the defeat of david rogers being a biggie. paul, let me tell you a little secret….i voted for frank page in greensboro. i didnt know much of anything about blogs at that point….neither did i know that dr. page was being pushed by the bloggers. i voted for dr. page as a vote for the smaller church pastor, and due to the cp giving of his church. i thought a statement needed to be made about both of these things. i think ronnie floyd is a fine man, and i hated to vote against him. but, i was tired of mega church pastors being elected every single year who’s churches didnt give a very high percentage to the cp. that’s it. and, i’ll tell you another thing. a lot of people that i talked to voted for dr. page for similar reasons. it wasnt the great influence of blogs.
david
It is terribly sad that the godly IMB exec’s, men who out of motives of earnest love and compassion plead for repentance should now be paraded as villains because they earnestly sought a trustees repentance and return to fellowship among Christian brethren. And all so that one man can have a platform for a run at SBC President….Where is the integrity in that?
Steve
If I know you at all, dear Debbie, you are probably going to say “all of the above”.
Tim: Read Paul’s comment(not the apostle). :) That goes with whoever else who has their feathers unnecessarily ruffled. Although it has made me smile, I must admit. :)
Selah: You know me. :) My answer? All the above. No, I wasn’t including you in my comment. I think we were posting about the same time, but I do think you a lady.
Peter: HUH???
david: I went to a Christian high school where we had to wear dresses all the time, even at ballgames. There was a dissent(I won\’t say who started it) and the rules were changed to exclude ball games where we could wear pants or peddle pushers(as they were called at the time). Read of my daughter\’s story when she was guest writer at my blog and the dissent there that caused changes. Rules are fine. It\’s when they exclude others that it is not. At one time it was against the law for women to vote or own property. Yep. Here in the USA. Dissent is not a bad thing. Not even in churches or religious institutions.
Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.
(2 Timothy 2:23-26)
I believe the answer is clear,….. the IMB should censure anyone that has broken the rules. So, more censures may be forthcoming and they must govern themselves in order to be successful.
Once there is agreement to the rules…, then the guys can go back to more important matters and leave their personal agenda’s at the door for a while.
Genuine forgiveness is a tough thing for prideful men…. The answer will be extremely evident and actions will reflect the heart of each man that represents the IMB.
If these men are truly men of God, and they really love each other, this prideful issue can be remedied by tomorrow.
I am hopeful!
-Chris
SelahV and Katie: thank you for your words of encouragement and support.
Debbie: I’m glad you have your convictions and stand behind them. I know there are others that stand with you on those convictions. Since I obviously don’t agree with your convictions I cannot stand with you on them. We can however stand together behind the Gospel of Jesus. I’m sure the other ladies (and all the gentlemen too) can stand with us behind the Gospel.
God Bless,
Trish
David,
Obeying the rules at your seminary was a very admirable thing. However, I would like to pose a question to you. If in the future you were to be an IMB trustee and the board voted “unanimously” to accept openly gay individuals as Missionary appointments, would you stand against those appointments? Would you speak against it publicly? By doing so then wouldn’t you be in violation of the new rule of dissent?
We both know that to remain silent about the situation would be wrong. God’s word speaks clearly that we as Christians are to be the salt and light of the world.
God laws will always supersede the laws of man. As I see it Brother Wade was speaking out originally against the character assassination of Dr. Rankin, which was the Christian thing for him to do.
I also believe that the addition of the rule against dissent which was imposed to curtail Brother Wade’s discussion of the sinful actions of few men is something that may hinder men from speaking out against sinful actions in the future.
In most cases rules that are knee jerk reactions to situations do more harm than good.
Karen Scott
Dear Karen,
While I realize I am not our David nor would I presume to speak for him, I do find your comment a worthy challenge to his words and offer, if I may without intrusion, my simply thoughts in response.
The scenario you describe represents, in my estimation, a morally absurd example which, if true, would not allow David’s dissent at all. First, if it was unanimous within the IMB trustee body and David was a trustee, then David presumably would be part of the unanimity.
Secondly, by employing a virtual universally unacceptable moral behavior–openly gay–one about which David and most all other Southern Baptists would find morally repugnant, you seriously undermind, in my view, what perhaps began as a formidable point about the nature of dissent.
What is, from my standpoint, Karen, a more fair example would be a more neutral scenario–both morally and practically. Say, for instance, the IMB trustees, overwhelmingly voted that their quarterly meetings would always be the first week of the first quarter and always held in upstate New York.
Neither you nor I, as non-trustees, would have any real say so in such. Who cares? I don’t. Even if it would be the oddest thing in the world to me why they chose to do such, I would simply assume that such a large, diverse group of men and women no doubt possessed many bits and pieces of information to which I myself was not privy.
For all I know, they could have covenanted together with a large Asian-community there that they would meet for prayer and insight into precisely how to evangelize an unreached people-group.
On the other hand, supposing David is a trustee, possessing full factual information decides to dissent from the majority decision of the Trustees. Indeed he even voted against the decision to make a liaison with these folk, offering a ‘principled’ position for his dissent.
Consequently, he goes public, criticizes the decision, makes his ‘case’ how it’s a waste of money, how other possible people-groups were not given fair consideration, how it is his ‘Baptist right’ to dissent from the majority of the trustees, no matter what they or anyone else says.
He even blogs about it, indulges personal information given to him while discussing whether to form the liaison or not and more than once mentions specific personalities involved.
His view: he’s against the trustees’ decision and demands his right to publicly dissent and even that, in the face of established protocol that prohibits public dissent when the Trustees as a body have spoken about policies of the Board, which include their meeting arrangements which are decided yearly in Executive session.
For me, it’s very easy to see through to the absurdity of the example you offer about dissenting over openly gay appointees. Unhappily for you, Karen, it stands much more of a challenge to argue that it is perfectly acceptable to publicly dissent against the overwhelmingly strong decisions of a trustee body, based primarily on personal preference, the reasons for which, fail to persuade neither trustees nor the open public.
Wade Burleson and defenders such as yourself, Karen, end up missing a wonderful opportunity to influence by choosing the wrong hill upon which to die. Dissent is dissent is dissent is not a position I’d nurture. Moral distinctions are virtually always necessary.
Grace, Karen. With that, I am…
Peter
Peter, Wes, and all,
The hill on which to die is not here yet, but its comin’
cb
Boys,
Karen has well made her point. Vol would stand alone agsinst the rest of the board. I know he would. Had he been on the board he would have stood with Wade as did a few others.
Karen’s point was to use an illustration that all would agree to be sin worthy of standing against.
The point is sin was committed on that board by such people as went after Rankin in the first place. Everybody knows that is true, but so many still have, by desire, to have their heads in the sand. Standing against lying and bully tactics is just as necessary as would be standing against the support of sodomites as missionaries.
It seems that many have forgotten that through the years. It seems that some think to lie and bully people is OK as long as the desired end is met through such activity. After all, it is all for the cause and completely justifiable. It has been done many times and has been done again.
All you boys know Jerry Corbaley should resign the board and go somewhere, anywhere, other than to be on a trustee board of the SBC.
Wes, I just gotta ask you, what is your motive in all of this? Whatever it is, Wes; when you get it, it will not be what you thought it would be and it will not make you happy.
I like all you guys, but you are wrong on this deal. In time you will see it.
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. It is really not about Wade. It is about what Wade spoke up against.
Now, one more thing, its about time for Jerry Rankin and some other smilin’ Jacks to cowboy up and tell the truth even if it cost you your over paid jobs to be men again. Its a good feelin’ Try it. You have been suckin’ coward’s air way too long. Of course, drawing that salary does ease the pain a little, don’t it? Guys like Wade, Ben and some others have about done all they can do to help you. Some of you SBC entity head boys need to stand up and let the Devil take the hindmost parts with your “at ease in Zion posture.”
cb
CB,
Peter Wes and others can’t stand the TRUTH, nor SEE It.
Inb His Name
karen,
i would have written exactly what peter wrote, but he beat me to it. lol.
i do, however, think that peter hits it on the head.
cb,
what do you think is coming down the pike that’s a hill to die on?
david
Peter,
The point Karen was making was that she was sure Vol would stand alone against such sin no matter what others did. I, for one, believe he would. I also believe he would have stood against the sinful and rude behavior that started all this mess in the first place. Wade was standing against the sin of some that were making an effort to rid the board of Rankin. All you guys know that is real.
All of you guys know Corbaley should resign and go somewhere else, anywhere except to serve as a trustee fo an SBC board.
Wes, what is your motivation here? What do you want? If you ever get it, it will not be what you thought. It will not make you happy.
I like all you guys who own this blog and other of you who comment here, but you are wrong on this deal. Corbaley has sold you a dog that won’t hunt. I do not believe Dr. Patterson supports Corbaley in any of this. He would never do anything this stupid.
One more thing; It is time for some of the entity heads like Jerry Rankin to cowboy up and speak for themselves even if it cost you your overpaid jobs. You have been suckin’ a coward’s air way too long. It is time to breathe like men again. Stand up for for yourselves. Be men and let the Devil take the hindmost parts with whatever it costs you.
cb
Vol,
The trustee of the IMB have made a mess of this thing from the beginning. Something must be in the tea. Vol, there was an effort to rid the board of Rankin. Wade exposed it. That is what all of this has been about from the beginning. The Hatley-Corbaley Show was about vendetta. Now, Corbaley carries on without his sidekick.
Vol, you can say what you want, but had you been there you would have stood with Wade, not because he is your buddy, but because he told the truth. A guy like you can’t help yourself. You would not make a very good boot-strappin’, baloney-eater trustee.
cb
cb
Dear Wayne,
While I won’t presume to speak for ‘Wes and others’ you are correct about me–I cannot ‘stand the truth’…I cannot ‘see the truth’. Never have, never will.
Grace, Wayne. I trust your weekend well and your Lord’s Day tomorrow a wonderful enrichment.
With that, I am…
Peter
Brother CB,
I have something to tell you.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother CB,
I just did that because I wanted to be the 100th comment. This is a first for SBC Today.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother CB,
You make an interesting point with your response to Brother Peter. Why do you think Dr. Rankin has not spoken up about this? Do you not think this could have happened without Dr. Rankin’s approval? Would you not agree that by having a “high ranking” staff person meet with Brother Wade along with the other two trustees, Dr. Rankin was kept apprised of the situation? Are you now trying to make us thing that Dr. Ranking as President of the IMB has absolutely no say in this decision?
After sharing the hot fudge sundae with you the other evening I certainly do not want to call you out this soon. But I couldn’t resist.
:>)
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Peter,
I guess what our Brother Wayne either fails to realize or refuses to acknowledge is a fact no one has pointed out. Brother Wade’s censure did not occur in a vacuum. Dr. Rankin, if he would have stepped up, could have stopped it. The question remains. If Dr. Rankin did not step up because it was politically inexpedient but he believes it was wrong. Houston we have a problem.
However, from what I have observed of Dr. Rankin he would not have allowed this to take place without saying something if he felt it was not warranted.
Blessings,
Tim
Sister Karen,
I just noticed something in your comment #91 that I missed in my scan reading of the comments my first time. You said; “I also believe that the addition of the rule against dissent which was imposed to curtail Brother Wade’s discussion of the sinful actions of few men is something that may hinder men from speaking out against sinful actions in the future.”
I want to remind all of us the reason for the Rules of Dissent. They were established, as I remember, because Brother Wade told the BoT they had no rules of dissent. He was dissenting and the BoT voted to remove him and was prepared to bring him to the convention. There was a meeting in which Dr. Chapman, as I understand and I could be wrong, was asked to help resolve the matter. As a result of that meeting these rules were established and the BoT agreed to remove their recommendation of Brother Wade’s removal.
Thus, we now have rules that were put in place that Brother Wade agreed to allow the BoT to vote on in order to stay on the BoT. The BoT voted on these rules, which Brother Wade objected to the rules, they passed the rules and Brother Wade now says he never agreed with the rules in the first place. But he agreed to allow the rules to go to the BoT in order for them to drop their recommendation for him to be removed from the BoT.
Does anyone see the circular absurdity in an argument that I did not agree with the rules in the first place so I have every right to violate them and dissent? These rules were in place at his bequest.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim and Peter,
First, I think Peter can stand the truth. He is just stubburn.
Tim, I am still in NC waiting to catch a plane back to the SABANATION. I did not say Rankin has said nothing. He just not say what he should. He seems, to me, to always say just enough to say nothing. He seems to be really great at being politicaly correct and saying nothing to put himself in direct fire.
You mentioned Morris. Frankly, I think he might say a little more also.
You know, Tim, that is one thing about Dr. Patterson we all have to admire. He always has the grit and steel to speak his mind and leave no one guessing about his position even if you don’t agree with his Dr. Patterson a coward.
Have I just called some fellows cowards? :-)
I think I did.
cb
Tim, I am using a computer smaller than a cell phone. I meant to say no one can call Dr. Patterson a coward even if you disagree with what he is saying. I can’t say that about some of these other boys and I am getting tired of not making that point known.
Some of these other boys need to start carrying their own water. They have a gold bucket to carry it in so they should step up. If they are all happy as pigs in slop, they should say so rather than to whine behind closed doors as if they are not. You know what I mean?
cb
Brother CB,
Have a safe flight back to Alabama. I understand that SABANATION will be at Miss.State. Good luck, I think you will need it.
Also, you know that we agree on water needing to be carried.
Blessings,
Tim
CB,
I trust things in good old Alabama are good, my brother CB.
As for Karen’s point, I do not dispute what you think her suggesting: “The point Karen was making was that she was sure Vol would stand alone against such sin no matter what others did.” I have no reason to believe otherwise, CB.
The grand assumption which, through my comment, I attempted to overturn was precisely that–whether the public dissent Wade chooses to employ is either moral or prudent. I think neither. To be fair, however, our brother Wayne continually reminds us all, I can’t see the truth nor stand it if I could.
I am unsure precisely how many times I must publicly confess this but know I am committed to do so indefinitely: I do not know Jerry Corbeley nor aware of any hard conspiratorial evidence to oust Dr. Rankin. Therefore, I do not comment on those matters.
What I do comment on are the arguments such as Karen’s and those which others make in defending Wade’s dissent. In my view–and my view alone–their points have, thus far, along with Wade’s, not been well taken. Not only is the Biblical reasoning faulty, the moral reasoning is flawed as well, as I attempted to show with Karen’s point–whether successful or unsuccessful, is yet to be determined.
Up and until someone offers a more persuasive case, as for me, I am committed to trust our system, not to mention our Sovereign Lord, that things will eventually work themselves out for the better.
And, if others choose to describe my convictional position as ‘closing my eyes to the truth’, ” not being able to stand the truth’, ‘hiding my head in the sand’, ‘defending sin’, ‘blindly following corrupt leaders’, etc etc ad infinitum, so be it. They have a perfect right to do so as I possess my Baptist right to dissent from them.
Maranatha. Come Lord. With that, I am…
Peter
cb,
i do eat baloney. i like it, especially fried. and yes, you’d be correct about me standing against homosexual people being appointed as missionaries, or whatever. even if i was the only one speaking against it. i could do nothing else.
but, in other matters, if i had the freedom to speak against say….sending twice as many missionaries to india over sending equal amounts to all places, let’s say. and, i voted the way i felt, and the vote went against me. then, i pray that i’d accept the fact that i didnt get my way and move on. i would hope that i wouldnt start writing about it on my blog…start assasinating the character of those who opposed me….get my friends, or least wink at my friends with a little smile, as they ridiculed and ran down in a viscious way the people who didnt agree with me on such issues. i pray that i’d have the gumption and the humility to accept when things didnt go my way. amen?
david
David
Fried Baloney! You’re making my mouth water. :-) Of course this has nothing to do with the post. I believe we lost that battle fifty comments ago. Brother, if we get together, the baloney is on me. Okay, I left myself open for that. :-D
Tim,
If you are indeed correct that Wade agreed to let the vote about the rule change go forward, does that not qualify him for the John Kerry flip flop award: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
:)
Blessings,
Ron P.
Vol,
I am certainly hopeful that in the situation you have described you would do exactly as you have stated. I am not talking about that type of situation.
I am talking about the lying and bully tactics that went on in the effort to remove Rankin. I think you would have stood against that also.
If they wanted to rid the board of him they should have just thrown down and went for it. They were playing parlor games and Wade told on them, plain and simple. They bowed up over it. The sissy boys, Hatley and Corbaley, went nuts and the rest is history.
The guy that needs to be run off of the board now is Corbaley. He is truly a “smelly fly” in the ointment. Maybe we should make that motion in June. What do you think? Maybe we should clean out that whole house.
Maybe we should put a strong, theologically sound, missional guy that is afraid of no one, has no false humility which causes him to play spiritual by not speaking up when he needs to because he is really just job scared and not all that humble in the first place and see what happens. What do you think about that, Vol?
cb
This must be a red-letter day in the life of this blog, the name of which I cannot even remember. 100 comments. That’s some sweet action!
The sad thing for the writers of this blog is that they have violated the very reason behind starting this blog–to showcase the “best and brightest” in the SBC? Right.
This blog has sunk to new lows. Celebrating 100 comments, when the topic is not about the “best and brightest,” but the worst in SBC life.
Controversy sells, baby.
Brother Ron,
I need to make certain that I say this correctly. If you will think back to when the IMB BoT made a recommendation to remove Brother Wade in 2006. Then in March at their Tampa meeting they rescinded that motion. Between the time of the motion and the time of rescinding that motion there was lots of back-and-forth going on. One argument presented by Brother Wade was the argument of the “Blue Book” that the trustees were supposed to read. The BoT Committee or Orientation revamped the “Blue Book” into a four page document known as the rules the trustees were expected to abide by. Brother Wade, on his blog, in a post dated March 24, 2006 made the following statement:
“(4). There are several Board approved policies in effect besides the tongues and baptism policies. These Board approved policies would include New Directions, Church planting policies, etc . . . For any trustee to publicly criticize these Board approved policies would be a violation of the new trustee guidelines. I will be reminding my fellow trustees of this, and I am sure they intend to follow the new policies, as do I. The office of President is Board approved. Public criticism, outside of Board meetings, of the IMB President by sitting trustees is unacceptable.”
He stated then that he did not agree with the policies but he would abide by them. These policies were presented by the Orientation Committee as a part of a consensus in order to drop the recommendation remove him.
He states that he did not agree with them to start with. I would have to check the records to find out, but I believe these policies were either unanimous or a huge majority. I do know that the vote to rescind the motion to remove was unanimous.
Therefore, I do not believe I could go along with your humorous analogy. I do not beleive Brother Wade voted for the policies. But he did say he would abide by them. Now he is trying to turn it to dissent.
One more thing. If this is about dissent, I have one question. Could someone show me where he has called for the board to change these policies? Could someone show me where he has presented to the board a recommendation that we remove some of the more binding of these policies? Could someone show me any place since March 2006 that he has publicly stated he disagreed with these policies?
I am sorry that was more than one question.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother jasonk,
Are you not grateful that we have a trustee system that works? This blog and the comments are about the trustee system and how it works.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother jasonk,
One other thing. You are welcome to post here until the cows come home. However Dick Vitale is not welcome. ;>)
Blessings,
Tim
Saying that we have a trustee system that works is like the builders of the Titanic saying they have a ship that floats.
Jasonk,
It did float untill it ran into a systemic problem. :-)
cb
Robin and David: I thought fried baloney was something poor yankee folk ate. It’s nice to see that northerners and southerners can agree on something! Talk about a red letter day, there is unity between the north and the south, yahoo! I think I need to go buy me some baloney and fry it up for lunch, yum, yum.
Sorry for the hijack, but it’s only a small one. At least there is unity somewhere…
Trish
Peter, SYSTEM, STSTEM, SYSTEM!!!
The Truth shall set us Free. Trust all things to God and not Mankind. I have spent most of My Life designing, programming, implementing and directing Systems for mankind. I have always tried to the best of my God given ability to be Directed by God’s Grace in all of this. The Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount; is to be followed by Mankind. Because I am human as well as others and not God, I make mistakes and cannot be TRUSTED. Mankind and SYTEMS cannot be Trusted Period.
What say Ye Peter? password HOPE
LOVE
In His Name
I HAVE BEEN YELLING FOR FORTY SEVEN YEARS, BUT NO ONE LISTENS IN SBC LIFE. ALL GROUPS HAVE HAD A MEAN SPIRIT FOR THESE 47 YEARS. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GENERAL THE SBC HAS HONORED CHRIST. I HAVE MET CHRIST HONORING SAINTS AT HOME AND AROUND THE WORLD, BUT, NATIONAL LEADERSHIP HAS HAD A MEAN SPIRIT … AND CONTINUES TO DO SO.
I LOVE TO SEE FOLKS TAKE A CHRISTLIKE STAND. MAY THEIR TRIBE CONTINUE TO GROW. THE SBC NEEDS TO RETURN TO ITS GRASSROOTS.
I APPRECIATE WHAT THE YOUNGER GENERATIONS ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK. IT TOO BAD THAT BLOGGING DID NOT EXIST 20, 30, 40 YEARS AGO.
dearest tmax, in the most gentle of ways i can write, i have to say that you have indeed had a very sad experience with leadership of the sbc.
i on the otherhand have met with some of the most endearing, kindest, humble men and women of God with whom i will be privileged to spend an eternity. to say “ALL GROUPS HAVE HAD A MEAN SPIRIT FOR THESE 47 YEARS” in what others have now pointed out to you is yelling is so very sad of you to scream.
i was privileged to be part of the New England Women’s Missionary Union on a very lower level, serving in my local church. the ladies at the top level of this organization often visited our pioneering area and were of the highest caliber of fruit-filled Christians i’ve been pleasured to know.
many of the top leadership folk rose to their positions because of their humble service as pastors and ministers of the gospel. they at one time were students of the Word. they served in tiny little churches, wiping the death liquid oozing from their congregations eyes. I know that. my husband was one of them. to make such a blanket statement of all the leadership within our convention is at best misinformed and at least something we should all endeavor to pray that you are healed from feeling.
I am sorry for your experiences that has led you to this conclusion. I join you in saying that I wish the internet had been around years ago to give us information and dialog opportunities. I for one have found a multitude of kind, generous, humble, loving Christians on the internet in my year of blogging. But there is not enough stubbornness and venom and pious attitudes to fill a thimble in comparison to the men and women in the Southern Baptist Convention who share your thoughts.
I do believe we are entering an age when the people of God will rise up and show themselves faithful to Him. I do believe that the internet will eventually become a venue of goodness and mercy and love and charitable exchanges. And my prayer is that every Southern Baptist in the world will read our exchanges. And if that were possible to day, I respectfully submit that your view of “ALL GROUPS HAVE HAD A MEAN SPIRIT FOR THESE 47 YEARS” would be deeply in the minority.
may the grace of God be sufficient in your life and abound. selahV
SelahV:
Terrific post!
My experience falls somewhere in between that of yours & TMAX. I have had great experiences worshiping and fellowshipping inside SBC churches.
I have had awful experiences outside our churches when I see the face of the SBC our denominational leaders are presenting to the world we are trying to reach.
That has brought us to the point today where – if you want to plant a successful SBC church in most of America – you have to leave the word “Baptist” off the sign outside if you want to get unsaved people to come worship inside.
Jesus, the Apostles, and the disciples of the first century church were evangelizing in the midst of the most decadent culture the world has known — The Roman Empire.
However, I do not see evidence of them focusing their energies on involving the church in the political system of the day. Instead they preached and lived The Gospel.
The present focus seems to be on ruling over an earthly kingdom of seminaries, associations, boards and commissions — complete with all of the earthly perks that come with them — rather than helping build God’s Kingdom in Heaven.
Until we can uncouple SBC leadership from involvement in the politics of man, its desire to rule over the saints rather than to serve them, and fully focus its efforts on evangelism and missions we will not be the shining city on a hill we once were.
May God bless your efforts to spread his word in New England.
In Christian Love,
-jack-
TMAX,
I HAVE TO GO ALONG WITH SELAHV AND OTHERS THAT MY 35 YEARS IN SBC LIFE HAVE BEEN VERY GOOD, AND I’VE BEEN PEOPLE WHO COULD ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS SALT OF THE EARTH. OH, THERE’S BEEN A FEW ONERY CRITTERS HERE AND THERE, AND THERE WERE A FEW LIBERAL SKUNKS ON THE TRAIL EVERY NOW AND THEN, AND THERE’S EVEN BEEN A SNAKE EVERY NOW AND THEN, BUT OVERALL MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN GREAT. I’VE MET SPIRITUAL GIANTS ON MY SB PATH. WONDERFUL PEOPLE. LOVING PEOPLE. PEOPLE OF FAITH. GOD HONORING, GOD FEARING PEOPLE WHO LOVED THE LORD THIER GOD.
i’m sorry that you haven’t.
david
Dear brother Jack:
thankyou and nice to meet you. I no longer live in New England. That was where we were when we were called to full-time ministry. When we left there for Louisville, we left in a caravan of sorts. Our family and a deaf family–all following the Lord’s call. When we arrived, we had friends from our same church who’d already been there for one semester. All three of us had served together as deacons in our First Baptist East Hartford, CT prior to following God’s call. Some of our greatest joys were in that little village of seminary students. But some of our greatest opportunities to mix with the SBC leadership was also there. We wound up staying and pastoring in Kentucky for 23 years. Our deaf family went to minister outside of Chicago. The other in Georgia.
I realize there are some leaders within our dear convention who may not be all God expects (He’s working on them), but I am not convinced that the way of a few who are in opposition to all that is done in the SBC today is any more productive than the ones with whom they disagree. Why? Because of the way in which they disagree. The spirit with which they disagree. And the attitude they present to anyone else who might dare disagree with them. To me, if in the churches of the SBC were to listen to all those in such disagreement with their selected erring brothers and sisters, we would be no better off than we are ( IF, in fact we are in such dire distress).
I live in Oklahoma and am presently serving in a very alive Southern Baptist church with the word First Baptist as a moniker. We have no problem reaching the community in a diverse world of Hispanic, African American, Chinese and other cultural folk. We even had a muslim gal saved in our church. Our ministries exceed the capacity of my mind to recite. Perhaps, I would be inclined to agree with TMAX if I didn’t have a pastor who was on the Exec. Board at the SBC. But he never has appeared to be what TMAX described our leadership to be.
In fact, when my son died on Mother’s Day 2005, he dropped everything and came directly to my home and stayed for hours ministering to my pain. He sat with me for hours after my husband underwent open-heart surgery. He’s wiped the vomit off the floor of the men’s room when he discovered a little boy had lost his breakfast. (he could have called the custodian) He tended to that little child’s needs. So the brush from which all of our SBC leadership is painted is a brush sorely lacking in bristles, Jack.
Just yesterday, a fellow blogger on another out-site painted every International Mission Board trustee with this statement: “The trustees of International Mission Board are a schizophrenic collection of well-meaning but woefully ignorant and reckless halfwits. At least that is the terrible impression left in the minds of many Southern Baptists who are afforded no opportunity to hear from the handful of level-headed, reasonable and articulate trustees.”
Firstly, this blogger is a minister of the gospel and to me he exhibits not a toenail of the “beautiful feet” with which to claim the gospel message with that kind of oppositional spew. And TMAX would have me believe I should embrace such as an exchange of leadership within our beloved family of consecrated, regenerated, sanctified believers in the SBC? And if not for the fact that this blogger’s pastor sought him out to serve in his church as an associate, knowing full well the kind of articles he wrote on his blog, one might be able to hear his voice–though it be cloaked in his own view of his situation and perspectives of the SBC. Even when this blogger’s pastor admits he disagrees with his associate’s blogpost, we see not one word of reproof or admonition of him on his blog. Yet, he is always first to report of the errs of others. Is this not at the epitome in a duplicity of standards?
These are the kind of things I look at and contemplate when I consider who is right and who is wrong in any dispute. And think not that I am not looking at those with whom these bloggers disagree with any lower power of magnifying glass. For I am.
And for the statement which implores us to believe his censured pastor’s voice cannot be heard, we need only look to his pastor’s blog to read all of what he thinks. He makes no apologies for what he says or thinks. But if he wants to do what he wants to do, then it would serve him best if he accepts with grace the consequences of his choices. That’s just my view of the matter. The continual battering against the IMB and other Trustees and leaders is what is hurting the SBC. That is what is in the national news. Not the ministries and blessings of all that the homefront warriors are doing in clearing out debris from homes in New Orleans. Partnership ministries of churches like Crossroads Fellowship in Cadiz, Kentucky to build more churches in South America. Not the missions and ministries of the faithful. No, the spotlight is on the controversy because the readership is most interested in the trainwrecks. And that is the saddest indictment against us, Jack. We dwell not on what is pure and of good report. We emphasize and spotlight every flaw we can pick out of our brother’s eyeball.
I am nobody in the SBC other than a pewsitting retired pastor’s wife. I have no say so in anything other than the miniscule readership I enjoy on my blogs. I steer fairly clear of most of the dialog and controversy.
However, when the entire entity serving the largest group of missionaries in the protestant proclamation of the Gospel is attacked with such public disdain, the silent voice I’ve held in check for over a year has been called to speak with as clear a thought as the Good Lord endows me to use. I realize from a discussion I had with one blogger that I am without a logical mind, and have not enough education to even fill a teaspoon. However, I believe strongly that in the pews of our churches in the SBC sit many hearts in accord with mine.
So, I may be banned at one point or another from some of the sites to which I voice an objection. I may be characterized as “self-righteous”, “idiotic”, “blinded status quo” mindless well-meaning believer “living in a vacumn”, but I will leave that to be judged by whomever reads my words and to the only Righteous Judge that counts. Jesus.
I appreciate your comment to me as I have read your comments in several places and respect your thoughts even when I disagree. selahV
SelahV:
“There is no one righteous, not even one; …for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
I have been disappointed by words and deeds of those on “both sides” of the current discussions within the SBC – Wade and Ben included.
My hope and prayer is that bodies of believers such as yours as well as one in Enid can find ways to respectfully agree to disagree and yet work together for the cause of Christ in Oklahoma and around the world. -The “middle ground” is fulfilling The Great Commission (and it surely the highest ground).
Like you, I have witnessed great things and felt Christian love inside churches with the word “Baptist” above the doorway.
I currently worship and serve in a church that belongs to the smaller, “more conservative” SBC convention within our state — yet you’ll not find the word “Baptist” on our signs because it (sadly) was found to be a stumbling block to the unchurched.
I fear that our denominational leadership is focused on politics, policy, and policing instead of ministry and missions.
I am sorry that you have been treated badly by some of your brothers and sisters in Christ on the blogs. I hope that they take the words you have written to heart and apologize.
“(We) are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for (we) are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Blessings,
-jack-
SelahV,
Thank you for a wonderful and encouraging post! Thank you for your voice of reason and your calm words of support and explanation of why some of us see the recent actions as wrong, that the wrong people are being blamed and asked to seek forgiveness and repentance.
God Bless you!
Trish
Tmax,
I’am your huckleberry. Who are you and where did you start yelling? I read a comment of yours on another blog and will say you are right about mean spirited Southern Baptist back in the 60′s. Grady Cauthen comes to mind, Foy Valentine is another. I can name more. You name a few.
If you are going to cuss the fiddle player at least tell us your name. Or, hush.
cb
Vol,
It has been a bad day. The SABANATION lost to a High School football sub-division, I had to buy the same plane ticket twice before I could get out of the Tar Heel football nation, and now you are not answering my questions.
Vol, you come out and spar with me. I have4 asked you a valid question or two. I have covered your back with tmax or whoever he is. Now come come outside and play with me. Tell your Momma I ain’t really that bad and maybe she will let you come out and play blog with me. :-)
cb
Brother Jack, I don’t think there would ever be a point in which the body of believers in Lawton would not be able to work shoulder shoulder with the body of believers in Enid. The point I’m trying to make is that it is not about the vast body of believers within each Southern Baptist church that the heated dialogs and squabbling is occuring. The missionaries are being missionaries. Pastors are being pastors (when they aren’t sitting behind monitors screeching at one another). And the lay people are being diligent Christians (some more diligent than others depending on the sancitification process in their individual lives).
The point, my brother, is that the inflaming remarks do not one person any favor in persuading, positioning or clarifying their views. The inflaming remarks, the behind-the-scenes meetings and emails tearing up the internet from all sides of the spectrum are damaging to the furtherance of the Gospel. If for no other reason than the energies, emotions, and mind-power being wasted on where those same fuels could be rushes of adrenaline to share the Gospel.
None of us are without sin and none of us deserve to share in the eternal blessings of our Lord. But all who have been called are bound to the call of the Spirit of God and no where can I find where the unseemly language and foolish utterances are validated in Scripture. Every day I must go to the Lord and repeatedly repent for the very thoughts of what I consider uttering. God be praised He helps me still the urges within to give into the evil one of this world.
Please understand, Jack, in the last 12 plus months, I have steered clear of most of the more controversial blogs. I didn’t like running with the boys. I didn’t get inspired from the continual drumbeat of battering rams. Today I am less inspired than ever. But more determined than ever to give voice for the myriad of folks who email me and will not enter the world of commenters. Someone must speak for them, too. They are not among the ministers who’ve gone to seminary and been educated in Logic 10l. Some are just learning their way around their computer keyboards.
“Give me fruit”, they say. “Give me kindness, gentleness, forebearance and love.” They see none of this. Reconciling cannot begin without first we forgive. Truly forgive. Then, perhaps the rights we seem to find so valuable with fall like blood drops from the cross at Calvary. May we all bow down.
my password is JOY. would that we all expressed the joy of His salvation. selahV
Trish, you are so gracious, my love. God bless you and give you an extra quantity of his goodness and grace. selahV
Dear Wayne,
I am unsure, my brother, what you desire from my keyboard. I agree with you that I cannot see the truth nor could I stand it if I could see it. I have little else to offer you, unfortunately.
It would make perceptions from others who read your comments a bit better toward yourself, nevertheless, if you would observe the full force of another’s words–in this particular case, mine.
You write ‘system, system, system’ as if I suggested I trust in ‘system’ alone. Yet that is not what I wrote. Brotherly courtesy, Wayne, requires that we quote accurately another’s work, I trust you agree.
While I do and will trust our systems we put in place, I do not do so apart from our Sovereign Lord’s rightful reign, which, of course, I indicated in the post that I’m sure you unintentionally overlooked.
Hoping your Lord’s Day tomorrow will be eventful. With that, I am…
Peter
SelahV:
I paid a short visit to your blogs for the first time.
What a delight!
You have a wonderful gift. I look forward to dropping by more often.
Blessings,
-jack-
Jack, what a delightful validation! you could have just as easily taken a peek and not said a word. how kind of you to drop in and then say so here. You and anyone is welcome anytime to my blogs. not much controversy over there, though. :) selahV
cb,
i’m not really sure at this point how to answer your questions. i’d have to think on such things long and hard, and really seek the Lord in prayer about something as drastic as that.
as for the sabanation…well, sorry bout that, but i was pulling for state.
i hope you saw the vols enjoy a nice little barbeque in knoxville.
david :)
I think I see some pretty good dissenters in scripture. Christ himself being one of them. The very missionaries that you are saying this is detracting from are the very missionaries that these issues affect. Rules are fine until they begin to hurt people, destroy and do nothing more than tighten control, excluding more and more people. I could not nor would not follow those rules. Dissent is not a bad thing, it’s a healthy thing.
A good example that has been used is at the time of the Conservative Resurgence would any of you who speak of rules, the great system and who should not dissent etc have felt that way then? I very strongly doubt that you would.
My anti-spam word is “patience.” I will attempt to exercise some here.
SelahV,
Logic is simply rules about both language and the way we use it making sense. If we throw logic out the window whenever it fails to suit our purpose or argument then we have become postmodern relativists. Logically Debbie’s analogy is valid. That Amy wants to define Debbie’s analogy does not make it invalid. Debbie never said that the issues Wade was contending with the BoT were gospel related. Not every issue Luther opposed in the RCC was gospel related either. Perhaps if she had read the 95 Theses she would discover exactly how many non-gospel related issues Luther had with the RCC. He didn’t write all 95 theses against the practice of indulgences.
Peter,
I would only ask that you read more carefully. First, I wrote “if.” Apparently you even caught that because you quoted it. However, you then went on to completely ignore it in your attempt to show that my own argument did not follow my own rules. That “if” may be a small word, but it is the very one that makes my point logically coherent. ‘If” Trish was saying what I suggest (which it sounded like she was to me), then my point holds. “If” she was not, then it doesn’t and my own argument concedes that.
David (volfan),
Brother, all I can say is you completely missed my point. If you have a problem speaking logically with me than I would only ask that you do, in fact, use logic to do so. You would do well to ask me what my motivations are and what I mean by what I say rather than taking wild leaps and best guesses because on every point you are simply wrong about what I was saying. I said it was interesting to me. All you have given in response is anecdotal evidence for which I could give anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Neither will prove a thing except for this: I found it interesting. If your point is that I shouldn’t find it interesting….well….that’s sort of like telling someone they shouldn’t like their favorite color or flavor of pie.
Paul, thank you for your patience and the lesson in logic. selahV
Paul
Why, of course, Paul. How foolish of me…
By the way, sophistry is an admirable practice were one living in ancient Greece. But, to suggest the ‘If-Then” form rescues the poor bit of criticism aimed at Amy’s words is, shall we say, quaint–not to mention sophistic. Unfortunately, for you, your point is non-sensical now that you’ve explained to it us.
<i>If</i> you were not meaning to complete the formal “modus ponens”–If A, then B–with its necessary “A, therefore B” what on earth did you feel you were contributing in the comment about Amy’s point? Were we supposed to fill in the blanks for you?
In addition, Paul, by making your point ‘logically coherent’ to your own satisfaction, you end up conceding to me the very point I raised–”which it sounded like she was to me”–but which you attempted to squash by saying to me: “I wrote “if.” …That “if” may be a small word, but it is the very one that makes my point logically coherent.”
Perhaps sophistry works best at SBCOutpost. But once out of the very protected environment there, I’m afraid it will take more than quoting the official rules of formal logic or suggesting ‘I studied logic in college so I know what I’m talking about’ to gain a hearing.
Grace, Paul With that, I am…
Peter
Several participants in this comment stream have pointed to the dismissal of a publicly dissenting board member of a Fort Worth agency to justify the censure of IMB Board Member Wade Burleson who blogs about his experiences.
Today the Fort Worth Star Telegram analyzed the conflict involving their dissenting board members. Turns out there ARE similarities with the IMB situation:
The public dissent has brought public attention to some closed door discussions about whether the City of Fort Worth is entitled to mineral rights under Texas Motor Speedway.
It also has raised questions about whether officials who should be looking out for the city’s best interest are pursuing another agenda in executive session:
“Last week, Mayor Mike Moncrief ousted a longtime member of the Fort Worth Sports Authority board who had stood up to the speedway and its president, Eddie Gossage.
Gossage was livid that the gas-rights dispute had broken into the newspaper, and he wanted Jim Schell removed. In promptly accommodating him, it looks like Gossage is dictating to the city.
It doesn’t help public perception that Moncrief and Gossage are such good friends that Moncrief officiated at Gossage’s 1999 wedding at the Speedway Club.
Now it’s time to wave the caution flag on this backroom dealing and demand that the city bring the case into the open. Let’s have a judge decide who owns the gas rights, if necessary, and then have a public discussion about how to spend the proceeds.
This is too much money — from $25 million to $60 million, in today’s dollars — to be traded away just to avoid a legal fight or some hard feelings.
Our leaders’ credibility is on the line, too. They should be fighting for the people’s money, even if it bruises big-time egos, and then be diligent about spending it.
If the speedway wants all the windfall for its venture and surrounding area, as it proposed behind closed doors, let Gossage make his pitch to the public and City Council.
That’s the best way to protect the integrity of the process, now that there are questions about the speedway’s influence.
The city, through the Sports Authority, owns the land the track sits on and the mineral rights. They were transferred to the public entity (as) a mechanism (to) allow Texas Motor Speedway to avoid all property taxes.
Ousting Schell last week has tainted the (closed-door discussions).
His alleged infraction was that he talked to the Star-Telegram about the impasse between the city and speedway, but that’s hardly a firing offense.
A real estate lawyer, Schell had often argued that the city had a strong position in the gas-rights case and shouldn’t roll over for the speedway. A few weeks ago, he objected to the speedway’s request for a one-year extension of an option to buy 100 acres slated for development.
The original 10-year option had already been extended for one year.
As an alternative, Schell proposed a three-month extension. His motion carried the day, despite the opposition of Donna Parker, a board member and close ally of Gossage.
Parker later complained formally about Schell talking to the news media and urged Moncrief to remove him from the board.
“I would never silence a co-member,” Parker told me. “But I’m concerned when an item discussed in executive session is discussed publicly.”
There are more important things to worry about here. Like who’s controlling this process and who’s looking out for the public?”
The Star Telegram points out that this agency – like the IMB – appears more concerned about protecting its process than the constituents it is supposed to serve.
Vol,
Thank you for your answer. You are an honest man. I have always respected that about you.
It is for that reason I know I can break bread with you any time even if we differ on various things.
cb
“This year we have 609,000 baptisms and started 25,497 new churches. I would say that IMB is doing well.
The Indians used to say, “Don’t judge a man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins.” Pretty good idea!”
Texas Trustee
I received this as part of the reply from an otherwise unsigned “Texas Trustee” in response to an e-mail that I sent. These are impressive numbers that the IMB has put up.
Bennett Willis
David
Statements like this, “i hope you saw the vols enjoy a nice little barbeque in knoxville,” will cause you to loose a fried baloney sandwich courtesy of this Hog fan.
Lucky for you my anti-spam word is “kindness.”
:-)
Peter,
Sorry for misreading your comment, my eyes are part of my SYSTEM and they seem to be failing me due to Old Age.
In His Name
Bennett,
There is no question that the great majority of our IMB missionaries are doing well. That is evidence of God’s grace in spite of what ouir IMB trustees are doing. This has also happened in the past.
In general the missionaries “get it.” It is the trustees that stumble around in a chosen darkness. Some folks just don’t like light.
They like to cuss the darkness rather than to strike a match and lite a candle.
BTW, hwy would the Texas trustee not sign hois or her name, I wonder? Or did you choise not to give it for some strange reason?
cb
Bennett,
I hope you translate well. I keep hitting extra keys and do not check my comment before I post. I guess that is a sign of arrogance and a stubburn nature.
cb
robin,
i’m truly sorry that you’re a hog fan. if you ever want something in saaaaayy, orange, i’d be glad to do a little shopping for you. :) in fact, i’ve got some orange shirts that you’d be able to wear…want one?
david
David
If I ever run out of towels to clean my car, you’ll be the first I call for that orange shirt.
:-D
let me just say this about imb trustees. the ones i know are solid people who love the Lord and believe the Book. i know dr. john floyd personally. he’s a straight shooter, and if he tells you something then you can take it to the bank. also, the other ones i know, or know about, are all solid people who love the Lord. of course, there are many that i dont know and know nothing about. anyway, i just felt the need to throw in that little tidbit from the hills of tn.
also, tonite, at church, we’re having a special ceremony to send off the shoeboxes. our church is really into this ministry set up by franklin graham. we have 399 shoeboxes to send to children all over the world. i’m gonna try to either get someone to do one more, or else i’ll do it. we ought to have 400. if you’re not familiar with this ministry, you ought to check it out.
david
David
I almost forgot, crimson shirts do pretty well at the car cleaning thing.
:-D
david: That has never been the issue. See CB’s comment.
Peter,
I think I did make the point at the very beginning that my words only meant something if logic mattered, which it usually doesn’t. You have confirmed that as I expected. You should know that the only alternative to my “sophistry” is relativism, which you also proved in your reply. Now, if someone were to tell you that your truth is your truth and their truth (which is different from yours) is their truth you would cry foul and say that was nonsense. You would not call your argument “sophistry,” though it would be the same thing that I’ve given you here.
Your comment reminds me of a quote from Mark Knoll in his book The Scandal of The Evangelical Mind where he says that the problem with the evangelical mind is that there isn’t one. You will use sound reasoning when it suits your argument, but when it doesn’t you will play the anti-intellectual “vain philosophy” card. That’s fine. I realize that that sort of rhetoric is what gets people whipped up in support these days. We no longer value a good sound argument and when someone we oppose makes one we simply call them sophists (an ad hominem argument itself) and pour on the rhetoric. Not only are you good at that craft but, fortunately for you, that’s what appeals to the masses anyway. So, you’ve made your point. Debbie’s analogy is utter garbage because you say it is and I’m just interested in philosophizing, again, because you say so. Bravo, Peter.
Dear Paul,
May the Lord bless you and keep you and may His face shine upon you and give you peace…
With that, I am…
Peter
Tmax Says:
Ben Cole for something!!!! Keep it coming! I like and appreciate folks who speak their minds and hearts. God gave us both. It is good to use them. However, you do have a command of words … a lot of them.
Southern Baptist have always been a fussing, cussing, fighting bunch … since 1845. In the early years it was always doctrine and debate. We have developed a horrible mean streak over the past forty years.
All of that being said, I do appreciate bloggers standing tall. I do not like closed doors! I am new to blogging. I finally learned how to turn the caps lock off.
Tmax
Good morning TMAX, I can hear you much better today. I love it when people speak their minds and hearts also. From the mouth comes the thoughts of the heart. And by that we may be able to know them and understand them. But some of the words with which one chooses to describe, or address someone leaves much to be desired by the Lord Himself.
For instance, when my husband says, thanks babe, it is an endearment. when a virtual stranger addresses a lady twice his age in such a way as to demean her character, then it is rude at best and hostile at least. Either of the two is not nice, unseemly, uncharacteristic of Jesus and give a fruit inspector reason to question any grapes he/she have to offer on the vine of chatter.
I do not know if you were addressing me in your post, but thought I’d at least say hello since I had mentioned your captitalization of wording concerned me a bit.
As to how mean we all are, I still must respectfully disagree with you. No matter how long the believers who associate as Southern Baptist have gathered, does not prove that they are “all” meanspirited or without grace and wisdom.
And personally, while I prefer many doors to be open, there are some that should be kept closed. We are proof positive that discussions held behind closed doors and brought into the public realm cause nothing but division and arguments which eventually lead to ill feelings and discord. selahV
Trish, since I have no way of contacting you because when I click on your name it doesn’t produce a site, I wanted to let you know I’ve written a post on Homespun Logic and Pea-Brain Deciphering at my site. I do not want to continue discussing logic with illogical arguments on this thread as it really takes away from the point of an attitude of gratitude for the work our Trustees put forth on the behalf of our missionaries and Southern Baptist.
Anyone is invited. I beg forgiveness Tim, Robin, Joe and Wes for this wee bit of advertising. Just wanted to connect with Trish. selahV
Thanks SelahV – I checked your blog and left some comments! Well, maybe more than a few…
Peace (guess what my word was?)
Trish
Vol,
Time out in our fight for a moment.
I think the 400 boxes your church is giving to Samaritan’s Purse is really great. May God grant great blessing to you guys for such a wonderful ministry.
cb
Vol,
Now, back to the war. Debbie is right. That has never been the issue. We have never said anyone was not a straight shooter. They just shoot at the wrong things. They just don’t get it.
Just think of Jerry Corbaley. Everytime he gets the ball he runs with all his heart. He just always runs toward the wrong goal. The problem is the refs. are letting him get by with it every time. Somebody needs to throw a flag. That somebody should be John Floyd for starters. Why does he not? Because he likes being in the dark. Floyd shoots straight, but everytime he does he puts out the lights. Bad move, John.
cb
cb
Tmax
No one was my target. I am enjoying this blogging stuff. There is so much of it and it never ends.
By the by … I am beginning to get the idea that there are millions of words used on blogs … from what I can determine they all stem from DISSENT.
Therefore, is it correct to state that all bloggers are dissenters? Perhaps, we could solve our energy problems with the hot air on blogs.
Just elderly rambling.
Tmax
By the way I do not know any of these people who are being mention in the dissenting stuff.
Tmax
Tmax,
Do you have a name or do you intend to continue to be a P.J. Flamming closet liberal from the 60′s and 70′s? Did we cross swords back during the CR?
cb
Let me get this straight. To be a true SBC type Baptist you have to be converted in a SBC church, be baptized in a SBC church, be a member of a SBC church, graduate from a SBC college or U., graduate from a SBC Seminary, (pastor, staff, missionary, etc) a SBC Church or one of its cousins… to serve in the SBC.
Did leave anything out? It seems to me that we have returned to the closed communion days! Only SBC folks can sit at the Lord’s table.
Golly gee, I have done all of that, but I am not sure I understand what SBC stands for anymore.
Tmax
Bro CB
I have never been in a closet. I am extremely conservative.
We have never to my knowledge met. I have known many fine believers on all sides … most of whom are at home in heaven. My four years at Southwestern were wonderful. However, I am not very proud of my seminary at the present time.
Tmax
cb,
your killing me…. I laughed for about 2 minutes,…this reminds me of an economics equation pj(t)
The spam filter gobbled up the equation….
pj(t)
Tmax,
Do you work at CarMax? Do you have a brother or sister named Smax or Umax? Do you come from a large family? Does your grandmother live near Atlanta? Have I ever been to her home?
cb
Tmax,
If you have never been in a closet do you live in a cave? Do you live in a tent? A van down by the river? A camper? A very small house without closets? Where do you put your stuff? Are you just messy?
cb
TMAX…the more you write, the more I love you. No one seems to want to answer your questions above so I will.
Yes, we are all dissenters in one way or another. It is that some of us dissent when appropriate, some of us don’t. Some of us are dissenting on opposite sides of the position. Some of us see the negative and some see the positive. And when I see the positive some see it as negative and when I see it as negative, some see it as positive. And vica versa. (or however ya spell that).
Ignore all this stuff and just keep being faithful to our Lord. I never went to seminary and I’ve been a Southern Baptist for 51 years. I love us because God loves us. I even love us when we don’t like each other’s actions and words. The biggest problem with all Christians is we don’t know how to press on and forget that which is behind us. We keep wanting to drag it along with us into eternity.
Isn’t it wonderful that the Lord says, “Oh no you don’t. You aren’t coming into my holy heaven with all that extra weight and baggage?
My password is peace and that’s all I long for amongst the brethren. Once we are at peace all the unity will be there. And our peace is in our Prince of Peace. selahV
Tmax,
If that is your real name and you are really old, were you once a big dinosaur named T-Rex? Are you purple? Do you now make a living playing Barney on a stupid, kids show produced by liberal devils to destroy the moral fiber of American children?
cb
SelahV,
My password was kindness. What a joke?
SelahV, get out of my way I am on the trail of a liberal, purple dinosaur named Barney, code name: Tmax. I will not stop untill I have him in captivity. Now, git.
cb
Hiya, Trish. I just got home after a very long joyous day with my 7 plus grandchildren. Took family portraits and it was hilarious. A strain on the mommas, but such a delight for me the grama and great-grama. I have a great-grandson, too. (and another on the way.!) saw where you’d posted but was reading things in order and when I read TMAX in my email feed, I just had to come over and chat with him a spell. Will go back home to my site in a bit and catch up.
CB…you just leave ol’ TMAX alone. Ever since sbcIMPACT made me give my real name for their blog to be a contributor, everyone keeps spelling my name wrong. TMAX owns those super stores where you can get expensive stuff for 1/3 the price. He’s incognito and simply left out the “J” in TJMAX. selahV
Tmax,
Are you in a Maximum security prison? Is Tmax your prison handle? Are you part of the Aryan Brotherhood?
Or, do you wear Max Factor?
cb
CB
You are not worth the effort.
Tmax
Tmax,
Thank you. You have made it evident you are an old liberal who decided that we conservatives were so mean spirited we were “not worth the effort” so you just went away.
I am sure you went somewhere and made some liberal group stronger as did your leaving us make us much stronger. Do well and prosper.
Just one question I would like to have you answer out of the many I brought to your attention. Was it Max Factor from which you took your name?
cb
CB
Please define “old liberal?” It is refreshing to hear the words, since I have never been called “ole liberal” anything.
How many times does the SBC have to split to be conservative? From my personal point of view I see so many fragemented groups in SBC … I can no longer can define SBC.
The battle was fought in 1979 … who won … how can you tell? It seems to me that we are a shaddow of what we once were … with liberals and conservatives mixed together. I personally do not desire to go back. However, what we possess now is an empty shell.
By the way … are we really committeed to win our communities, nation, and the world? I read the goal of IMB is 8,000 on foreign soil. That is great. However, have the we solved the problem of one term missionaries?
CB, does you preach from an original copy of the King James? Does you preach in the tongue of Liz?
I have read that your can get a copy of the original KJV in Brit Lit Liz. It only cost between $3,000 to $5,000 a copy. You might want to make them pew bibles.
Tmax
A couple of questions:
1. Regarding the Rules of Dissent, as they are being called: How does one ethically and honestly speak in affirming and favorable terms of policies he or she does not support?
2. For those who support this censure: Why is the censure better than Wade resigning from the BOT, which he offered to do? Surely the board is better off without the (insert negative adjective here) Wade Burleson on it?
I have been thinking. Believe it or not CB I have a few thoughts (on good days) here and there.
To change structure … why don’t we restructure state conventions (down size) … then make the SBC into regional gatherings every other year. Trustees would come from each region (1 per). Why have so many trustees with this horrible waste of CP or mission money?
During my last years of pastoring, I felt guilty going to state and national conventions … and … taking God’s money to do it. I did not consider this good stewardship.
Where did the idea come from that says that a state convention decides who gets what? When did the national convention become all powerful? As I read Baptist history the local church came first, the local association came second, then the state convention. Why not have the flow of mission dollars through the local association?
Just a though from a fossil.
Tmax
CB,
I sent an e-mail answer to your question, but the body of the letter in question had no signature.
Bennett