The trustees of the International Mission Board, meeting today in Sunnyvale, Texas, elected new officers for the coming year. They are as follows:
- Chairman: Paul Chitwood of Kentucky
- 1st Vice-Chairman: Simon Tsoi of Arizona
- 2nd Vice-Chairman: Mike Smith of Texas
- Secretary: Debbie Brunson of Florida
All of these new officers were elected by acclamation. According to a recent by-law change, they will begin their service at the conclusion of the SBC Annual Meeting in Indianapolis June 10-11.
Wes:
Can a woman be elected to the position of chairman, 1st vice-chairman or 2nd vice-chairman of the IMB?
Wes:
Can a woman be elected to the position of chairman, 1st vice-chairman or 2nd vice-chairman of the IMB?
Wes:
Can a woman be elected to the position of chairman, 1st vice-chairman or 2nd vice-chairman of the IMB?
I don’t know why not, were one to be nominated. Why do you ask?
Wes:
Just curious if a woman has ever held one of those positions I enquired about or if a woman could hold that position today?
Wes:
Just curious if a woman has ever held one of those positions I enquired about or if a woman could hold that position today?
Wes:
Just curious if a woman has ever held one of those positions I enquired about or if a woman could hold that position today?
Tom,
As far as I know, there has never been a female chair of the IMB. Again, I know of nothing to prevent one from being elected if nominated.
Wes,
Wow, all four were elected by acclamation. Did any one besides me notice that by doing so, the IMB BOT have seemingly acted in the spirit of unity and in one accord?
Ron P.
Ron,
It seems that Dr. Hershael York has echoed what you have said on his blog. This lines up well with what I heard from more than one trustee last night as I attended the commissioning service: This was the most productive, sweet-spirited meeting they’ve had in some time.
Wes and Ron P,
Don’t make this more than what it is.
cb
CB,
Please don’t make less of this than what did happen. According to Wes’ comment, Dr. York, and several trustees, this was truly a refreshing change for the IMB BOT.
Ron P.
Ron P,
Is Hershael York now the new spokesman for the climate of the IMB?
I guess everybody needs a life goal.
The absence of vocalized differences of opinions in a meeting means nothing more than that.
Is the ultimate goal of the trustee board to have no disagreements?
If so, then be happy with it and do not make comments that might bring criticism.
If the goal of trustees is to do the right thing then expect some fireworks from time to time.
Sometimes the presence of a “sweet-spirited” meeting is evidence of cowardliness and a lack of conviction among other things.
cb
I think we should be thrilled that there is once again unity in the IMB trustees. You know, old Solomon was right on it when he said in Proverbs 22:10, “Cast out the scoffer, and contention will leave; Yes, strife and reproach will cease.” The Message translation is even better, “Kick out the troublemakers and things will quiet down; you need a break from bickering and griping!” The IMB took the necessary stand and now can get on with the business charged to it by our convention of bringing the Gospel to the world and not focusing on a self absorbed sideshow blogger. Keep up the great work!
Ron P,
I thought it was blogging about trustee meeting and the climate of those meetings that got Wade Burleson in trouble. Was I wrong?
Now, of all people, Wes Kenney seems to compliment Hershael York for becoming the new blog spokesman for the climate of the IMB.
Maybe the real problem with Wade was that he did not say things Wes wanted to hear along with many others. Me included at times. It is a fact that Wade was and is wrong about several things, but he was not wrong about what was going on at the IMB during his early tenure.
The elephant was not just on the table. it was dancing and singing and yet, few recognized it for what it was and still is. Wade’s absence from the board and the absence of any conflict at this recent meeting is no indication all is well in the trustee body of the IMB. And I do hope you guys do not “elect” Hershael York as you new “official spokesman” for the “new day” at the IMB.
cb
A meeting without any disagreement is not always a valid reason to begin shouting “all is well” to the awaiting masses.
Actually, that is a little shallow and premature at the moment.
CB:
I agree with you. Some of these comments sure sound like a slam on Wade. If for one am glad that he has the intestinal fortitude to not just follow along with the others.
CB:
I agree with you. Some of these comments sure sound like a slam on Wade. If for one am glad that he has the intestinal fortitude to not just follow along with the others.
CB:
I agree with you. Some of these comments sure sound like a slam on Wade. If for one am glad that he has the intestinal fortitude to not just follow along with the others.
C.B.,
Would you allow for the possibility that there is a difference between “a meeting without any disagreement,” and a meeting where disagreements are worked through with charity and respect between committee members in their meetings and between trustees working together through them rather than publishing to the world the disagreements along with the content of private conversations?
Nobody told me that the meeting was free from disagreements. What they said was that it was pervaded with a sweetness of spirit of the sort they hadn’t had in a good while.
preacherman,
Which “sideshow blogger” are you in reference with your statement?
Is it the old one or the new one?
Tom,
I cannot support Wade in all things. I do know he was truthful about things at the IMB.
Now, some good guys are willing to have Hershael York as the new blog spokesman for the IMB. I just cannot help but wonder if his immediate acceptance is because he says what they want to hear; “All is well.”
Is Hershael or is he not blogging about the IMB? He is pleasing one group and not the other. I am simply pointing out that fact.
Maybe it would be a good idea for Hershael not to blog about the IMB now that he is a trustee. Is that not what so many said about Wade?
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy no matter whose heart and mouth it comes from, is it not?
I do hope we do not hear any more of this: “The old IMB blog spokesman is dead. Long live the new IMB blog spokesman.” “He speaks our language and we like it that way.”
The bottom line is that there was no real reason to say anything about the climate of this meeting. Why stir the pot when there is “peace” if that is the true climate of the board?
What was the motivation? Could it be that we want it known that we have put a “bad boy” in his place and we can now go on with business as usually.
This is vain boasting, rude behavior, and raw hypocrisy at its best among us and you guys all know it. Of course it seems like this is what we are all best at these days. May God have mercy on us all. But most of all we should thank God for grace for without it we would all be so very hopeless, me most of all.
cb
cb,
not sure who the new one would be so guess it could be the only one that was blogging about the trustee meetings. There was only one that I am aware of.
CB,
I must really be blind, because I see nothing in Dr. York’s blog that attacks or gossips about his fellow trustees. If he did, then you would be absolutely correct to claim hypocrisy. It is not blogging about the IMB that got Wade into trouble. Gossip and his “disparaging terms about fellow trustees” (among other things) is what rankled me and a lot of other people regarding his blogging about the IMB.
I sincerely hope that your church business meetings are always as peaceful and void of needless contention as was this IMB meeting.
Ron P.
Ron P,
Wade always said he did not attack people either. That’s funny.
I guess it really is perception and perspective after all, right Ron?
cb
CB,
You can’t be serious.
Ron P.
CB,
I was wondering … have you read Dr. York’s blog about the IMB meeting? I don’t mean to sound disrespectful, but you seem to be making a mountain out of a mole hill. The differences between Dr. York’s non-detailed overview and other’s more personalized, character assalting diatribes is stark by comparison. He also notes that even disagreements were handled in godly fashion.
Your assertion that “This is vain boasting, rude behavior, and raw hypocrisy at its best among us and you guys all know it” is a bit over the top – if not a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.
Grace,
Wes
WesInTex:
“and other’s more personalized, character assalting diatribes is stark by comparison. ” Wes, if I may ask who are the “others”.
WesInTex:
“and other’s more personalized, character assalting diatribes is stark by comparison. ” Wes, if I may ask who are the “others”.
WesInTex:
“and other’s more personalized, character assalting diatribes is stark by comparison. ” Wes, if I may ask who are the “others”.
Ahem….
I like Brother York, but…
The Message? Are we allowed to quote this as being “better” as Bible believing Southern Baptists?
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
TexWes,
Did you read my comments?
I included myself so I am not the kettle or the pot.
I did read York’s post.
The question remains: Why post it?
The same question relates to the first comments from Wes and Ron P. Why? What was the motivation behind those comments?
You get those guys to openly tell you why they posted those things.
The fact is that Wade is gone from the IMB. Is it not time to leave it alone? I think it is.
You tell me the motivation of those who posted and commented. Let them be absolutely truthful and then you ask me if I am serious.
I told a very good friend of mine last June in front of many witnesses it was time to let something else go. He did not let it go.
TexWes, I am not the enemy, but there is one. And we need to stop feeding him ammo from well camouflaged positions.
cb
CB,
I will gladly tell you my motivation, though you did not ask me. :) I wanted to point out that it appears that contentiousness on the IMB BOT has now ceased, at least in this vote in choosing the leadership for the IMB BOT. Nothing more, nothing less. I also, as stated, was curious if I was the only one to notice. I was not.
Ron P.
What Ron said.
If you would like to know my motivation it is simply that it will be nice to read about the work of the IMB and the missionaries and not the pitiful antics of one man trying to make a name for himself and refusing to repent and surrender when reprimanded. I simply quoted a very timely and adequate verse describing the situation at hand. I’ll make a deal with you though, when Mr. Burleson lets it rest, maybe everyone else will too. He’s moaning and wailing on his blog about the IMB right now. So who isn’t letting it go?
And by the way who is the enemy since I would want to be wary of him myself?
Wes,
Have you read Dr. Rankins letter to Dr, Tom Hatley andDr. John Floyd which is posted on Brother Wade’s Blog. What are your thought on this letter and your not believing Brother Wade Burleson when he stood up to the Board of Trustees at the IMB???
In His Name
Wayne
CB,
I would never, ever consider you my enemy. I may not always agree with you, but then again, many times I do. This is just one of those times in which I think you are reading more into something than what’s been written.
From Dr. York’s post and from Bro. Wes’ initial post here, I saw none of the “vain boasting, rude behavior, and raw hypocrisy” that you claim you see. I saw a celebration of a great meeting in which new officers were elected; new missionaries were appointed and business was conducted in a Christ honoring fashion.
To me, my dear brother, you are calling into question the motivation and character of brothers in Christ based not on what was written – but on what you believe is a hidden agenda on their part. You have no proof of that – it is simply a personal judgment. Both RonP and Wes have answered your quesion of their motivation. Is their word good enough for you? Not every tree has a conspiracy hiding behind it.
Grace,
Wes (maybe I should change that to “wes the less” 8->)
TexWes,
You have done well here. I did use overkill. I did make a mountain out of a mole hill. I did call into question the motivation of a good man and a friend, Wes. I did call into question the motivation of Ron P who is probably a very fine man also. I do not know him, but very often agree with him.
In all of the above you are right. My calling their motivation into question did reveal what I thought was at least part of the reason for the posts and comments which seems to be:
Now that Wade is gone, everything will be better.
That is not necessarily the case at all relating to the problems of the IMB. Some things will cease, but that does not mean everything will be better. There were problems at the IMB long before Wade showed up.
Yet, I do think it would help if it was left alone. I know there are lurkers out there who agree with me, but it is not politically safe for them to voice such so they will remain silent. The bottom line is that it was not the wisest move to post about the meeting by York who is now a trustee. It would probably be a good idea for IMB trustees not to blog about the board for a long time to come due to recent events.
No matter their motivations some such as Preacherman will make more of it than is there. (even if nothing is there)
Let us look at what he said in his last comment:
he states his motivation is: “simply that it will be nice to read about the work of the IMB and mssionaries”……
Well, that would be OK if he left it at that. But he did not did he?
He went on to say;…..”and not the pitiful antics of one man trying to make a name for himself and refusing to repent and surrender when reprimanded.”
“pitiful antics” Guys you all know there were several who were guilty of some pretty pitiful antics by some folks on that board other than Wade.
“make a name for himself” Now, who is questioning another’s motivation? Here we have a guy who does not even have a real name questioning the motivation of a guy who we all can easily identify and who claims all of his words. There is something wrong with that; is there not Wes Kenney?
(BTW, I have often questioned Wade’s motivation, publicly and privately)
“refusing to repent and surrender” Come on guys. There were and still are many on that board who refused to repent other than just Wade if we are going to call for repentance of any guilty parties.
“reprimanded” Was Wade the only person reprimanded? No. He is just the only one who resigned.
Now, Preacherman,
You said that if Wade “would let it rest, maybe everyone else will too.”
WOW, Preach, I tell you what. That is a really heavyweight, major maturity indicator of a statement there, don’t you think?
Oh, yeah, about who is the enemy? Well, in this case, if you are catching what I am saying here, you can go look in the mirror and you will find him.
Wes, you know exactly what I am saying here and so do many others. You know I am right. It is time to let it go.
cb
Cb,
You have some good wisdom my friend. This is an area where a lot of people are particularly sensitive. Perhaps it was not the wisest move for Dr. York to post as a trustee. But I don’t believe he meant anything other than to express his joy at being a part of a wonderful meeting. A feeling shared by many with no political bones to pick.
And Preacherman, brother, perhaps we should move forward and simply rejoice that more missionaries are on the fields telling more people about the Savior.
As the great theologian Timon said: “You got to put your past behind ya.”
Grace,
Wes
CB,
When are you announcing YOUR candidacy?
For the record:
I love my brother, C.B. Scott.
The rest of you, I’m not so sure about. ;)
Dave,
That is a funny statement. I really mean that.
cb
cb
thanks for saying exactly what I just said–let’s hear the work of the IMB and the missionaries and move on. As for the heavyweight statement I’m not sure exactly what you mean. You said let’s leave it alone and move on and I said great. Maybe Wade will (after today’s post I guess) and then everyone else can. If you’re saying I’m the enemy that’s pretty funny because number one you don’t know me, number two I thought evangelicals were all on the same team and number three, didn’t Paul say we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers of darkness? I think he did. I’m ready to move on maybe he will be soon.
Sorry I could not come back and play sooner.
CB, thank you for the kind words. Our debates have been spirited, and we do agree on much. But when we do not, I have never felt like you have “gone after” me in any way. So for the record, though we have never met, I too love you my brother.
Ron P.
How do we know there was unity and the meeting was sweet spirited? Doesn’t the IMB have a policy that trustees are not allowed to state publicly they disagree with any action of the BOT even if they do disagree with it? Was all business conducted in open session with representatives or the press there to report on it. We will never know if the board is acting in unity because they have been taught that if you state publicly that you disagree with the actions of the board you can be censured and you will not get to be on the committees that get to make trips overseas.
Ron asks–”Doesn’t the IMB have a policy that trustees are not allowed to state publicly they disagree with any action of the BOT even if they do disagree with it?” I have always thought this to be a silly policy.
Ron asks–”Doesn’t the IMB have a policy that trustees are not allowed to state publicly they disagree with any action of the BOT even if they do disagree with it?” I have always thought this to be a silly policy.
Ron asks–”Doesn’t the IMB have a policy that trustees are not allowed to state publicly they disagree with any action of the BOT even if they do disagree with it?” I have always thought this to be a silly policy.
The new regulation, as I understand it, not only forbids trustees from publicly disagreeing with policies but requires them to publicly support them even if they don’t.
I kind of figure if ol’ CB ever wanted to take over anything, it won’t be conservative and it wouldn’t be a resurgence. I’d guess it’d be more like “shock & awe”.
:)
Comments: 37, 38 and 39 are statements of truth. Who can argue against them?
Therefore, it was unwise for York to blog about the IMB meeting as an active trustee.
Due to the current “gag order” policy and the present unresolved issues within the administration and the trustee board any public statement from a trustee will be suspect.
Therefore, it might be a wise thing for all who love the IMB to pray diligently for its spiritual health and that it work toward fulfilling its prescribed mission on earth according to the inerrant Word of God, realizing the Word is absolutely sufficient and needs no help from trustees superimposed upon it.
It also might be a good idea for the new chairman, Paul Chitwood, to whisper in trustee, Hershael York’s ear that it would probably be a good idea for him not to blog about the meetings of the board, because there will always be individuals, now, among the rank and file of the SBC who does not like for anyone to spit on their heads and tell them it is just rain.
cb
To all:
The congratulatory tone of Dr. York’s blog was a bit ridiculous to me when I read it.
He did take a clear jab at Wade when he commented about the meeting being “absent of all the drama…” etc… He may not have come out and stated it, but it was clearly implied.
Of course he is going to congratulate SBs on the election of Dr. Chitwood, they are close friends and (I believe) succeeded each other as the “true conservative” choices for president of the Ky Baptist convention a few years ago. They are close allies. I believe they both teach at Southern seminary now (if I remember correctly, a BP article a couple months ago announced Dr. Chitwood’s hiring as Southern faculty). They will almost surely spend quite a bit of time together “working through the issues” outside of the IMB BOT meetings.
BTW…this language of “sweet spirit” is the exact same language that was used to describe this year’s Ky Baptist convention in which fewer mssgrs attended than anytime before. I think some bloggers raised concerns and even the state newspaper guy questioned whether or not this claim of “sweet spirit” can be called legit, or whether it really just means that everyone who disagrees has been intimidated into keeping quiet or being labelled a liberal. Its easy to get a “sweet spirit” when you’ve run off everyone who may even hint at disagreeing with you. Fundamentalism has been notorious for that kind of mentality!
The “sweet spirit” argument really holds no water in an institution where no-one is allowed to voice their disagreements. People with an autocratic spirit always claim that they “allow different opinions” and that “people are free to disagree” but as recent history has shown, those claims are empty and hollow. It seems that the only ones who will rejoice over the “sweetness” of the IMB meeting are those who see this as a sign that the “baptist identity” crowd has won control yet again.
I guess if you’re in this for power and control, it was indeed a meeting about which you can rejoice. Just more of the same in the SBC.