Comments on: IMB Elects New Officers

By: midwestsbcpastor

midwestsbcpastor — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:58:30 +0000

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.

By: cb scott

cb scott — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:40:50 +0000

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.

By: Bob Cleveland

Bob Cleveland — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:23:13 +0000

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”.

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:59:28 +0000

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.

By: Tom Parker

Tom Parker — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:35:27 +0000

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.

By: Ron West

Ron West — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:54:23 +0000

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.

By: Ron P.

Ron P. — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 02:16:42 +0000

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.

By: preacherman

preacherman — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 02:13:34 +0000

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.

By: cb scott

cb scott — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:59:15 +0000

Dave,

That is a funny statement. I really mean that.

By: Joel

Joel — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:42:00 +0000

For the record:

I love my brother, C.B. Scott.

The rest of you, I’m not so sure about.