Long letter
Letter to the Trustees of the International
Dear Fathers and
Mothers, Sisters and Brothers,
I apologize for
adding this task to your workload, but this letter addresses gross and habitual
sin on the part of Trustee Wade Burleson. The proof is undeniable. The sin is
highly offensive to God. The sin is affecting tens of thousands of Southern
Baptists, and some of our own missionaries are being swept up in this sin. You,
the Board of Trustees, are responsible before God, the Southern Baptist
Convention, and yourselves, to address this trial of faith in a serious and
strait-forward manner. It is absolutely necessary that the Board speak publicly
and decisively to Mr. Burleson’s sin in a way that is not subject to Mr.
Burleson’s reinterpretation of your action.
I pray, and hope with
all my heart, that you will examine the contents of this letter with the will
of Jesus Christ, Our Lord, foremost in mind. This letter will no doubt be
construed as a distraction to the administrative work we do as Trustees; and
that is true. But we dare not ignore the plain-sense meaning of God’s Words;
for that would be unfaithfulness on our part. I dare to say that the blessing
of God upon our work is directly related to our faithfulness to do what He says.
We are a group of Christians, not just a corporate board.
The full letter, with
copies of the source material, are in the attachment to this email. In the
attachment, my words are spaced at intervals between the source material for
easier reference. My words will be best understood if you read the whole
attachment. If you do not read the whole letter, then you are placing too much
trust in only one witness. These words are chosen with restraint and attention
to accuracy. The tone of these words is gentle and my mood is calm. I have put
my words in bold print because they are few in proportion to the source
material that is also included.
Trustee Burleson is
an unrepentant slanderer and an unrepentant gossip. He continues to initiate
slander and gossip against the trustees of the International
Let me be extremely
clear. Every time I use the words “slander” and “gossip” I am referring to the Biblical
record. This letter addresses an issue of concern to Christians who believe
that the Bible is the Word of God. I have no intent to initiate secular
resolution to this issue.
The contents of this
long letter are as follows:
1 An accurate article
by John Revell, the editor of SBC Life, from the August 2007 edition of SBC
Life. This is a publication of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist
Convention. His exposition of the meaning of slander in the Bible is accurate.
I STRONGLY encourage you to read it, take it to heart, apply it to ourselves,
and then apply it to our circumstance. Research John Revell’s accuracy all you
want, he is spot-on.
2 A list of comments
by God on what he thinks about slander and gossip. By all means, be noble like
the Bereans, and search the Scripture for yourselves to determine the accuracy
of the context I am implying and the honesty of the application I am
suggesting.
3 A copy of the
motion that was passed in January of 2006 calling for Mr. Burleson to be
removed from the Board of Trustees. While the motion has been “expunged” from
the record, it has not been expunged from reality. I bring this up because Mr.
Burleson brings it up below.
4 Excerpts from
“Trustee Responsibilities” that was adopted in March of 2006; before the motion
of January was rescinded.
5 A transcript of the
IMB Executive Committee Report of May of 2006, as delivered by Chairman Tom
Hatley.
6. A comment stream from
the blog “Love Each Stone” from June 4, 2007.
7. A blog article by
Chadwick Ivester on June 8, 2007, with comments that followed.
8. A blog article by
Trustee Burleson on July 10, 2007, with comments that followed.
9. A blog article by
Trustee Burleson on July 18, 2007, with comments that followed.
10. A blog article by
Trustee Burleson on September 12, 2007, with comments that followed.
11. An observation of
several options available to the Board of Trustees in response to this slander
and gossip.
I have written
observations and posed serious questions in between the blog articles.
As you read the
articles and comments on Mr. Burleson’s blog please bear in mind that about
1,600 people per DAY are reading it, about 53,000 people per month; that they
are being influenced by his words, and that they carry this point of view into
their own blogs, churches, and other circles of influence. “A little yeast
leavens the whole lump of dough”. How far does a truckload of yeast go? Please
do not view this “mountain” as a “mole hill”.
Serious question: How
responsible are we as Trustees for letting this gross sin progress this far?
Can we honestly say “We didn’t know?”
The following seven
paragraphs are included so that you can judge my assertions with an
understanding of my personal context.
I am not opposed to
blogging. I am not opposed to Mr. Burleson’s expressions of his opinions and
his ability to influence others to his own point of view. On some points I
agree with him. I am opposed to slander and gossip because God strongly
condemns such behavior.
I believe all
Southern Baptists have a right to express their opinions (political or
otherwise), and to influence others to their own point of view. But no
Christian has a right to opine and influence others with slander and gossip;
nor by initiating slander and gossip in a public forum. Such behavior clearly
gives the devil a foothold. The habitual, public, international expression of
slander and gossip are gross sin and must not be tolerated.
Since January of 2006
I have made it very clear to Mr. Burleson personally that I believe he has
slandered the Board of Trustees and that I consider him a divisive man. Having
concluded such, both 1 Corinthians 5:11 and Titus 3:10 clearly dictate my
relationship to him. According to God, I am not to associate with him, not to
eat with him, and am to have nothing to do with him. Have I sinned in this
conclusion?
Serious Question: If
you agree with my conclusion about him being a slanderer (let alone divisive), what
must your relationship with Mr. Burleson be?
Having concluded that
I could “have nothing to do with him” and could not “associate” with him, how
could I interact with him on his blog in an effort to defend myself against his
slander? How could I defend the Board against his slander? Is there any chance
whatsoever of vindication in the den of a slanderer?
Serious Questions:
Are you willing that I be sacrificed by Board timidity for obeying God? In view
of the adopted Trustee Responsibilities regarding not “disparaging” fellow
trustees (let alone the whole Board at once), how have our actions reflected on
our integrity?
Please also note that
Mr. Burleson has many good things to say about the work of the International
1.
"Acceptable" Sins
The Things We Accept, But God
Forbids
Part Two: Slander
by John Revell
We've all probably seen it, and most of us have been
tempted to participate. One of our brethren holds a differing view and
automatically becomes a target for criticism. Often there is a good-natured
exchange of harmless bantering, but what about when it moves beyond being
"good natured" and "harmless?" What about when the
differences center on theology, or methodology, or interpretation of Scripture?
What about when the focus shifts to the person's record or behavior, present or
past? And what about when such comments question the character and impugn the
reputation of a brother?
When we look at the pattern displayed by many of our own,
it appears that we view harsh, personal criticism — expressed both publicly and
privately — as perfectly acceptable. In fact, it seems to be the norm in many
circles — when you listen to conversation at our denominational gatherings and
when you read the blogs, it appears to have become a default reaction for many
of us.
I've personally read and heard harsh comments directed
towards those holding opposing views on the Baptist Faith and Message,
Calvinism, worship styles, "private prayer languages," alcohol, and
various policy decisions in the SBC. Again, these aren't comments about the
views per se; they bleed over to indict those who hold such views. Taking it
one step further, I've even heard damaging comments and read damaging
commentary about a person's past track record in ministry.
But does God view these actions as acceptable? Is such
behavior consistent with God's Word?
New Testament translators have used the word
"slander" to translate several Greek words in several passages —
verses that address this very issue and reveal the Lord's heart on the matter.
Let's consider some of them; I've highlighted the key word in each
passage.
Blasphemia
In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul wrote: All
bitterness, anger and wrath, insult and slander must be removed from
you, along with all wickedness (4:31; see also Colossians 3:8). The Greek
word for "slander" in the passage is blasphemia. We know the word
well — it is where we get the English word "blasphemy," and it was
most commonly used in the New Testament to identify false and offensive
statements about God.
In Classical Greek, it meant "to bring to ill
repute," and "defamation, by which another person is damaged."1
It represented the strongest form of "personal mockery."2 In the New
Testament, when it was directed toward another person rather than God, it
referred to abusive speech that would injure the reputation of another.3
In this specific passage it is identified as
"malicious talk" and "hurtful, injurious speech."4 The
verbal form, blasphemeo, is used in Titus 3:2 in Paul's command to
"slander no one."
In the Ephesians passage, immediately prior to this command
Paul says: No rotten talk should come from your mouth, but only what is good
for the building up of someone in need, in order to give grace to those who
hear. And don't grieve God's Holy Spirit, who sealed you for the day of
redemption (4:29-30). It is obvious that in the context, speaking of a
brother in a disparaging way fell under the category of "rotten talk"
that grieved the Holy Spirit.
When we apply the Lord's command in today's setting, it
requires that we not verbally malign another's character or say things that
would harm his reputation — whether in private conversation or in a public
forum. To do otherwise is to engage in rotten talk that grieves God.
Loidoros
Following his indictment of the brother who was living in
sexual sin, Paul instructed the Corinthians: But now I am writing you not to
associate with anyone who bears the name of brother who is sexually immoral or
greedy, an idolater or a reviler, a drunkard or a swindler. Do not even
eat with such a person (1 Corinthians 5:11).
The word "reviler" is translated in some versions
as "slanderer," and is from the Greek word loidoros. It
referred to a person who hurled verbal abuse intended to "injure someone's
reputation."5 In Classical Greek, the verbal form was used to indicate
insulting and disparaging an opponent in political and social life. According
to Mundle, one of the arts of life for Greeks was "to know how to insult
others."6
According to Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 5, we are
not to associate with Christians who speak harshly of or demean other
Christians — in fact, we are not even to eat with them.
It struck me as I read this passage: if we were to take the
passage seriously, how many of us would be dining alone? In fact, I realized
that I personally could be facing some serious "alone time."
But look at what Paul compares this to in 1 Corinthians
6:9-10: Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit God's kingdom? Do
not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male
prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers,
or swindlers will inherit God's kingdom. It is the same word.
Southern Baptists are known around the world for our stance
against some of these. But Paul places slanderous talk on the same level as
sexual immorality, male prostitution, homosexuality, and more. I doubt that
many of our churches would allow known, practicing adulterers, male
prostitutes, or homosexuals in their pulpits on any given Sunday morning, but
how many allow slanderers in their pulpits regularly?
We condemn and forbid all of these behaviors — except
slander. Slander has become acceptable to us. And the world takes
notice.
Is it any wonder that God has not granted revival?
Katalaleite
In his single epistle, James addressed the matter of
slander when he commanded: Don't criticize one another, brothers. He
who criticizes a brother or judges his brother criticizes the law and judges
the law (4:11). The word for "criticize" is katalaleite, and is
translated in other versions as "slander" or "speaking against."
In this passage, it means "to slander; to speak evil of; to speak against;
to say bad things about a person. It means to criticize, judge, backbite,
gossip, censor, condemn, and grumble against another person."7
The noun form of the word is found in 1 Peter 2:1-2 where
we are commanded to rid ourselves: of all wickedness, all deceit, hypocrisy,
envy, and all slander. Like newborn infants, desire the unadulterated
spiritual milk, so that you may grow by it in your salvation.
Again, speech that is harshly critical of another is
equated with wickedness, deceit, hypocrisy, and envy.
Think back to the last denominational gathering you
attended. Did you hear negative or critical comments directed toward someone —
or even about them in their absence? Did you hear grumbling about
anyone?
Such behavior may be commonplace at such gatherings, but it
offends our God Who has forbidden such behavior.
Diabolous
In Paul's instructions to Titus, he commanded: In the
same way, older women are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers,
not addicted to much wine. They are to teach what is good (2:3). The word
is diabolous, and it refers to a person "who goes about talking about
others, stirring up mischief and disturbance."8 The word may sound
familiar to you. One of Satan's names is "Diabolos," and his name
identifies him as a slanderer.
It is alarming that a practice which is so common within
the Christian community — and even among ministers — is reflective of the very
person and nature of Satan, which, no doubt, pleases him immensely. The
alarming truth is that whenever we voice derogatory, defaming, hurtful, and
insulting comments about a brother, we more closely resemble Satan than
Jesus.
Stop and consider the strategy that is most common among
our government leaders today — to disparage, discredit, and destroy political
opponents — I fear we have unwittingly embraced the world's methodology of
addressing opposing ideas and affecting change. They tear each other apart, so
it must be okay for us to do the same!
Please understand: none of this is to suggest that we
should allow heresy or theological liberalism to return to our Convention, or
to view such threats lightly. But most of the criticisms I've heard in recent
years have not been directed toward those who would challenge our stance on
inerrancy or otherwise erode the core doctrines we hold dear, but rather
towards those who hold historically orthodox and theologically conservative
views!
Certainly, there are times when Christians disagree — but
the greater issue is how we are to address those differences.
Biblical Alternatives
The Bible does not forbid disagreements among brothers —
even Paul and Barnabas had a "sharp disagreement" over Mark (Acts
15:39), and there is no indication that their disagreement was inappropriate.
Nor does it prohibit confrontation — Paul publicly confronted Peter concerning
hypocrisy (Galatians 2:11-21). The question is: What parameters has the Lord
placed around such disagreements and confrontations? Here are some principles
that pertain.
Love
Jesus commanded us to love even our enemies. This does not
mean we must entertain warm, mushy emotions for those with whom we disagree,
but according to the definition of "agape," we are to exercise
a selfless, sacrificial concern for the wellbeing and benefit of our brothers
and sisters. That is totally inconsistent with espousing disdain for our
brothers and sisters. Jesus indicated that the world would know we are His
disciples by our love for — not our contempt for —
each other. Remember, when Jesus knelt down to wash Judas' feet, He utterly
humbled Himself before and gently served the one who would hand Him over to be
crucified. Then He said we are to follow His example.
It is impossible for me to humble myself before and gently
serve a brother while verbally trashing him, publicly or privately.
Furthermore, the Lord said that we cannot rightly claim to
love God and at the same time show hatred toward a brother (1 John 4: 20).
Destroying a brother's reputation through slanderous gossip and accusation is
more consistent with hate than love, and it reveals a tragic failure to
understand God's love — even more it demonstrates genuine lack of love for
God.
No Contempt
When Paul addressed the issue of eating meat that had been
sacrificed to idols, he gave this strong admonition: One person believes he
may eat anything, but one who is weak eats only vegetables. One who eats must
not look down on one who does not eat; and one who does not eat must not
criticize one who does, because God has accepted him. Who are you to criticize
another's servant? Before his own Lord he stands or falls. And stand he will!
For the Lord is able to make him stand. One person considers one day to be
above another day. Someone else considers every day to be the same. Each one
must be fully convinced in his own mind. Whoever observes the day, observes it
to the Lord. Whoever eats, eats to the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; and
whoever does not eat, it is to the Lord that he does not eat, yet he thanks God
(Romans 14:2-6).
As long as there are Southern Baptists, there will be
differing opinions and convictions on various issues. But following the Lord's
admonition through Paul, it is imperative for us to remember that many Southern
Baptists — perhaps even most — with whom we disagree love the Lord deeply and
hold their convictions with deep reverence to the Lord. Furthermore, they
humbly and faithfully serve Him according to those convictions.
Therefore, it is wrong to regard such a brother with
contempt (14:10). If the Lord graciously receives and embraces a servant
who holds a view that differs from mine, and if that servant sincerely believes
that his stance is most consistent with God's Word, and if that servant
believes his stance best reflects and expresses his love for the Lord, how dare
I look down on that brother, much less criticize and demean him before others,
for that stance!
Dr. Morris H. Chapman has repeatedly pointed to Southern
Baptists' consensus on and unity around the Baptist Faith and Message.
The overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists believe that it sufficiently
reflects our understanding of what God's Word says regarding essential issues.
Can't we embrace those who hold such convictions without second guessing their
love for the Lord or commitment to His Word? Dare we demean and criticize
family members whose staunch commitment to their views reflects their love for
their Lord, even if their views vary from ours?
Perhaps their views are flawed — but can any one of us
rightly claim to have reached a level where our own individual view is 100
percent consistent with the Lord's? If not, it makes no sense to look down on —
much less castigate - others with flawed views.
The Manner
What we've seen so far relates to differences in
interpretation or conviction. But what if a brother is truly wrong about
something? What if the situation moves beyond mere differences of opinion
regarding theological and biblical interpretation to matters of propriety? What
if one of the brethren has done or said something that is inappropriate,
perhaps even sinful? The Scriptures give clear guidelines for such a situation,
guidelines that include confrontation, but with strong parameters for such an
occasion.
First, it is clear that such a confrontation should start
as a face-to-face encounter, not a behind-the-back assault. Most of us know
Matthew 18:15-17 quite well. When someone is "in the wrong," the
matter is to be addressed privately first. If there is no suitable resolution,
then a return visit with one or two others is in order. If there still is no
satisfactory resolution, then it is to be brought before the larger body. This
passage does not allow for starting with the larger body first and then working
backward.
How many of us who have complained about a brother's
behavior or view have first gone to that brother in private? How many of us
have then taken it to the next level? The Lord's command does not allow for
"airing our dirty laundry" in public before addressing the situation
in private. And even if it reaches the point where it must become public, it is
not to be in a spirit of mockery or derision, but rather with sober reflection
and caution, watching out for yourselves so you won't be tempted also
(Galatians 6:1).
Next, it is important to remember the goal in such a situation.
It is not to humiliate a brother or "win" in a struggle
against that person. It is restoration of the brother to a right standing and
relationship with the Lord (Galatians 6:1; James 5:19-20). It seems some of us
have become so accustomed to pursuing absolute victory in spiritual and
theological struggles that we have poured our energies and resources into
defeating each other, and in so doing, we have lost sight of the
real enemy. The goal in such situations must not be personal victory over a
brother, but rather restoration of a brother to the right path.
Finally, we must remember that such actions are to be
carried out with a humble and gentle spirit (Galatians 6:1). It is so easy for
us to be harsh in how we treat and speak of our brothers, but Paul said that we
are to treat those who oppose us gently (2 Timothy 2:25). We dare not forget
the Lord's command through Paul: I, therefore, the prisoner in the Lord,
urge you to walk worthy of the calling you have received, with all humility and
gentleness, with patience, accepting one another in love, diligently keeping
the unity of the Spirit with the peace that binds us (Ephesians
4:1-3).
Conclusion
Southern Baptists have always been a diverse lot, which is
consistent with the nature of the Body of Christ. It is not essential that
Southern Baptists agree on every theological, ecclesiastical, or methodological
detail or nuance. The Bible does not command us to be uniform in these areas;
but as the passages above clearly demonstrate, we are forbidden from speaking
in a derogatory manner about each other.
The Bible does, however, command us to love each other the
way Christ loved us (John 15:12). We are commanded to humbly serve each other
as Christ humbled Himself and served His disciples (John 13:14). And we are
further commanded to: Outdo one another in showing honor (Romans
12:10).
Fulfilling these commands would eliminate all instances of
slander within the SBC.
Perhaps it is time for all of us to step back, carefully
and prayerfully re-examine the Scriptures on this matter, review our pattern of
confrontation, repent where necessary (and perhaps even ask forgiveness from
some), and make the necessary changes — so that we would become what the Lord
desires us to become, and so the world would be able to see what the Body of
Christ is suppose to look like.
End of John
Revell’s article.
As you review the
Biblical meanings of “slander” you will see that they are clearly synonymous.
They mean virtually the same thing. As you apply the meaning of slander to Mr. Burleson’s
assertions toward the International
A review of the
meanings of the different Biblical words for “slander” show that “slander” is
an accurate word to use.
Slander is: “to
bring to ill repute”, “defamation, by which another person is damaged”,
“personal mockery”, “abusive speech that would injure the reputation of
another”, “malicious talk”, “hurtful, injurious speech”, “verbal abuse intended
to injure someone’s reputation”, “insulting and disparaging an opponent in
political and social life”, “to speak evil of; to speak against, to say bad
things about a person”, “to criticize, judge, backbite, gossip, censor,
condemn, and grumble against another person”.
Serious Question:
How can we as Christians not acknowledge what God says? He has been very clear
about what slander is, and about what must be done about it.
2. Scriptures regarding slander and gossip
Lord, who may dwell in your sanctuary?
Who may live on your holy hill?
2 He whose walk is blameless
and who does what is righteous,
who speaks the truth from his heart
3 and has no slander on his tongue,
who does his neighbor no wrong
and casts no slur on his fellowman,
Ps 15:1-3
4 Men of perverse heart shall be far from me;
I will have nothing to do with evil.
5 Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret,
him will I put to silence;
whoever has haughty eyes and a proud heart,
him will I not endure.
Ps 101:4-5
11 Let slanderers not be established in the land;
may disaster hunt down men of violence.
Ps 140:11
18 He who conceals his hatred has lying lips,
and whoever spreads slander is a fool.
Prov 10:18
9 With his mouth the godless destroys his neighbor,
but through knowledge the righteous escape.
Prov 11:9
13 An evil man is trapped by his sinful talk,
but a righteous man escapes trouble.
Prov 12:13
27 A scoundrel plots evil,
and his speech is like a scorching fire.
28 A perverse man stirs up dissension,
and a gossip separates close friends.
Prov 16:27-28
19 A gossip betrays a confidence;
so avoid a man who talks too much.
Prov 20:19
20 Without wood a fire goes out;
without gossip a quarrel dies down.
21 As charcoal to embers and as wood to fire,
so is a quarrelsome man for kindling strife.
22 The words of a gossip are like choice morsels;
they go down to a man's inmost parts.
23 Like a coating of glaze over earthenware
are fervent lips with an evil heart.
24 A malicious man disguises himself with his lips,
but in his heart he harbors deceit.
25 Though his speech is charming, do not believe him,
for seven abominations fill his heart.
26 His malice may be concealed by deception,
but his wickedness will be exposed in the assembly.
Prov 26:20-26
9 Then you will call, and the Lord will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.
"If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,
Isa 58:9
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
Matt 15:18-19
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Rom 1:29-32
11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
1 Cor 5:11-13
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the
1 Cor 6:9-10
20 For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder.
2 Cor 12:20
29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
Eph 4:29-32
8 But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.
11 In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
1 Tim 3:11
13 Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. 14 So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. 15 Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.
1 Tim 5:13-15
3 If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
1 Tim 6:3-5
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.
2 Tim 3:1-5
Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2 to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
Titus 3:1-2
11 Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you — who are you to judge your neighbor?
James 4:11-12
9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. 10 So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.
3 John 9-10
3. Copy of the Motion of January 2006
I move that the trustees request the Southern Baptist Convention remove Wade Burleson from the International Mission Board as soon as possible;
That the trustees reprimand him for gossip and slander that hurts the work of the board;
That the Chairman make public the nature of the reprimand in the manner of the chairman’s choosing;
And that Mr. Burleson be removed from all trustee committees until such time as the Southern Baptist Convention rules.
Motion carried by a 2/3 majority vote.
End of
Motion.
In January of 2006
Mr. Burleson was reprimanded for gossip and slander that hurts the work of the
Board. The reprimand had no effect except to make the reprimand itself an
occasion to disparage the Board.
There was no response
remotely resembling the confession of sin nor repentance, nor is there to this
day. The reprimand was in effect for two months.
While the Board of
Trustees rescinded the motion of January in March of that year; they did so in
an effort to cooperate with the intercession of Dr. Morris Chapman on Mr.
Burleson’s behalf, in the name of the Executive Committee of the Southern
Baptist Convention. We did so in the hope that adopting a set of guidelines (below)
would prevent the disparagement of the Board by anyone who was a trustee of the
Board. We rescinded the motion in an effort to spare the national Convention a
public scandal. Now we have a growing public scandal that is many times larger
with much greater momentum.
4. Excerpts from the Trustee Responsibilities adopted in March of 2006.
General Trustee
Responsibilities
3. Trustees are to interpret international missions in their sphere of influence in the denomination- home, local church, association, state convention, and SBC, as an informed, enthusiastic advocate of global missions. In this respect, trustees are to speak in positive and supportive terms as they interpret and report on actions by the Board, regardless of whether they personally support the action.
6. Trustees are to exemplify what it means to be Christ-like in decorum and sincerely committed to the Southern Baptist cooperative missions tasks. In this respect, trustees are to speak the truth in love. Trustees are to refrain from speaking in disparaging terms about IMB personnel and fellow trustees.
Trustee Standards of
Conduct
Individual trustees elected to the Board by the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention should conduct their official and personal affairs in a way that not only contributes to the mission of the IMB but points others to Jesus Christ as the Lord of All.
- Individual IMB trustees must refrain from public criticism of Board approved actions. Experience has shown that it is not possible to draw fine lines in this area. Freedom of expression must give way to the imperative that the work of the Kingdom not be placed at risk by publicly airing differences within the Board.
7. Whenever among individual trustees differences arise that threaten or cause damage to mutual trust and the ability to work together in a cooperative spirit, they shall follow the Biblical process for seeking resolution of such differences and make resolution of such differences their first priority.
Trustee Disciplinary Action
Reports of alleged violations of these standards will be referred initially to the Board’s General Counsel for preliminary review and advice as to whether there is probable cause to refer the matter to the Chairman of the Board for further action.
Depending on the circumstances, appropriate actions could include referral to the IMB Executive Committee (General Policy 1100-10) for investigation. When the facts are well known, the matter may be brought to the floor of a called meeting of the Board with a motion to censure the violating trustee or trustees, or suspend their active involvement with the Board, or to take the final action of removal from the Board by action of the SBC. All steps of discipline are to follow the pattern of Matthew 18:15-17 and 1 Timothy 5:19-20.
End of Trustee Responsibilities excerpts.
A casual reading of our own adopted guideline should make it extremely
clear that they have had little or no effect on Mr. Burleson’s propensity for
slander and gossip. He is, and has been continually, in complete violation of
this code of conduct.
Serious Question: What does this say about our integrity as a Board?
5.
|
|
|||||
|
End of
Hatley-Burleson Transcript
The transcript above
calls attention to only a few of Mr. Burleson’s past slanderous statements.
Among those listed above are the following:
“Conservatives who
love the battles of decades past have fallen victim to a crusading mentality of
blood thirst. Since all the liberals are gone, conservative crusaders are now
killing fellow conservatives. A clear understanding of how this war is
proceeding may be seen in the recent actions of the International
“Why have some
conservative crusaders now insisted on new policies at the IMB regarding
tongues? Again, it seems clear to me that some conservative crusaders have yet
to learn how to sheath the sword, and rather than cooperate with fellow
conservatives in reaching the world with the gospel of Jesus Christ, they have
gone after the head of Dr. Jerry Rankin.”
“(These crusaders),
refuse cooperation in favor of conformity, and I really think it is because
they have forgotten how to minister in the power of the Spirit through prayer,
humility and cooperation.”
“(Regarding the board
of trustees), They might be guilty of shortsightedness, lack of wisdom, or may
simply be clueless,…”
Serious Question: How
can any Christian in fellowship with the Holy Spirit refuse to acknowledge that
the above statements are clearly slanderous?
In the comment stream
below (Neo-pentecostal practices and Clear Baptist Identity), toward the end,
Mr. Burleson presents himself as a Trustee who is not under censure by the
Board. This is one of many of his misrepresentations of the Board of Trustees.
In other places he presents himself as a trustee who is in harmonious
relationship with the Board. Because of Board silence on this issue, his
testimony is accepted.
I include (in the
total, very long letter) the entire conversation for two reasons. Mr. Burleson
repeatedly misquotes me and partially quotes me, slanders me by name, and
subjects me to public, international gossip and slander; and has done so many,
many times. If I do not include the entire context, I could be accused of
taking his words out of context. Do you know that I am reduced to the absolute
necessity of carrying a portable recording device with me at every meeting so
that I can, perhaps, defend myself? Another reason that I must do so is that
the Board will not act on the clear Word of God, nor on its own guidelines
regarding disparaging one another. Perhaps that will change soon.
6.
Post a Comment On: Love
Each Stone
68 Comments -
Collapse
comments
Debbie said...
David:
I know you know this, but I stress how hard I am praying that you do not have
to do this. Men such as yourselves are sorely needed and the SBC and IMB will
definitely be the loser in this possible win/lose situation.
R. L. Vaughn said...
I
applaud your integrity in placing your "doctrinal compatibility...up for
scrutiny of those who pay [your] salary." Whatever system one chooses to
work in, he should be open within it.
You mentioned that your and Wade's communion position is "modified open
communion". This has probably been discussed on other blogs, but would you
mind defining it for me? To me, open communion is "open" to all Christians,
but not open to unbelievers. In what sense do you all modify this? Thanks.
Les Puryear said...
David,
How are you supposed to plant churches with a "clear Baptist
identity" if you don't know what that means? Whose "clear Baptist
identity" does Dr. Corbaley mean? The clear baptist identity of
Landmarkism? Arminianism? Calvinism? Open communionists? Closed communionists?
Deacon-led? Elder-led? The list could go on and on.
Like you, I'm having a hard time understanding why an IMB trustee is unwilling
to define the meaning of that phrase and any other term you wish defined within
the context of his remarks.
Les
David Rogers said...
R.L.,
Thanks for your question.
In general, I believe Nathan Finn has done a good job on the post I link to
above defining "modified open communion" as: "the belief that
any professing Christian who has undergone some type of ceremony called
“baptism” (regardless of mode) may participate in communion."
On the comment string on Nathan's post, I made the following comment which
helps to further describe my personal position:
"I think the term “modified” open communion best describes my belief, but
not the description you give of it.
Upon presiding the Lord’s Supper, I would normally:
1. Explain that, as a Baptist church, we believe that biblical baptism is for
believers and by immersion.
2. Explain that, at the same time, we understand there are other Christian
groups who study the Bible seriously and come to other conclusions.
3. Explain that, we also believe the Lord’s Supper is a time for believers to
examine themselves, to see if they have any unconfessed sin in their lives; and
if so, to make it right with God, or with the one they have wronged, before
participating.
4. Invite everyone who is truly a born again believer, and who, after examining
themselves to see if they have any unconfessed sin in their life (including the
sin of disobedience regarding the Lord’s command to be baptized), determine
they have confessed and repented of all known sin, and/ or are not currently
under discipline from their local congregation banning them from participation,
to participate in the Lord’s Supper."
In regards to Wade, he will have to speak more specifically for himself on this
one. I am not sure whether or not his view is exactly the same as mine.
Steve
Sensenig said...
David,
Reading this stuff hurts. I feel like I can see your heart in this, and I can't
understand why someone would brush your questions aside.
Quite honestly, the responses of Mr. Corbaley to your honest questions is very
troubling to me.
Now, I'm not a Baptist, and so therefore not a Southern Baptist, so my opinion
doesn't mean anything to people like Mr. Corbaley.
But as your brother in Christ, I just want to let you know that I affirm your
questions and the spirit with which you seem to be asking them. The questions
are necessary.
And may I say, as a non-Baptist, and specifically as a charismatic, I find it
personally offensive that Mr. Corbaley would insinuate that you should stand in
opposition to me, should we ever be ministering in the same geographical area.
The New Testament has some pretty strong words for those who cause division in
the body, and I find it impossible to see Mr. Corbaley's stance as anything but
divisive.
My prayers are with you, brother. And should this reach a point where you have
to withdraw from your agency's support, I have full confidence that our God
will supply all of your needs.
May the Lord bless you for what you are doing to promote unity in the body of
Christ. And may your tribe increase. I, for one, am very proud to be your
brother in the Lord.
CHRIS HILLIARD said...
Dave,
You won't have to do this if we all speak up and let our voice be heard.
Jonathan said...
David,
I think my sentiments are similar to Steve Sensenig's here. I am also appauled
at this arrogance behind the "clear Baptist identity" concept.
Although I am not a Baptist, to me, such a concept of "Baptist
identity" flies in the face of the Scriptures that clearly teach that as
Christians, our identity is in Christ, and not in a denomination.
David Rogers said...
Debbie,
Chris, et al.,
Lest anyone misunderstand, and claim I am being overly alarmist here, let me
make cleaer I do not know of any move whatsoever by anyone to remove me from my
missionary responsibilities. The things I say here are purely hypothetical, and
merely pointing out the logical implications of some of the things being said
by some.
David Rogers said...
Also,
let me say in Dr. Corbaley's defense that he has been very gracious in his
acknowledgement that his assumptions were wrong regarding the views of Southern
Baptists on PPL, as evidenced by the Lifeway study. I also believe he sincerely
wants to do what is right, and what leads to unity in the Body of Christ. He
just has some different ideas than I do regarding the best means to work
towards this end.
Paul said...
David,
one has to wonder if Christ Himself (by the Holy Spirit) is blurring the
distinctions between Bible-believers in these last days and reasserting His
Lordship over all of His Church, reminding us that He commanded us to love each
other.
The shame is that some (in all denominations) are seeing this is a hostile
takeover.:)
BTW, I also believe the lines are being blurred among the apostates. In my
eschatology (which I hold lightly), there seems to be one false 'church' and
one true Church (not 1000 true churches)in the Book of Revelation, but maybe
I'm misreading the Johannite canonical genre.:)
Kevin Peacock said...
The
same Lord who stated the importance of every jot and tittle of God's law (Matt
5:17-19) also chided the religious leaders because they did not keep "the
weightier provisions of the law" (Matt 23:23). In other words, even though
all of God's word is important, some things in God's word are more important
than others.
Is it being unbiblical in our belief or unbaptistic in our practice to believe
that in certain weighty matters we must be in agreement to cooperate, but in
other less weighty issues total agreement is not necessary? Is it possible that
even within the BFM2000 certain matters might be "weightier" than
others?
Paul said...
Oops,
so sorry, David. I meant corpus, not genre.
That's what I get for doing the blog thing before rushing out the door while on
"vacation."
Now, I need to get back to defining our own ever-blurring denominational
identity, with its nearly ubiquitous neo-baptist and neo-reformed practices.
Some are purpose-driven; others are just paying/following the pious Piper.
Tim Patterson said...
David,
What is sad to me is how our leaders can be so out of touch with reality...
sticking their heads in the sand of their cultural doctrine. Younger generation
Baptists across the
I am not opposed to identifying with a denomination, if it is for the purpose
of cooperating to expand God's kingdom (mission). When it becomes a religious
sect more concerned with protecting a set of rules... that is when it loses
it's purpose for existing.
R. L. Vaughn said...
David,
thanks for defining "modified open communion" and explaining how you
practice it. That is an unusual view that I have not run across until now.
Strider said...
I
don't really have anything to add to what others have said well except that I
am with you brother. We work under the command of the King to labor on behalf
of His Kingdom. To do less is idolatry. People in darkness are seeing much
light thanks to Southern Baptists and I do not believe that SB's want that to
stop. I will not make baptist identity an issue here in Middle Earth where I am
working. I will teach the truth that Baptists have taught me. End of story.
Alan Cross said...
David,
I agree with you 100% on this as I was involved in much of your discussion with
Dr. Corbaley. I also applaud him for his acknowledgment of being wrong on the
95% issue, although in his latest post, it seems as though he is trying to
co-opt the PPL survey and say that it say the same thing that the IMB BoT said
in their guidelines. Or, am I misreading him there?
I also struggle with the close(d) communion concept as I cannot find that in
Scripture. We practice closed communion with children of church members, but we
allow visitors and non-members from other groups who have expressed faith in
Christ to participate. I am currently thinking through this, however, as I want
to line up with what Scripture says. But, if the BF&M2000 teaches this and
I am in disagreement, then I am fine with being denied missionary service or
other positions. Baptists have spoken through their confession of faith. No
problem there. Because churches are autonomous, we are given some leeway,
although I am not convinced that my view is out of step with the Baptist
majority. Almost every church that I know of practices communion the way that
we do. But, still, I would submit.
But, on that, I am open to learning more and need to study the issue more. Only
recently have I realized that I seem to have a difference here.
Debbie said...
David:
I realize this and was speaking in terms of if you felt you had to leave. Hope
that clarifies.
Comment deleted
This
post has been removed by the author.
Jerry Corbaley said...
Dear
Brother David,
The blogosphere has brought about many changes. One of those changes is the
opportunity for missionaries and trustees to publicly interact. This public
interaction is so rapid, that the phenomenon is somewhat outside of current IMB
precedent. For the most part, I think this interaction is good. It shows much
promise.
Nevertheless, we are both voluntarily responsible to the IMB also. This
relationship to the IMB has tempered all of my responses to you within the
blogosphere.
We are both aware that you are, currently, the most out-spoken critic of the
Board of Trustees from within the ranks of those employed with the IMB.
You still speak highly of the IMB administration. You have stated that you have
not been contacted through this administration regarding the nature of your
blogging comments, yet you are aware of that possibility. I think your
perception is valid.
Might I suggest, as a Christian brother, that you pro-actively contact your
Regional Leader and discuss the issue with him? I am sure he would appreciate
such consideration and respect on your part.
For my part, while I am a trustee on the IMB, I have not offered my opinion
regarding your criticisms to any other trustee, nor to any member of the IMB
administration. I have no plans, nor preference to do so.
However, I would like to ask you plainly; “Is this something you want me to
do?”
Within the blogosphere all statements can be challenged very directly. That is
the nature of the venue. I accept that.
Yet I am compelled by conscience, because of our particular relationship within
the IMB, to hold back in challenging the methods and content of some of your
assertions. That is fine as of today.
As for the future, I find such a choice intolerable.
Please immediately contact your Regional Leader and discuss your need to
criticize the IMBoT publicly. That is my strong preference. I think he would
concur.
Or, please ask me directly to contact the trustees and ask the proper
subcommittee to consider your criticism of the Board of Trustees. I will not
choose to “rat you out”. Nor do I particularly look forward to the public
accusations that will come my way should you outright ask me to contact the
trustees. If you want it to happen this way, and have me involved in it, you
will have to ask me directly.
I will not insult your sincerity and integrity by asking you to stop
criticizing the Board of Trustees. That is your choice.
If you wish to continue “engaging me” in the blogosphere, you must agree to
endure the consequences of our very public interaction. It can be no other way
in this venue. This is not a declaration that I am going to seek you out.
Rather it is an appeal for you to be accountable to the administration you have
expressed confidence in. This is also a very polite statement, that your
statements and choices, can be directly challenged also. I pledge to do so
lovingly, as considerately as I can, and humbly enough that I can spot and
confess my own sin. I am confident that you would do the same.
I will not abandon the field of the public exchange of ideas. And since you
regularly seek me out, I will not continue at a disadvantage.
I regret the need to even post this comment.
We remain brothers in Christ.
Jerry Corbaley said...
I
just read Baptist Press.
Congratulations on your impending nomination as 1st Vice President of the SBC.
I did not realize you were a part of the political machine.
Obviously, I have been useful to you.
As the Lord wills.
My comment to you remains.
Jerry Corbaley said...
Hear
this from all the objectivity I can manage in the midst of some very real pain.
I could not believe this post was aimed at me personally. I couldn't.
I had no idea how coldly impersonal your calculation was.
Your integrity, Sir, is suspect.
Rick said...
Mr.
Rogers,
I don't think the IMB trustee was advocating that we as IMB missionaries need
to seek out pentecostals and challenge their practice of speaking in tongues.
I understood what he said to mean that there is always the possibility that
pentecostal practices such as tongues, or slaying in the spirit will creep into
churches, outreach groups or Bible studies that IMB missionaries are starting.
If this is the case then I think we do have the responsibility as IMB
missionaries to counter these practices with biblical truth in our churches.
If there has ever been any practice that has divided more churches in the
evangelical world it is the practice of speaking in tongues and if this is
practiced in Baptist churches that we start, it will divide them as well.
God bless,
Rick
www.byhisgrace.cc/martinez
David Rogers said...
Jerry,
Although I can see how you may take the things I say in this post as an attack
against you personally, let me assure you that was not my intention. I did see
the comments I quoted directly from Robin's blog as an opportunity to
illustrate a point about something on which I believe deeply.
I am sorry this has caused you pain. I wish there were something I could do to
help alleviate that. I cannot change the views I express here without violating
my conscience. However, if you would prefer I do so, I am willing to remove
this post in honor of your desire. Just let me know, and I will proceed
accordingly.
As far as the rest of the things I have written on this blog, I have written
them in good conscience, in the sight of all, and before God.
However, James reminds us: "We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is
never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole
body in check."
Certainly, among all the words I have posted here, there are some I could have
said with more love, or more in line with biblical truth.
If anyone at the IMB wants to call me to account for any of these things, I
will be willing to listen to what they have to say, and rectify and repent, if
I can be shown that to be necessary. If the expression of my opinions on these
issues that I do not feel I should change causes me to expose myself to
consequences related to my employment, I will have to cross that bridge, with
the grace God affords me, at whatever time that may happen to come.
Jerry Corbaley said...
The
issue, Sir, is not my pain. Pain passes away.
The removal of this post or this string of comments would be taken by me as a
lack of integrity on your part.
The issue is: That you have challenged the integrity of the International
Mission Board repeatedly over the last several days knowing that it would
increase your stature among those who are inflammed at the International
Mission Board, and increase the chances of your election.
You did so while you were an employee of that Board, and you didn't even bother
to check with the administration of the IMB regarding such an ethical conflict
of interest.
I was just a means to an end. And frankly, I don't matter.
Comment deleted
This
post has been removed by the author.
Debbie said...
Congratulations
David on your nomination. I am surprised by Dr. Corbalay's statements and
strong response. Especially considering the fact that his exchange with you was
quite sincere on both sides and public. I'm very surprised that he thought you
are part of a political machine and from what I understood him to say using
him. I must say I am reading with my eyes widening with each word.
David Rogers said...
Jerry,
I promise you that when I posted this post I had no idea whatsoever I would be
contacted the next day, and asked if I would be willing to let myself be
nominated.
Jerry Corbaley said...
David,
The date of this post is June 4th.
In the
Are you actually saying you were contacted to be a nominee today?
David Rogers said...
Jerry,
You caught my mistake. I posted this on Monday morning (
Jerry Corbaley said...
So
now you were contacted the same day?
Wow.
Jerry Corbaley said...
I use
the word "promise" differently.
bryan
riley said...
It's
after midnight and I haven't read all the post, let alone the comments, but
what I read disturbed me. Perhaps I should exercise wisdom and just go to sleep
and wait till I read the entirety of this, but when I read all the comment
about clear baptist identity all i could think is that if the IMB is about
converting the world to a clear baptist identity, i don't think it is worth
supporting.
On a positive note, I was excited to read about your nomination today. Thank
you for focusing on Jesus and representing Him well.
Strider said...
David,
Do you think this means that Jerry wont be voting for you?
Jerry, Asking you a direct question is not questioning the boards integrity.
Accusing David of using you is questioning his integrity.
Bart Barber said...
If I
read Jerry correctly, here's what he's saying:
Jerry has been abiding by some sort of honor code he perceives to be binding
upon him as an IMB trustee that prevents him from fully engaging in vigorous
online debate with David.
David, it seems to Jerry, is not abiding by the same honor code, but is
directly critiquing Jerry's online statements without reservation.
Jerry wants David to consult with the IMB administration through his RL, or for
Jerry to consult with the other trustees toward this end: Either that David is
encouraged to end the online engagement or Jerry is freed to participate in it
with parity.
That, if I read correctly, is the original point that Jerry is making. Am I
right, Jerry? If so, do you have a preferred solution, David?
Jerry Corbaley said...
Bart,
You are correct, though it is considerably more serious than an honor code.
I am praying that David will proactively clear this up with his Regional
Leader.
Regarding his nomination, my congratulations are genuine. I will not be
attending
Jerry Corbaley said...
Strider,
You are correct, I am directly challenging his integrity.
Read what I have said again, above.
I hope he deals with this issue while it is still semi-private in the comment
stream of his own blog.
As to whether or not David is treating me with integrity? If we were not both
members of the IMB, I would not be rebuking him. I would have no problem with
it. But there are other considerations that he has admitted may exist, and not
yet dealt with.
By the way, Strider, I appreciated the way you never took serious credit when
you helped Gondor (as Thorondor?) against the corsairs of Umbar when Denethor
was either a child, or not even born yet.
Let me be serious again. Is Baptist Identity something you really don't care
about? How do expect Baptists to support the planting of generic churches? Are
there no distinctives that you hold as important? Has David's perspective
influenced you? Is he right in his opinion of the IMBoT?
David Rogers said...
Jerry,
I am sorry. I truly do not understand. Are you saying that I am challenging the
integrity of the IMB because I have expressed disagreement with the new
guidelines on my blog, and given my reasons for this disagreement? Or is it
something else beyond this?
Bryan
Riley said...
There
is only one identity to stand for, to live for, to exist for and that is Jesus
the Christ. I simply do not understand why, other than the fact that we are in
a spiritual war, anyone feels they must stand for something less than that.
How is standing so uprightly on a lesser identity any different than what
Luther protested? How is it right, ever, to cause division over something that
is not Jesus, and Jesus crucified? Have you ever done a word study in the bible
on unity, relationship, divisions, dissensions? Are we preachign the gospel of
the Kingdom or the gospel of the baptist church? If it is the baptist church, then
I say you are in gross error.
Jerry Corbaley said...
Brother
David,
Will you contact your Regional Leader regarding my concerns above?
Please?
I beg you.
Regarding my rising level of concerns in this comment string; perhaps you could
have your son explain them to you.
You lead the SBC blogging world in using the phrase "I'm sorry, I don't
understand".
Comment deleted
This
post has been removed by the author.
Debbie said...
Dr.
Corbaley: To question David Rogers' integrity is incomprehensible and the last
couple of posts almost intolerable for me to read especially after David's gracious
responses.
Jerry Corbaley said...
Bryan
and Debbie,
I am not ignoring you. Nor will I ignore other questions and responses.
First thing first.
Will David show his Regional Leader the respect and consideration that should
be normal for Christians?
Strider said...
Jerry,
I hesitate to address your question to me when you are clearly dealing with something
between you and David that I don't understand.
But since you credited Strider so much for his past humility I will take the
bate:) By the way, this Strider is not a particularly humble or good person but
if you have ever been over to my blog you will see that I just tell the story
of what God is doing and leave politics etc to others. I think David does a
good job of expressing many of my own and other's concerns.
As to your question: I already answered it. You asked if I did not value my
Baptist distinctives and Brother, I already said that I teach what Baptists
have taught me. Period. Honestly Jerry, I feel that I have been slapped in the
face by the controversy over the last year. These policies, Kieth Eitel's white
paper calling us Theological novices, and even the board's latest revisions to
the policies shout out to me that the Board does not trust us, that you have no
confidence in us. Have I taught anything unbaptist? Have I let you down? Who
has? We are working hard out here in difficult places and seeing God move in
miraculous ways and what I get from you when I read any of your comments is
that we are some kind of renegade pentacostals who can't wait to thumb our
noses at the SBC. I know that is not your intent- I keep telling myself that-
but it is what keeps coming across. This very post was an honest question from
David trying to get you or anyone else out there to tell us hey guys! Go share
the good news of Christ, we are all behind you! But I ain't heard this yet.
David Rogers said...
Jerry,
First off, thanks for the wonderful phone conversation we were just able to
have. It is good to know that we can forgive each other, and continue on loving
each other as brothers in Christ.
Also, I just wanted to acknowledge publicly here that I have talked to my
Regional Leader about the concerns you mention.
Blessings in Christ,
David
Wade Burleson said...
Mr.
Corbaley,
I would request, respectfully and courteously, that you be very, very careful
what you write.
I would hate for you to cross the line, and it seems to me you may (and I
emphasize the word 'may') be very close. I am choosing to believe you are not
threatening someone's job with the IMB, but you can rest assured if I find out
different, you will hear from me.
Jerry Corbaley said...
David,
and All,
David and I have talked together at some length. The conversation was good for
both of us. All of my concerns above are laid to rest. David is the man of
integrity that I have known, and look forward to knowing better in the future.
It is my hope that David continue to interactively blog with Southern Baptists
and especially so if he is elected as 1st Vice President of the convention.
I am a trustee of the IMB. When the integrity of the IMBoT is frequently called
into question, my name is often associated with such an assertion. I accept
that. As the only IMB trustee who is blogging from the perspective of trusting
the IMBoT; I often encounter accusations that I attempt to deal with in a faithful
and open manner. David has done the same, and I trust him even more for it.
As an IMB trustee who blogs, I am very concerned that I not cross any ethical
lines that would result in bringing censure toward me from either the IMBoT, or
the IMB Richmond Staff. That is a major part of my motive regarding an open
discussion between David and his Regional Leader. Not only did I not ask David
what his Regional Leader said; but I told him quickly that I did not need to
know. Ask David.
The Board of Trustees are one of my accountability groups. I respect their
decisions. I proactively have sought their opinions, and the opinions of
Richmond Staff, regarding the nature of my blogging on a regular basis. I have
never been rebuked once. If anything, some of them are annoyed with me for the
sheer number of times that I have submitted myself to their judgment. To me,
this seems like basic Christian cooperation.
I am unaware of whether or not Mr. Burleson will remain under IMB censure
during the third consecutive year of his tenure. I would encourage him to be
pro-active in restoring his relationship with the Board of Trustees and
Richmond Staff. His current threat(while courteous), that I not threaten
brother David, is totally unnecessary. Ask David.
Jerry Corbaley said...
There is no doubt that being a Christian over-powers all human priorities.
Should the SBC cease to exist, Jesus would go right on building his church, and
you and I would find opportunities to serve him.
The recent release of the Lifeway poll has so surprized me, that I am
rethinking my concepts of "clear Baptist identity". Perhaps the
phrase can no longer be used for the SBC.
And the consequences of having no clear Baptist identity are many. Can I have
some time?
Comment deleted
This
post has been removed by the author.
Jerry Corbaley said...
Sister
Debbie,
I deeply regret the difficulties you are enduring. I am most impressed with
"how" you are reacting.
I hope my previous comment sheds the light you wanted on your questions.
There are other ethical considerations than those between a trustee of the IMB
(me) and a missionary/employee (David).
If I am correct, you are a member of Pastor Burleson's congregation. As such, I
am most unwilling to come between a shepherd and his flock. It is not my
business.
This means that I choose not to address any questions you may have regarding
Pastor Burleson and myself.
If, in the past, I have spoken directly to any member of Pastor Burleson's
congregation in a way that is inappropriate, then I apologize. I will not
knowingly do so.
Wade Burleson said...
Mr.
Corbaley,
Thank you for clarifying you that you were not making threats to David. I chose
to assume you were not, but your words were open for misinterpretation.
By the way, it seems that you are also confused. Not only am I not under
censure of the IMB board, I am a fully participating board participating in
every general session, forum and meeting of the full board, and have been from
day one.
You may just have your facts wrong, similar to 95% figure you gave about the
number of SBC churches and pastors who allegedly believed your particular interpretation
of the gifts.
:)
Blessings, and again, thanks for the clarification.
Wade
Jerry Corbaley said...
Brother
Strider,
Southern Baptist missionaries are doing a magnificent job! You have forsaken
the temptations toward wealth, power and pleasure in the
I have posted before, and am happy to do so again; that our missionaries have a
lower doctrinal failure rate than the pastoral staffs of any of our state or
regional conventions. Our missionaries have a lower rate of moral failure than
the pastoral staffs of any of our state and regional conventions. This is
direct evidence of the faithfulness of our missionaries.
While I regret organizational-wide controversy, it is inherently Biblical. The
Old and New Testaments are compilations of controversy. This is what sin does
to a world.
Nevertheless Jesus is building his church. Through Christians of many differing
organizations, and no organization, the response of the multitudes toward Jesus
Christ is several hundred times greater today than at Pentecost. This is all
very real, and recognized by the IMBoT.
Though we are accused of being political pawns or plants, the IMBoT is composed
of proven Christian leaders from all over the
Our mission is to provide our missionaries with the best training,
encouragement, and material and spiritual support that we possibly can. We do
that at personal sacrifice. The trustees are all volunteers, many (most?) of
which are not, yet, retired.
We also have to attempt to understand, build trust with, and cooperation
amongst, an increasingly diversified, radically independent convention composed
of believers who live in one of the most decadent civilizations to ever pollute
the planet.
The grace of Jesus Christ astounds me.
I believe these things with all my heart.
Perhaps the reason I appear to be insinuating that the IMBoT is just interested
in stateside controversy is because I throw myself in front of accusations
against the IMB. The context of such blogging conversations is most often
negative in the blogosphere.
I don't get asked much what is going right. Thanks.
Jerry Corbaley said...
If
I'm wrong, and you are not under censure; then I have publicly disparaged you.
Since I further attest to the honesty of my statement regarding your censure;
you now have my encouragement to accuse me of lying about you to the IMBoT and
Richmond Senior Staff.
This will enable you to either pursue the Lord's direction in Matthew 18:15, or
take my statement directly to the IMB Executive Committee, or directly to the
Forum, or even the Plenary Session. You have my cooperation in any one of those
venues.
If my statement was in any way untrue, I would certainly be rebuked.
I suppose you could also declare your forgiveness toward me and then refuse to
take any other action. While forgiveness is proper, the refusal to do anything
about continuing sin is a dodge.
Change of subject.
From a purely political point of view. How much public attention do you want to
bring to this comment stream, since David is your preferred candidate? There
are a lot of things written in this stream.
Out of respect for David, I did not post my first comment as an article on my
own blog.
Out of respect for David, is this a good comment stream for you to attempt to
"engage" me?
How long do you think a public confrontation between you and I would remain
semi-private?
Do you think any folks from the press are reading it right now?
Wade Burleson said...
Jerry,
I've learned a long time ago to forgive people freely!
Also, I would be thrilled for people to read this post and comment string.
I think it shows the heart of David Rogers. He is a man of principle and
conviction, gracious under fire, and the kind of leader we need.
Blessings,
Wade
Strider said...
Jerry,
Thank you very much for your postiive answer.
Wade, thank you for always standing up for David, myself, and any whom you feel
are under attack.
Jerry and Wade, I realize (especially with the LifeWay poll that clarly
demonstrates how polarized we are) that your voluntary jobs at the IMB BoT are
very difficult. Representing our work to a great convention of Baptists could
not be easy. I think that the controversy over the past year has been self-inflicted
and that these issues should never have been raised by the board- but
fortunately for you I am not your judge and I am sure that I could not do
better.
So, here is a challenge for both of you. For everything you write that is
controversial and will reflect badly on us and our work please write something
positive that is happening on the field as well. It should be easy to do but
will you both do it?
Steve
Sensenig said...
I
must speak honestly and say that this comment thread has reflected quite
negatively on the SBC and IMB.
I have said before that I am not a Baptist, and even more specifically not a
Southern Baptist. The SBC is nothing foreign to me, however, as I have some
very dear friends in the SBC (I count David Rogers as one of those, even though
our friendship has not yet had the pleasure of including face-to-face
fellowship). And I have been involved in various levels of ministry within SBC
churches in the past.
When the IMB first brought forth their guidelines regarding PPL and
"tongues", I was a bit saddened. As one who believes in, embraces,
and practices PPL, it is always saddening to recognize that a portion of the
body of Christ is willing to say, "That's fine, just as long as you don't
expect to ever work with us."
I am glad that David and Jerry have had a chance to talk offline and overcome
some of the hurdles of this particular conversation, but the comments that have
been made toward David were still extremely uncalled for, and shocking for me
to read.
And in following the link on Jerry's name to his profile, I read comments on
his blog in which he continued to question David's motives and brush aside
David's concerns and obligations.
Most surprising was when I came across a
statement that Jerry made on his own blog back in November:
I have decided not to trust the
opinions of those who are rude, mean, proud and prone to cast doubt toward the motives of
others.
(emphasis mine)
Contrast this to the statement above in this comment stream, wherein he said of
David:
Your integrity, Sir, is
suspect.
and then, again:
The issue is: That you have challenged
the integrity of the International Mission Board repeatedly over the last
several days knowing
that it would increase your stature among those who are inflammed at the
International Mission Board, and increase the chances of your election.
(emphasis mine)
I fail to see how that is anything but "cast[ing] doubt toward the
motives" of David.
And now, we see the same type of insinuations cast toward Wade Burleson.
Perhaps the fact that I'm not a Baptist means that you think I should stay out
of this. However, as a member of the body of Christ, I think my opinion is
valid in this.
And I think that you should at least know what this looks like to folks outside
the SBC.
Frankly, it makes me glad I'm not in the SBC. And that's a very sad thing to
have to say.
Comment deleted
This
post has been removed by the author.
Jerry Corbaley said...
Hello
Steve,
I regret that this comment string has reflected poorly on the SBC.
I trust your judgment on that. When controversial issues are discussed,
sometimes names become involved, then there is also the temptation to take the
discussion personally. I was tempted that way. I took my concern directly to
David Rogers. My concern with David Roger's integrity was unfounded.
David and I did not overcome "some" of the hurdles, but
"all" of the hurdles. I now trust him more than I ever have. We will
still disagree on some issues. I accept that and he accepts that.
The blogosphere is subject to very direct questions. The issues between many of
us are quite complex and far reaching. This is not an excuse, it is an
observation. Like all of us, I will continue to try and be loving, and
hopefully, continue to improve.
For me, the issues in this comment string regarding David are resolved. If he
wishes to delete the string of comments, or only my comments, then that is fine
by me. However, I am willing to answer for what I have said to the IMB, and so
I will not remove what the IMB (or David's Regional Leader) will need should
they decide to evaluate what I have done.
Should you wish to email me, please do so. We could talk on the phone if you
wish. I do care what you think. corbaley@sbcglobal.net
Jerry Corbaley said...
Strider,
I will very seriously consider what you recommend. The more I think about it
the more I like it.
Thanks.
Jerry Corbaley said...
David,
Again, I appreciate your candid and cooperative response to my concerns; both
on your blog, and in our conversation. I do hope you continue to express
yourself as the Lord leads. Obviously, we still disagree on some issues, but
your integrity is not one of them.
Would you consider Strider's suggestion to me about attempting to post
something "positive" once in awhile? Would you consider posting an
occasional personal, positive, appreciation for the IMBoT? You speak well of
the SBC, IMB administration, and fellow missionaries, and I agree with you
completely.
I cannot remember you ever, anywhere, speaking of the IMBoT in a positive
sense. But that might be my polarized perception. Just a thought.
One last question, if you don't mind. When were you asked to pray about being
the nominee for 1st Vice President of the SBC?
bryan
riley said...
Jerry,
thank you for your honest answer to me. I wasn't demanding or expecting an
answer. I simply think they are legitimate questions for people to ask of
themselves, but I appreciate you taking time to do so here, even (and
especially) when you are saying in part that you don't know the answers. That
is honesty.
I must say I agree with Wade that I think it would be wonderful for people to
read David's blog, including this comment stream.
Bryan
Riley said...
I
just posted on this conversation and I trust it is helpful to the conversation
and to the relationship God desires for us all to have in Him.
Jerry Corbaley said...
Brother
David,
When did you first hear from another that you might be the nominee for 1st.
Vice President of the SBC?
Or that your name was being considered? Or were asked to pray about it?
When did the general idea of you serving as 1st Vice President occur?
I am sorry to be so direct, but politics is very distasteful to me, and I have
grown to be wary of answers that skirt the intent of the question.
Please forgive me, but you changed your previous answer to me in this comment
stream, even when it was in the context of your "promise". It is
difficult for me to understand how such an important event could be so fuzzy in
someone's memory so soon after it occurred.
I would really appreciate a direct answer to this.
Thanks brother
David Rogers said...
Jerry,
I cannot remember the exact hour I first posted this post. On the actual blog,
now, at least according to what I see on my screen, the posting hour reads 5:52
pm. It is possible that I first pushed the button to upload this post at that
time. It is also possible that I did it earlier, and then later made a few
edits, adding in a hyper-link or two, and updated the post at 5:52 pm. I don't
remember for sure.
What I do remember is the call in which I was asked to pray about the
nomination came at approximately 7:00 pm. I cannot tell you the exact hour and
minute. But it was right around that time. Before then, I did not have any idea
that anyone was considering the possibility of nominating me.
Les Puryear said...
David,
Congrats on your nomination.
I must say that if the comments made to you by Dr. Corbaley are typical
examples of an exchange between the IMB BoT and missionaries, I'm glad I'm not
a missionary. It seems clear to me now why our outreach efforts have been less
than stellar lately.
Regards,
Les
Jerry Corbaley said...
Thank
you David.
I know you are very busy.
I deeply appreciate the sacrifice of your time to set my heart at peace.
Jerry Corbaley said...
Brother
Les,
The typical relationship between missionaries and trustees is healthy. As
trustees, we trust the testimony of the missionaries in the field and are very
pleased with the results. Part of a healthy relationship is the recognition
that relationships can always be improved. Both the trustees and the
missionaries are in agreement on this. Both the trustees and the missionaries
are open to suggestions.
Out outreach efforts are far from meager. God is pouring out his Spirit in a
way that is without precedent in the history of the world. This credit for this
outpouring does not go to Southern Baptists, but we recognize it and cooperate
with it. God is using the faithfulness of the IMB.
You are correct, however, that the relationship between brother David and I is
not typical. We are both frequent contributors in the blogosphere, as are you.
David asks very direct questions. I accept that. I will attempt to protect his
right to do so.
Yesterday I was prevented by conscience from asking the kind of direct
questions that David was asking regarding my statements about the IMB. Today,
the field is level. I was unwilling to be as direct toward David as he was
toward me, until his Regional Leader was aware of what is happening.
Is that too idealistic on my part?
Les Puryear said...
Dr.
Corbaley,
I don't know if "idealistic" is the right word. The word I had in
mind was "controlling."
Les
Wade Burleson said...
Les,
You comedian you.
:)
End of “Love Each
Stone” comment stream.
As is common in the
blogosphere, some of the comments from the above comment stream ended up as a
posted article on another blog. This happens with Mr. Burleson’s articles and
comment streams quite frequently. His 1,600 hits per day (53,000 per month) are
very influential. Influence is great, when it is not enabled and nurtured by
slander and gossip.
7.
chadwickivester
“MY
CONSCIENCE IS CAPTIVE TO THE WORD OF GOD. . . HERE I STAND, I CAN DO NO
OTHER!”
(MARTIN LUTHER)
«
Batman
says: Brother Burleson, Does the Cat Got Your Tongue?
IMB Trustee,
Jerry Corbaley, charges that Wade Burleson is still
under Board censure! Burleson says Corbaley is wrong . . . Corbaley
then challenges him to prove it? (Clic
k
here to read the entire blog thread)
Here are
some “choice” excerpts:
Jerry Corbaley: I am unaware of whether or not Mr. Burleson will
remain under IMB censure during the third consecutive year of his
tenure. I would encourage him to be pro-active in
restoring his relationship with the Board of Trustees and
Wade
Burleson: . . . it seems that you are
also confused. Not only am I not under censure of the IMB
board,
I am a fully participating board participating in every general session, forum
and meeting of the full board, and have been from day one.
Jerry
Corbaley: [Addressing Burleson] If I’m
wrong, and you are not under censure; then I have publicly disparaged you.
Since
I further attest to the honesty of my statement regarding your censure; you now
have my encouragement to accuse me of lying about you to the IMBoT and Richmond
Senior Staff. This will enable you to either
pursue the Lord’s direction in Matthew 18:15, or take my statement directly to
the IMB Executive Committee, or directly to the Forum, or even the Plenary
Session. You have my cooperation in any one of those
venues.
If my statement was in
any way untrue, I would certainly be rebuked.
I suppose you could also
declare your forgiveness toward me and then refuse to take any other action.
While forgiveness is proper, the refusal to do anything about continuing sin is
a dodge.
Wade
Burleson: Jerry, I’ve learned a long time ago to
forgive people freely!
Also, I would be thrilled for
people to read this post and comment string . . . (Bold emphases
mine)
Chadwick’s tidbit
commentary:
I read with bewilderment on how
“COME-BACK WADE” could not COME BACK with a COME-BACK to Jerry Corbaley’s
STIFF
CHALLENGE . . . I mean, Dr. C shut Burleson up quickly . . . and with
authority, too!!!! 
Burleson’s “silence” in
responding to Corbaley’s challenge reminds me of the old cliche’:
Here is Burleson’s Response, as
of now:
Meow,
Chadwick
Explore
posts in the same categories: Jerry Corbaley, International Mission
Board, San Antonio- 2007 SBC, Wade Burleson, Southern Baptist
Convention, Blogroll
6 Comments on “Batman says:
Brother Burleson, Does the Cat Got Your Tongue?”
lespuryear
Says:
June 8th, 2007 at
I had
opportunity to participate in that thread. It seems that after I called Dr.
Corbaley on his attempt to be controlling, he had no response for that either.
Not even a denial.
Les
chadwick Says:
June 8th, 2007 at
Bro.
Les,
You’ve
got my permission to use the “cat got your tongue?” cliche in your next blog
entitled: “Brother Corbaley, Does the Cat Got Your Tongue?” 
Respectfully,
Chadwick
- peter Says:
June 8th, 2007 at
Chadwick,
Very
funny, Chadwick. The video is hilariously apt. When I first read that thread, I
thought I misread that thread. What would really be nice is if “kitty-kitty”
would come on here and explain why his trustee colleague has slanderously
accused him wrongly.
With
that, I am…
Peter
- Jerry Corbaley Says:
June 9th, 2007 at
Brother
Les,
I
apologize for not taking your comment as seriously as you intended it. Given my
extreme efforts to follow IMB protocals in the preceding comment stream under
discussion; I confess that I judged your comment to be “catty” (pun intended),
in that it insinuated poor motive on my part. I thought it would be best to
overlook it.
When
Christians voluntarily and formally enter into agreements regarding
interpersonal relationships, those agreements should be honored. I’m sure you
would agree that such accountability should apply to everyone; and not just to
those whom you, personally, disagree with.
- Jerry Corbaley Says:
June 9th, 2007 at
People
can respond to my words, above, if they wish.
Because
of the nature of my post today at sbcglossolalia.blogspot.com I will be backing
out of all blogging for a day or two at least.
Mr.
Chadwick,
At least
you didn’t ask if the cat got my tongues!
I’m glad
you chose your profession as a minister and not as a lawyer, because any attorney
worth his salt would know the proof of burden is upon those who make the
charge.
Mr.
Corbaley has the burden of proof, not I.
I have
stated there is no censure of the board and would love to see the minutes and
the vote count of any alleged board censure, for there is none .
In fact,
I am a fully functioning trustee, and I have attended every plenary session,
voted on ever issue before the entire board, missed not one forum or closed
door session of the board and have actively participated in all board
functions. I speak freely as I please in those board meetings, when I please,
as I please and will continue to do so.
Frankly,
except for a handful of trustees, including Mr. Corbaley, I have a tremendous
relationship with all board members.
As far
as any sub-committee assignments, it is the discretion of the chairman alone to
appoint trustees to sub-committees. I happily defer to any chairman’s desire on
this matter, and frankly, I myself would prefer not to serve on any
sub-committee my entire tenure. I am able to accomplish much more during those
sub-committee meetings by meeting with, dialoguing with, and learning from our
SBC missionaries.
So,
regarding Mr. Corbaley’s allegation of censure, please show me pointing to the
official minutes where such a censure occurred and the vote —
Again,
Mr. Corbaley will be unable to give that evidence because there is none. I
choose not to make this an issue simply because I have seen Mr. Corbaley speak
off the cuff often without being able to verificy the facts. I’ve learned to
forgive him.
My
relationship with the board is great! I love them all, including Mr.
Corbaley!
Blessings,
Wade
By the
way, Batman, introduce yourself to me. I’d love to put a face to the name since
I have never had the pleasure of meeting with you or even speaking to
you.
End of Chadwick Ivester’s article and
comment stream.
So why is my statement that Mr. Burleson
is under censure at the Board news? Because our actions have been presented to
our constituents so rarely, and so tactfully, that they don’t even know. We may
have understated his censure so successfully that Mr. Burleson doesn’t even
know it himself.
Since the Board will not (yet) speak out
regarding Mr. Burleson’s status and harmony with the Board, he presents our
silence as an affirmation. Later, it is clear that he insinuates that his
non-appointments are due to political timidity and/or lack of courage on the
part of Chairman John Floyd.
In the following three posts by Mr.
Burleson you will find much that is good. But, as will be shown, he initiates
gossip and slander against the Board and members of the Board. I am not
asserting that Mr. Burleson is without any redeeming features whatsoever. No
human is as bad as they can possible be. But when any of us engages in malicious
and wicked behavior, and that habitually, then it is sin and we must trust
God’s Words in regard to what must be done about it.
In the following post, “Patience is the
Operative Word for the SBC”, Mr. Burleson insinuates the Board of Trustees is
unresponsive to the Southern Baptist Convention regarding the decisions reached
at the national convention in
He goes on to affirm that the Apostle Paul
and Jesus Christ would not be appointed as missionaries by the Board of
Trustees.
He asserts that the Board of Trustees
should be called to account for refusing Southern Baptist Convention mandates
and obligations.
Mr. Burleson agrees that “Minor things
like the facts and the will of the Convention will not thwart our own
agenda.
The comment stream includes gossip about
Dr. Floyd.
8.
Tuesday,
July 10, 2007
Patience Is the Operative Word for the SBC
This
next week, Monday through Wednesday, July 16-18, in
The mood and tone of the board continues to change. New trustees are elected
every year, but those who pushed for the new guidelines are still in trustee
leadership until 2008, including Chairman John Floyd, who was the Chairman of
the particular Personnel Committee that was pushing the new guidelines when I
joined the board in 2005. I commend John for his gracious leadership, but he
and I are on polar opposite ends of the belief spectrum when it comes to the
board's authority to establish doctrinal requisites that exceed the BFM 2000.
I believe the right thing to do is to reverse the guideline that forbids the
appointment of missionaries who have a private prayer language, while
reinforcing the former policy that any missionary will face disciplinary action
for any of the gifts that are overemphasized or abused publicly. Further, any
baptismal guideline that subverts the authority of the local church's
acceptance of believer's baptism is unwise and ought be reversed. If a Southern
Baptist missionary candidate is trusting in Christ alone for salvation, has
publicly confessed his faith in Christ through believer's baptism by immersion,
and that candidates local Southern Baptist church to which he belongs has
accepted his Christian baptism, then I believe we as a board of trustees should
fall under the authority of that local church because the IMB board of trustees
is not a higher authority on the matter of baptism than the candidate's local
church.
It can no longer be argued that the decision of the IMB board of trustees
reflects the majority views of the SBC. LIFEWAY's survey took that argument
away. It can also no longer be argued that the SBC desires the board to go
beyond the BFM 2000 in establishing missionary service criteria - the Garner
motion took that away. All that can be said now is what I have been saying for
two years: There seem to be some who wish
the convention to reflect their own personal and specific doctrinal viewpoints
on the gifts (cessationism) and
baptism (the 'authority' of the baptizer is as important as the
heart of the candidate).
I am patient. I will wait it out to insure we remain a cooperative convention,
open to various interpretations of tertiary doctrines as we work together
around the essentials of the gospel for the furtherance of the kingdom of
Christ through cooperative efforts in missions and evangelism.
In His Grace,
Wade
Post a Comment On: Grace
and Truth to You
38 Comments - Show Original Post Collapse
comments
Rev. said...
Wade:
I realize that you are a trustee of the IMB, but wondered if you knew that a
guideline (prohibition) related to glossalalia has been in place for some time
for those appointed / endorsed by the NAMB? If so, will you and/or others seek
to address this matter? Just curious.
James
Jeff said...
Wade:
I will be praying for Jesus Christ to have the preeminence at the meeting next
week--not any one side. And should that (the preeminence of Christ)
prevail--well, some people will still be ticked off. We'll see. And again,
thanks for listing me on your blogroll.
Keep the faith!
FREEDOM!
Jeff
Les Puryear said...
Wade,
The sovereignty of God will carry the day.
This almost unknown doctrine in SBC circles was a wonderful comfort to me
during my son's illness. I know this doctrine is precious to you as well and
will serve to undergird your patience as given by the Holy Spirit.
Les
Wade Burleson said...
Rev,
I did not know until after the IMB entered this discussion. I have called NAMB
and inquired as to when it appeared, the minutes of the meeting when it
occurred, etc . . .
Nobody is able to answer my questions.
docjoc said...
Would
the Apostle Paul be eligible to be sent out as a Southern Baptist Missionary under
the
IBC or NAMB guidelines?
Anyone care to tackle this question?
Chuck Bryce said...
He
would not be eligible:
1 Corinthians 14:18
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.
Unless someone has evidence that Annanias was Pastoring/attending/ or a member
of a Baptist Chuch I guess Paul is eliminated here too.
Acts 9:17-20
17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he
said, "Brother Saul, the Lord--Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as
you were coming here--has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with
the Holy Spirit." 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's
eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking
some food, he regained his strength. 20 At once he began to preach in the
synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.
Bob Cleveland said...
At my
age, patience and prudence are often in conflict.
Bob Cleveland said...
Wade:
That's an optimistic "able".
Jeff said...
Wade,
It sure seems strange that SBC entities cannot answer questions from SBC
members. I guess 16 million, oops, I mean 6 million Southern Baptists are
supposed to believe that none of our elected/appointed/employed leaders would
ever have their own agenda??? Or that the rank and file believer (who is a
priest according to the Word) would even attempt to question any of our
leaders??
I've only been reading these blogs for a short period of time and one thread
that runs throughout is that there seems to be no real transparency once you
reach a certain level in the SBC hierarchy. Thankfully, it is beginning to
change--but only because we are not afraid to ask questions that matter.
FREEDOM!
Jeff
Rev. said...
It
was in place at least by 2005, but I believe it was much sooner than that. I'm
uncertain as to when it was set in place. Surely someone from the NAMB will let
you know something before too long.
Wade Burleson said...
Art
Rogers was told the same thing I was told.
In 1995 it just suddenly appeared in the policy manual book - with no record of
trustee adoption.
Anonymous said...
Are
there other "Big-tent" conservatives on the board? It seems to me
that someone needs to call the IMB BOT to account on this issue. Will they
yield to the mandate of the SBC or not?
I can understand why you, Wade, don't want to be at the epicenter of this
again, but someone needs to take the stand.
When the SBC speaks, the boards are obligated to come in line, right?
Dave Miller
irreverend fox said...
Wade,
"the IMB board of trustees is not a higher authority on the matter of
baptism than the candidate's local church."
I do not understand how anyone can argue with this well put point.
It's as if the IMB is standing on her head and then is telling us that
everything is upside down.
Wade Burleson said...
Dave,
I agree. We are getting there.
As my favorite Kung Fu artist used to say, "Patience little
grasshopper."
:)
Wade Burleson said...
Fox,
To be honest with you, I don't really care that much about the private prayer
language guideline except for the sake of the fact it excludes people in the
SBC I believe are otherwise qualified --
but the baptismal guideline is more irritating to me than a goathead in my
sock.
:)
Wade Burleson said...
A
goathead is a sticker that really hurts when you step on it and is found in
Anonymous said...
I am
6'4" and weigh over 300 pounds. It's been a long time since anyone called
me "Little grasshopper" - or little anything.
Dave
Alan Cross said...
The
NAMB policy has been on the books since 1987 or 1988, I believe.
Anonymous said...
Since
the Protestant church "isn't the 'full church'" anyway, what does any
of this matter? (Topic of another blog this week; see the article linked:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html;
obviously, I disagree)
David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX
Anonymous said...
That
link is:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/
07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html
David
Anonymous said...
The
IMB will be able to tell us when it was enlightened about the policy change as
soon as the green man's head appears on the pretty curtains and his voice booms
through the speakers for Dorothy, Tin Man, and the Lion.
OBTW - Has OK dried out yet?
Steve Austin
Hoptown,
Tim Sweatman said...
Wade,
Once again I find myself less optimistic than you about what the board will do.
When you consider that those who are committed to narrowing the parameters of
cooperation have relentlessly attacked both the BFM motion and the Lifeway
survey, it is apparent that they have no intention of allowing minor things
like facts or the will of the convention to thwart their agenda. I would hope
that a number of the trustees who personally favor the guidelines would yield
to the expressed will of the convention regarding the BFM's sufficiency as a
doctrinal guide, but I have little confidence that many will do so.
That being said, because God is sovereign we know His Kingdom will continue to
advance regardless of what the board does. The question is will the SBC
continue to enjoy the privilege of being used by God for the advancement of His
Kingdom. If we persist in separatism and division, we know what the answer will
be---a resounding NO.
Anonymous said...
Visit
this blog, and find out important information about a left-wing project that
Wade supports:
http://baptistcovenantinfo.blogspot.com/
Bennett Willis said...
The
text below {in braces}was copied from the link referenced in posting 10 July,
2007 21:30
{The text refers to "ecclesial communities originating from the
Reformation," a term used to refer to Protestants and Anglicans. Father
Augustine Di Noia, under-secretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, said the document did not alter the commitment for ecumenical dialogue,
but aimed to assert Catholic identity in those talks.
"The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment," Di Noia
told
"But, as you know, it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the
participants are clear about their own identity. That is, dialogue cannot be an
occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to
be." }
It is nice to know that we are not the only ones with "identity
issues." :)
Bennett Willis
docjoc said...
Correct
if I am wrong but it seems to me that the Apostle Paul would not be allowed to
be sent out as a Southern Baptist Missionary under the “tongue rule” of the IMB
or the NAMB.
Am I correct?
Wade Burleson said...
Anonymous,
You are silly.
Show a little courage.
Wade Burleson said...
docjoc,
Not only would the Apostle Paul not qualify, I'm not sure Jesus would with his
baptism in the
:)
Jack Maddox said...
Wade
Goatheads are a bummer! I hate those things...hurts like the dickens!
Jack
Jeff said...
Wade,
You are right, Jesus wouldn't be accepted by the IMB or NAMB. In fact, he
wouldn't be accepted in most of our churches. I love these words from Todd
Agnew:
Pretty blue eyes and curly brown hair and a clear complexion,
Is how you see Him as He dies for your sins.
But the Word says He was “battered and scarred,” or did you miss that part?
Sometimes I doubt we’d recognize Him.
Cause my Jesus bled and died. He spent His time with thieves and the least of
these.
But He loved the poor and accosted the comfortable.
So which one do you want to be?
Cause my Jesus would never be accepted in my church.
The blood and dirt on His feet might stain the carpet.
But He reaches for the hurting, and despises the proud.
And I think He’d prefer
But I know that He can hear me when I cry out loud—I want to be like my Jesus!
FREEDOM!
Jeff
OKpreacher said...
Wade,
I completely agree. Great article.
OKpreacher
Ben Stratton said...
On
the alien baptism issue, just consider me a
Seriously, Bro. Wade, you write that you don't agree with the IMB board of
trustees being a higher authority on the matter of baptism than the candidate's
local church, but then you say the IMB board of trustees should reject a
candidate's baptism that is something other than "believer's baptism by
immersion". So for example if one of the liberal CBF churches sends a
person to the IMB who only has been sprinkled for baptism, you seem to agree
that the IMB board of trustees should become a higher authority than their
local church on the matter of baptism. On one hand you agree with the board
being a higher authority, but on the other hand you do not. Why the difference?
I know what your answer will be. You are thinking, well the Baptist Faith and
Message plainly spells out that baptism is always to be believer's immersion
and this is the confession of Southern Baptists, so the IMB board of trustees
has a right to reject someone who has a baptism that is not in accord with the
BF&M (should as someone with sprinkling.)
But wait... The BF&M also plainly says that baptism is a local church
ordinance and then defines a local church as a Baptist / baptistic church
plainly implying that baptisms that are not contacted to a local Baptist /
baptistic church should be rejected. This is why I have been saying for the
past two years the IMB baptism guideline does not go beyond the
BF&M.
greg hicks said...
And
to reiterate, the policies were never about correcting problems on the field,
as was originally stated as the reason for the PPL policy. We asked,
repeadedly, and no one pushing the policies could deliver the examples needed
to support that (false) assertion.
Wade Burleson said...
Ben,
Your argument is a hypothetical.
The old policy, and particularly the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, details
exactly what biblical baptism is - for believers and by immersion.
Infant baptism, or sprinkling, or pouring is a violation of our confession.
Believers' baptism is a major tenet of our Southern Baptist identity.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
But I do love the sticker analogy from my Landmark friend.
:)
Anonymous said...
Take
a look at this. Kind of puts things in perspective.
http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=26047
Rex Ray said...
Ben
Stratton,
Oh, so sly, so innocently written—one little word of condemnation. A word that
puts a hood over the head of one being executed.
Do you remember the highly advertised public execution of a young man who had a
board tied to his back, and the foreign policeman shot his pistol through the
board? We would never do that would we?
But when it comes to slaying the character of CBF Christians; well that’s a
different story…duhh?
The word once was ‘heretic’ or ‘witch’, but now there is a more civil
word…“LIBERAL”.
Happy hunting, Ben, you should find many to choose from.
Rex,
Anonymous said...
Wade,
Patience is important; so is truth.
Why are you following the leadership of Carter, Clinton, and Underwood? This
proves that you are making a huge mistake:
http://baptistcovenantinfo.blogspot.com/
Al (not Mohler!)
Marty Duren said...
Wade-
It might interest you and others to know that Mid-America Seminary, where Dr.
Floyd is employed, distributed a free copy of its most recent theological
journal at the annual meeting last month. Among the 8 or 9 articles included
were a couple that were critical of Church Planting Movements which were
endorsed by the IMB way back at the implementation of New Directions.
Dr. Floyd is listed as one of the editors of the journal. Didn't the trustees
pass a guideline about their own behavior that forbade criticism of established
policy?
Anonymous said...
I am
not a cessationist yet do not think that scripture ever teaches that there is
such a thing as a private prayer language. The best exegesis rules this out in
both 1 Cor 14 and Romans 8.
17 July, 2007
01:28
End of comment stream
Serious Question: Does a personal belief in
the need for “transparency” justify the toleration of gossip which detracts
from Chairman Floyd’s integrity? When a Christian initiates a comment stream
with an article that implies unfaithful stewardship on the part of the Board of
Trustees, does that not amount to violations of Scripture and Board guidelines
for Trustee behavior?
In the following post, “IMB Trustee Meeting,
Richmond, VA, July 17” there is much that is said that is good. But the post
and the comment stream are the result of the initiation of slander and gossip
by Mr. Burleson.
Mr. Burleson initiates gossip about me
regarding a circumstance that occurred in the Dining Room at the International Learning Center
His gossip about the incident is slanderous.
Read it for yourself, below. He misrepresents me, publicly mocks me, then
refers to his own wisdom.
Later he contrasts his malicious
representation of my behavior with the light-hearted fellowship he enjoyed with
fellow trustees who display the grace and the general spirit of the Board of
Trustees toward Mr. Burleson.
Serious Questions: Do my fellow trustees
Mike Gonzales, Mike Smith, Simon Tsoi, Ken Kuwahara, Gene Williams, Rochelle
Davis and John Click agree with the way their names were used in this post?
Do my fellow trustees think I am wrong in my
assessment of Trustee Burleson? Am I sinning by applying 1 Corinthians 5:11 and
Titus 3:10 to Trustee Burleson? If not, then perhaps I am not the only one who
should rebuke my neighbor frankly so
that I do not share in his guilt (Leviticus 19:17).
Later, in the comment stream I am repeatedly
subjected to mockery, gossip and slander. Trustee Burleson actually encourages
such.
Gossip about Debbie Brunson is tolerated in
the comment stream.
Mr. Burleson is encouraged for his
“thoughtful transparency”.
I am mocked again and Mr. Burleson is
commended for taking the “high road”.
Mr. Burleson asserts he has no shame
regarding initiating gossip about me. He asserts he is kind and the very
essence of grace. He blesses everyone.
I am disparaged by a missionary who has been
led astray by Trustee Burleson.
In fact, there are many missionaries who
read Mr. Burleson’s blog. He has a lot of influence globally.
9.
Wednesday,
July 18, 2007
IMB Trustee Meeting, Richmond , VA
I am
beginning my third year as a trustee with the International Mission Board with
this July meeting in
The chairman of the Board of Trustees, John Floyd, has chosen not to appoint me
to a regional or standing committee of the IMB for 2007/2008. This is his
perogative as chairman, and I have not made an issue of this, nor will I do so
in the future. I am not sure of the purpose for Dr. Floyd not appointing me to
serve on an IMB trustee committee, but it is within his rights as chairman, and
I respect his decision. I always try to make the most of my time at the trustee
meetings, and so during those times that various committees meet to prepare for
the official plenary sessions, I make it a point to visit with local pastors,
as many missionary candidates, and missionary families as possible. During
these times I have been able to establish some wonderful friendships with
people from all over the world.
Since no official business can be conducted without full board approval, I make
it a point to come early and stay late for every plenary session. I take
copious notes of the public business sessions because I have a responsibility
to be informed and to vote my conscience on behalf of those Southern Baptist
Convention messengers who elected me. Today (Tuesday) during the business
session, I took notes that filled fourteen legal pages in my notebook.
New Trustees
Introduced
The plenary session began with the new trustees introducing themselves. The new
trustees are:
(1). Hershael York (
(2). Waylon Moore (
(3). Mike Penny (
(4). Stuart Bell (
(5). Martha Wilson (
(6). Charlene High (Virgina) - a registered nurse.
(7). Jan Brown (
(8). Keith Stephenson (
Jacob Gross and Debbie Brunson, the other two new trustees, were unable to make
the meeting due to church and family obligations respectively.
I was impressed with the new trustees, especially the ladies, all of whom were
laypeople in their churches. None of the women had sought to serve as a
trustee, much less even thought about it. However, each was articulate,
passionate and very clear about their sense of calling from God to serve. I
also had the pleasure of meeting Dr. York for the first time. I went to him
after the plenary session to meet him and shake his hand. He was on his knees picking
up his books. He told me to tell everyone that 'he was on his knees' when I met
him. I laughed and told him that nobody would be impressed unless I said 'he
was on his knees and kissed my ring.' He didn't laugh quite as much as I did at
my own joke, but I truthfully found Dr. York the way I felt he would be - warm
and engaging. I enjoyed my conversations with him at the ILC and later at the
appointment service at
The Report of Tom Elliff to the
Board of Trustees
I have been praying for Tom's wife, Jeanie, who is between chemotherapy and
radiation treatments, and Tom requested to have his report moved up in the 2:30
plenary session in order to catch a flight home to be with his wife. Tom serves
as the pastor at large for the IMB and is in charge of the spiritual and
doctrinal development of missionary candidates. Tom first gave an explanation
of how the International Mission Board is actively pursuing better ways to
interact and relate with churches and state conventions. Partner Services of
the IMB, led by Mike Hand, is scheduling a conference in the western
Second, Tom described how he is instructing new missionaries in terms of doctrine
in order to 'ensure a higher level of doctrinal integrity on the mission
field.' Missionaries are charged with planting Baptist churches, or at least
churches that 'embrace what it means to be baptistic in nature.' Tom said that
it would be a tragedy to place in the bloodstream of any church planting
movement doctrines that would make those new Baptist church plants unhealthy.
He said that he teaches missionaries during two day sessions how to understand
and explain the following seven major doctrinal truths:
God and the Bible
Man and Sin
Christ and Salvation
The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts
The Church and the Ordinances
Divine Guidance
Ultimate Purpose
Tom said that new missionaries are not antagonistic toward learning 'doctrine,'
but rather, they have been sent from some churches that have not fully
explained the meaning and significance of these doctrines. Tom explained the
use of a 25 question True/False test that is given all new missionaries whereby
Tom is able to be alerted to any doctrinal concerns and to also measure the
missionaries' progress in doctrinal understanding through his two day session.
The test is given both before and after the two day lectures.
Tom read the questions in the plenary session and then explained the answers.
Most of the questions were very basic. The only questions which I believe
Southern Baptists would express various views over would be those on 'The
Church and the Ordinances.' The BFM 2000 and the Scripture itself does not list
the 'authority' of the baptizer as an essential for 'Christian baptism,' but
yet 'proper authority' was given by Tom as 'an essential' to baptism. Don't get
me wrong, I am grateful that we are discussing doctrinal matters with our
missionaries, because I agree that doctrine is like the skeleton to the human
body, but I believe we must be very, very careful that we do not associate true
'Baptist identity' with doctrines over which Baptists have disagreed over for
centuries. As I have already shown that even Southern Baptists have
pointed out that Christian baptism is not the door into the local Baptist
church, but the local church is to ensure that Christian baptism has occurred
prior to granting membership.
There are some people who wonder what all the fuss over baptism is, and why it
should make a difference. The best answer I could give is to ask a question. If a missionary leads someone to Christ overseas,
in a place where there is not 'a Baptist church', does that missionary have the
right to baptize that convert, or must a 'church' be establshed before the
proper 'authority' exists? In other words, is it 'local church
authority' that gives permission to baptize, or is the gospel evangelist - who
has had the privilege to see God convert a sinner through his proclamation of
the gospel - the only authority needed to baptize? I would answer that on the
day of Pentecost 3000 believed and were baptized and it was only 'later' that they
were added to the church. Philip shared the gospel with the Ethiopian and
baptized him upon his confession of faith, but there was no 'local church'
involved. Gill, Spurgeon, all the English Baptists, the First London
Confession, and many, many Southern Baptists from the past and present agree
with me. If by 'local church authority' one means that the church must examine
a believer's baptism before granting membership -- I would AGREE! But, again,
we must be very careful that we don't consider as essential to 'Baptist
identity' the belief that the only valid baptism is one that occurs in a
Baptist church.
Dr. Rankin's Report to the IMB
Dr.
The International Mission Board has been charged by the Southern Baptist
Convention to conduct missions by enlarging the
Dr. Rankin corrected the misperception that the IMB was ONLY concerned with
church planting in unreached people groups. This week at the ILC, there is a
very large meeting of the Global Medical Alliance, where volunteers are meeting
with IMB personnel to strategize, create partnerships and discuss how to use
medical missions in new and creative ways. The IMB simply should never allow
any ministry or secondary purpose to supercede the main mission assigned by the
Southern Baptist Convention - reaching the unreached people groups of the world
with the gospel of Christ.
Hershael York asked the only question of Dr. Rankin after the President's
report. Hershael asked, "Dr. Rankin, I only ask because I'm curious and
have heard this said before. Is your focus on the unreached people groups driven
by an eschatalogical motive?" Dr. Rankin answered by quoting
Matthew 24:16, "The gospel of the
kingdom shall be preached to the whole world, and then the end shall come"
and said that eschatology does not compel the IMB's mission (or his), but
obedience does. Dr. Rankin said the timing of the coming of the Son is up to
the Father and nothing we do will define when He comes. It is up to God. We are
simply to obey His commission.
Treasurer David Steverson's Report
to the IMB Trustees
David did not give his usual report regarding the finances, but rather told a
very gripping story of a man who donated a parcel of property to the IMB. This
property was his only possession, and the man was not well off financially.
David visited with the man intending to convince him not to give the property,
but this man insisted, saying that he wished the proceeds to go to purchasing
Bibles for a particular people group who did not have the Bible in their
language. He responded to David's encouragement that he keep the land for
himself, due to his poor financial condition, by saying, "Don't you understand? These people need the
gospel!" David is a very humble Oklahoman who told this story
with passion and made us all realize as trustees the value of every dollar
given to the IMB. The donated land amounted to $205,609.73. It is now being
used to introduce the Bible to an unreached people group, just as the donor
wished
Regional Committe
Reports
The various regional committees (Central Asia, Pacific Rim, South America, North
Africa and Middle East, East Asia, Central America, Central and Eastern Europe,
Western Europe, etc . . . ) gave their reports. We accepted the resignation of
some missionaries with appreciation, sadly accepted the termination of just a
couple of missionaries for conduct unbecoming a missionary, and eventually
voted on approving eighty-four new missionaries who were being appointed at the
appointment service at 7:00 p.m. at Grove Avenue Baptist Church.
There was no business from the floor, and nothing about the Southern Baptist
Convention's Garner motion was even mentioned.
The meeting was adjourned.
Supper at the
The cafeteria is beautiful at the ILC and the cook staff does a great job. I
was one of the first in line and by the time I got my tray and drink I entered
the cafeteria to find Jerry Corbaley sitting by himself. I went up to him and
said, "Jerry, do you mind if I sit next to you." Jerry said,
"Truthfully, I do." I was very surprised, but said, "Jerry, I
would just like to sit here and visit with you over dinner as a brother in
Christ and enjoy your company." Jerry said a few choice things about me
and then said that if I sat down he would get up and leave and if I followed
him he would make it a 'public issue.' Well, I sat down anyway because I really
feel it is important we as trustees get along even if we don't see eye-to-eye
on certain things. Jerry promptly stood up, took his tray and moved to another
table. As Jerry walked away I felt like saying to him, "Love Is the Most
Excellent Way" but I thought silence was the wiser choice.
Trustee Mike Gonzales from
Personal Visits During Committee
Meetings
I took the opportunity today during some of my free time to visit
The highlight of the day for me, besides the appointment service (see below),
was visiting
I found a loose stone lying on the public walkway around the church and I
intend on washing it, labeling it "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death,"
and using it as a table weight in my office. The history of the church and
surrounding grave yard was remarkable. If you are ever in
The Appointment Service at
The appointment service at Dr. Rankin's home church, the
The hour is late. I must get to bed. I have to be up early for the final
plenary session in the morning. I will be traveling back to
I hope you can tell by my post that I am very hopeful and positive about the
future of the IMB. Though two or three trustees may still struggle with the
past, the overwhelming and vast majority of trustees are moving forward.
Progress is being made.
In His Grace,
Wade
Post a Comment On: Grace
and Truth to You
"IMB
Trustee Meeting, Richmond, VA, July 17"
47 Comments - Show Original Post Collapse
comments
Big Daddy Weave said...
Wade,
Next time, if you haven't already, be sure to check out
In addition to the graves of John Tyler, James Monroe, and Jefferson Davis,
you'll also find the tomb of William H. Whitsitt.
Geoff
Baggett said...
Wade,
A thorough, thoughtful report. Thank you for giving us an idea of the
activities of our trustees.
Geoff
Rick in Thailand said...
Wade,
We sure do appreciate your reflections and in-depth reports about the meetings.
Thanks a lot.
Sorry to hear that there is friction in the fellowship of the Board. Seems that
much could have been accomplished by a lot of hugging and laughing together
over dinner. Maybe next time. I’m sure we’ll all continue to have differences
until we’re in God’s glory and then there will be no static in the lines of
communication between us and the Holy Spirit.
You made reference to Tom Eliff’s presentation and said that it addressed the
issue of the “Authority” of the baptizer, among other things. You didn’t
elaborate as to whether Tom Eliff himself was saying that one had to be
baptized into a Baptist church or whether he was saying the individual baptizer
had to meet some qualifications. Maybe you could share more on that.
Scripture could be said to make reference to the “authority of the baptizer”
being an essential for Christian baptism, although not making reference to the
necessity of being baptized into local group of believers.
Acts 8 and 19 portray instances where believers were not baptized correctly or
completely and as a result they had not received the full presence of the Holy
Spirit. Now those passages REALLY get interesting and could give us reason to
dialogue for generations to come! Perhaps the Gospel had not been explained
accurately by the one doing the baptism prior to their being baptized. Maybe
the most basic teachings about Father/Son/Holy Spirit had been left out by the
one who had assumed the role of baptizing them.
Regardless of what the short-coming was in those instances, it does stress that
not just any “Tom, Dick or Harry”-believer is qualified to baptize someone.
It’s difficult to know what these passages in Acts 8 and 19 imply as being
necessary for legitimate baptism, but it does tell me that the ritual of
baptism is extremely serious and has spiritual dynamics associated with it.
On another vein of thought, your report brought up a point about an issue which
I believe is misunderstood by a lot of people, that is, the definition of
“unreached” and “unengaged” people groups. It’s important that one asks for
clarifications as to what is meant when we hear the terms, “unengaged” or
“unreached” people groups.
“Unreached” people groups most often refers to those groups with a minimal
amount of Christian population. I’m not positive what parameters we’re using
these days, but I think it would be safe to say that if a group has less than
5% or so Christian population it would be considered “unreached”.
When IMBers make reference to an “unengaged” people group they are generally
referring to those groups that do not have an IMB missionary assigned to that
people group whose focus is on forming and implementing a strategy to reach
that people group. “Unengaged” DOES NOT mean that there is NO church or
national Christians in that group. It does NOT even mean that there are NO IMB
missionaries or missionaries from other evangelical groups already working in
that people group.
I’m aware of people groups listed as “unengaged” that had a national church
presence and IMB personnel working among the people but the people group did
not have a “Strategy Coordinator” assigned to it. The missionaries who were
working there were focused only on a particular type of ministry or they were
working in a local area and had not formed a strategy for reaching the entire
people group.
Therefore, when mention is made that there are so many people groups that are
still “unengaged” or “unreached” this does not imply that the Gospel has NOT
been introduced into that people group. In reality, it could very well be that
there are already Christians and even a church in every people group in the
world!
That being the case, it follows that if Jesus was waiting to return until all
peoples had heard the Gospel, He could come back tonight! So naturally, Dr.
Rankin’s strategy for connecting IMB missionaries with all “unreached” people
groups would not be driven by an eschatological motive.
I’m sure we Southern Baptists are blessed as being an important part of God’s
plan to reach the world, but God is not depending upon us to determine His
calendar progression.
Rick
Anonymous said...
"Ode"
to be a christian like Jerry Corbaley
And yet, Lord, grant me the ability to be Christ-like today
I know that despite the misuse a blog name might say
Love is still certainly the most excellent way
So from the missionary fields this glorious day
Please pray for us all, even you, Jerry Corbaley
Wade Burleson said...
Rick,
If thanks for the thoughtful comment. Regarding your question about what Tom
teaches, I would say I intentionally tried to stay away from attempting to
state what it is Tom teaches because I have never sat in on one of his classes,
though he invited us to do so as trustees, and I intend to do so in the near
future. It would not be fair to him for me to attempt to represent what he
teaches, so I only posted my thoughts on the subject, not his.
Big Daddy,
Thanks for the tip! I shall do as you suggested.
Geoff,
Thanks!
Missionary on the field,
:)
To all. Off to the morning plenary session. See everyone late Thursday night.
Wade
OKpreacher said...
Wade,
Sounds like a good meeting. Like you, I'm very concerned about the
"Baptist Identity Movement". Since they don't have any biblical
grounds to stand on they try to support their beliefs through tradition.
Over ten years ago I was interviewing with a pastor search committee about
becoming their pastor and the subject of Baptism came up. To join their church you
had to have been baptized in a Baptist church. So I asked them if Christ came
back and wanted to join their church would He need to be rebaptized? They
answered "Yes". I realized that if there was something more that
Christ needed to do to be a member of His own church, I didn't need to be apart
of their little group.
I call them a little group because I don't believe they qualify as a New
Testament Church since Christ doesn’t qualify to be a member.
Keeping It Real.
OKpreacher
Darby Livingston said...
I'd
sit with you through dinner. But only through one plate, and possibly a small
bit of cake. :)
Lee
said...
Looks
like we have a lot of things to pray for and be thankful that God is doing.
Just one observation. Debbie Brunson is a trustee? Isn't her husband on a board
or committee somewhere, and wasn't she also nominated for an SBC committee this
past year. Don't we have enough Southern Baptists willing to serve, that we
have to give three or four committee and trustee positions to two members of
the same family, or even two or three members of the same church?
Baptist Truth said...
Big
Daddy,
Care to comment about your former pastor (and Covenant speaker) supporting
Planned Parenthood? Is this your idea of historical Baptist principles? Alert
readers, here it is:
The Rev. Julie Pennington-Russell, former pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in
Waco, was one of the Sponsors of this Planned Parenthood event:
http://www.plannedparenthoodwaco.org/docs/3Rbrochure07.pdf
This conference was designed to counter "True Love Waits." Bill
Underwood's former pastor is also listed as a sponsor of the same event.
Al
Wade Burleson said...
Baptist
Truth,
I kindly request you to post on your own blog or keep your comments relevant to
the post.
Tim said...
Wade,
Thanks for your report on the meeting. It is nice to see the thoughtful
transparency that you post with.
I have a question concerning the ILC. Are there any people that work there -as
staff and faculty- that are considered "missionaries?" Are there any
people there receiving funds from our Lottie Moon Christmas offering?
Thanks,
Tim Dahl
Wade Burleson said...
Tim,
My understanding is that all ILC employees and the operations at ILC are part
of the Cooperative Program Budget and not Lottie Moon. However, I do not know
for sure. I can say with confidence that every dollar is well spent at the ILC.
It is effecient not luxurious, proficient in ministry not excessive, and the
beauty of the place comes from the natural environment of the rolling hills and
not the buildings themselves.
Wade Burleson said...
Logging
off for the next day and a half. Thanks for the comments.
ml said...
Rats
I had hoped to catch you before I left for vacation.
Wade, Is the Eliff questionaire available for us to use/modify for use in our
churches?
Also what is the stance on Missionaries who baptize? Are their baptisms legit?
Thanks
Anonymous said...
Two
good books by Lewis B. Smedes: THE ART OF FORGIVING and FORGIVE AND FORGET:
HEALING THE HURTS WE DON'T DESERVE.
Often I find myself needing to refer to them.
paulustignarius said...
Wade,
Thanks for the report. Many of us "in the field" as pastors wonder
what goes on in these meetings, and your blog opens a window through which we
can look. Too bad you weren't appointed to a regional or standing committee, as
it would be helpful to see what goes on there (protecting security of
missionaries and respecting confidentiality of course) as well.
I'm curious, are there any other IMB trustees who blog the meetings? Given the
initial response to your blog, I would guess that most would be hesitant, but I
thought I'd ask.
I don't always agree with your positions, but I'm thankful for the time and
energy you devote to G&TtY.
Thanks!
Anonymous said...
Thanks
for a very informative and interesting post, Wade. I couldn't help but chuckle
when reading that "Jerry [Corbaley] had a few choice words for
me...." I bet he did, but glad to hear you took the high road as he left
for another table. At least you gave him an example of following the most
excellent way. We can only pray he one day will find it and follow, too.
Regarding baptisms on the field, is any of this IMB 'baptism controversy'
related to the practice in some fields, especially in the world's largest
country, of a M baptizing a person and then that person baptizing the next and
so on (i.e. new believers baptizing other new believers just moments later)?
And concerning Jerry Rankin's comments that the IMB is to be about missions and
evangelism ONLY as this is what the SBC has called it to do, and NOT ministry
like helping the poor, orphans, etc, then which SBC entity IS called
(commissioned/tasked) with the work of MINISTRY to the poor throughout the
world? To my knowledge we have none if indeed the IMB's main task is
exclusively evangelism. To me I'm not sure ministry and missions and evangelism
are mutually exclusive as it sounds like Jerry Rankin says they are.
Steve
Anonymous said...
To
Rick in Thailand,
One thing you said aroused my curiosity--and I may be reading too much into too
little, so please pardon me if I am. Granted there were problems with the
actions and belief system of Simon Magnus, but don't you have to make a lot of
assumptions to conclude from that that it was because he was "not baptized
correctly or completely"? As for those baptized by Apollos, the text
clearly states they received only John's baptism, which was for (in
anticipation of) repentance, so that is irrelevant in a discussion of Christian
baptism. I am just trying to understand you, and perhaps I am making a mountain
out of a molehill. Taken to a logical extreme--which I am sure you did not
mean--one could conclude that baptism has a power beyond any symbolism (which I
grant has power, but not in a sacredotal way). What do you see as the end
result of "improper" baptism, and why? Thanks in advance for taking
time tio engage in this. We have you, and all our missionaries in our prayers.
John Fariss
Debbie Kaufman said...
Okay,
I have to say this. Jerry Corbalay's treatment of you is outrageous, he
threatened to make a public spectacle? I believe Jerry's anger to be getting
out of hand and in my opinion it shows that he doesn't just disagree with you,
it's more than that. I for one am baffled on not only what he writes, but his
actions as well. It's certainly not the kind of thing that belongs in a person
with a trustee position. It's this kind of anger that is destroying both
churches and the SBC. I will pray for Jerry, but I must be honest and say for
me that is hard to do.
Anonymous said...
But
it is OK for Wade to post it here and MAKE it a public spectacle? Two wrongs
don't make a right.
Wade Burleson said...
Anonymous,
A man ought never to be ashamed for his public actions to be made known.
Debbie,
To pray for someone and be kind to someone who is not reciprocal in the
kindness is the very essence of grace.
Blessings to all.
Wade Burleson said...
Steve,
You may be misunderstanding many people. The IMB IS involved in ministry,
evangelism and missions -- all three. The emphasis, however, and the main
purpose for the IMB is missions. This is to be in the forefront of all we
do.
Wade Burleson said...
ml,
I found a connection as I work on Sunday's messages. The questionairre does not
seem to be available since there was a prolongued and protracted effort to
collect them all from the trustees. I'm like you and believe they should be
made available to anyone who asks.
I would hope any baptism by a duly appointed IMB missionary would be
'authorized' but I am not the official spokesperson for the IMB. :)
Anonymous said...
That
would have to include women has qualified to baptize, and we know where that
would lead...
Alycelee said...
Where
would that lead Anonymous?
Please sign your name as I have no idea who I'm responding to.
Thanks
Bennett Willis said...
In
our church, parents (fathers so far when I was there) often baptize their
children. The phrase, "I baptise you, my son (daughter) and now my brother
(sister) in Christ..." brings tears to my eyes. That seems like a most
appropriate symbolic act by the family.
Bennett Willis
Bennett Willis said...
For
folks who want a better understanding of Jerry C's thinking, you might go to
David Rogers' blog in late May/early June for a series of exchanges between
David and Jerry.
Bennett Willis
Les Puryear said...
Wade,
An excellent report. You make me feel as if I am right there at the meeting.
Have you heard any discussion about my motion which was referred to all SBC
entities regarding the establishment of public records of attendance and
voting?
Les
Alan Cross said...
Wade,
Thank you for a thoughtful report and I praise God for your confidence that
things are changing for the better. Between ignoring the Garner Motion,
refusing to place you on a committee, including the authority of the Baptizer
in a list of 25 questions, and Jerry Corbaley's treatment of you, it is hard to
see how things are improving. But, I'll take your word that we are headed for
change. I pray that I live to see such changes implemented and that I do not
die in a state of anticipation years from now with unfulfilled hopes.
Wade Burleson said...
Les,
Not a word regarding your motion or for that matter any other business from the
SBC.
Anonymous said...
Sorry
Alycee that I did not sign... Didn't mean to get your 'dander' up :-) I was in
a hurry and headed off to bed. I am a missionary serving overseas. What I have
observed is that women who are duly appointed IMB missionaries do not do
baptisms. They usually get a duly appointed IMB man missionary to do it.
Guaranteed, there are some cultures where it is VERY inappropriate for a man to
touch any woman other than his wife and it may happen in that culture that duly
appointed IMB women missies actually do the baptism (I have not heard of that
happening, but it is possible.)
I guess my point is that if duly appointed IMB women missionaries started doing
the baptisms on the field, there would be an uproar and more attacks on how we
do missions.
My other point is, sometimes we often forget that women are duly appointed IMB
missionaries.
There was sarcasm in my first post and it didn't come across as that. Please
accept my apology for what appeared to be slamming women, for that was not my
intention at all.
Anonymous said...
Alycee,
I should also add that this is just the way it is on the field. We understand
that. It's OK. It's not about the baptisER but the baptisEE. This not the
battle to be waged, whether I am or not 'qualified'.
We're not on the field to fight those battles. We're here to see God's glory
cover the earth by whatever means that have been given to us. We have to look
beyond ourselves everyday. We have to be selfless people and forget man's
agendas and keep God's at the forefront.
to-obey-is-better said...
We
had a baptism two weeks ago and it was an IMB woman who baptized two women.
In your experience, anonymous, this may not be happening where you are. There
are socities where men can't touch non-relative women, but that is not the case
in the society in which we work. There is nothing wrong with a man baptizing
women here, but the IMB woman was close friends with these two
ladies.
Anonymous said...
Obedience,
That's encouraging news, even though it is not the norm. I'll stop commenting
on this subject as it's no longer relavent to Wade's post.
Anonymous said...
Friends,
I have checked BT's information. IT'S ALL TRUE!!!
Wade, why in the world are you lending your good name to a gathering that, in
essence, helps the abortion and homosexual causes?
Peace,
Bob Weldon
PS I am referring to this about one of the speakers of the Baptist Covenant:
"The Rev. Julie Pennington-Russell, former pastor of Calvary Baptist
Church in Waco, was one of the Sponsors of this Planned Parenthood event:
http://www.plannedparenthoodwaco.org/docs/3Rbrochure07.pdf
This conference was designed to counter "True Love Waits." Bill
Underwood's former pastor is also listed as a sponsor of the same
event."
Anonymous said...
Wade,
From your comment regarding Jerry C.:
"To pray for someone and be kind to someone who is not reciprocal in the
kindness is the very essence of grace."
I went with our kids to Falls Creek last week (a great week by the way), and in
the course of Family Group time I had to admit that there were times in which I
had real problems with Romans 12. As the chapter moves on to its ultimate
conclusion, there are times in which it gets more and more difficult for me.
However you believe that our scriptures came to us, one cannot ignore the
admonitions in the later part of that chapter.
On a lighter note, I'm reminded of a M*A*S*H episode where Hawkeye and BJ were
not bathing in revolt to Charles' French Horn playing. Outside the mess tent
they invited Father Mulcahey to join them, at which point he demurred
ulitimately because they stank. BJ said "Father, even Jesus ate with the
lepers". To which Father Mulcahey replied, "yes, but he was an
exceptionally good sport."
Wade, I applaud your willingness to sit down with those you disagree with. I
hope, nee pray, that your, and others, endeavor to keep the tent from shrinking
further will be successful.
There are many of us out here who will not pass the "test" of those
for whom doctrinal purity at the secondary and tertiary levels is necessary for
fellowship. I'm afraid I will have to be something else if they win. For you
see I'm a child of Christ first. I worship as a Southern Baptist. I can be a
child of Christ elsewhere, but I cannot have the reach and breadth of missions
elsewhere that I have as a Southern Baptist. If I loose the opportunity to be a
part of that, I will be disappointed, but I will still be a child of the King
wherever I worship.
R. Grannemann said...
It is
the Landmark position that a true church posses two qualities: (1) true
believers who have been (2) TRULY baptized. It is a wrongful emphasis upon the
"TRULY" that is the distinctive here. For example, to some this would
mean everyone must have been baptized by a church which held to the doctrine of
eternal security.
For this is putting things backwards. A true church is one consisting of true
believers among whom the Spirit of God dwells. The true believers then carry
out the ordinances of a true church as Christ commanded (and I would agree with
Wade's analysis that an evangelist such as Philip can baptize a convert without
explicit "church authority" - a phase which sometimes reveals an
underlying theological problem). The ordinance doesn't have magical power to
make you somehow a better Christian if you happened to get it done in the right
way. One can go around and around in circles debating whether someone's baptism
is true. But to asking this question in too serious of a fashing reveals a
false doctrine itself. It puts the emphasis on the baptism rather than on the
saving power of Christ, the power of God to accept what has been done in faith
apart from man's rules, substituting religious genealogies and symbolism for
the knowledge of Christ.
I'm all for having IMB candidates having believer's baptism and forming
churches with "baptistic" identity. I am for them being taught what
"Baptist" means, but not for them being taught something false in the
name of what "Baptist" means. Baptists should see themselves as one
with the other churches in the
Wade Burleson said...
Bob
Weldon,
My good name has never been lent to anyone or anything.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Rick in Thailand said...
Dear
Anonymous,
Sorry for the delay in responding to your July 18 response to mine.
I believe you and I are in agreement about the Acts 8 and 19 passages. Sorry if
I did not articulate my message clearly and this resulted in it being
ambiguous.
My intent was to say that the ritual of baptism is a huge act of obedience with
supernatural consequences as God blesses the new believer. It's a defining
moment and its openness often leads to persecution, maybe death, in many
foreign lands.
Also, whether or not the baptism act is considered credible by God is dependent
upon the understanding and intent of the believer and his heart. The
credibility of the baptism is NOT dependent upon parameters such as the
credentials of the one doing the baptizing or a new believer being baptized into
a particular local group.
rick
Anonymous said...
Thanks,
Rick for the clarification. Yes, it sounds like we are in agreement. BTW, I did
not log in, as it came up as anonymous, ut I walways sign my name.
John Fariss
Anonymous said...
My
fingers are thicker than the keys too. . . or something.
John Fariss
Anonymous said...
Wade,
When I was in seminary, Dr. Guy often said that the biggest problem we would
encounter on the mission field would be with fellow believers. Young and naive,
I could not believe it. But it turned out to be true. Even worse, the worst
offenders were my brothers and sisters on the field. I thought that it was from
the stress of living outside our comfort zone.
But now, back in the good old US of A, I read reports of how born-again leaders
in our convention treat others...to wit a certain DOM from
A 10-40 Window Missionary
Anonymous said...
You
know, Wade, my mother used to say, "if you don't have anything nice to
say, don't say anything at all." And my grandmother used to say,
"Finding fault with others is a subtle form of self-compliment."
While I don't understand or agree with Jerry Corbaley's behavior, that is
something between you and him. Was there no other trustee or brother there who
could have gone with you to address this issue with Jerry?
Anonymous said...
Wade,
I do thank you for taking your time to give a brief synopsis of the recent IMB
BoT meeting. And, I thoroughly understand how minutes of any one meeting should
not be made available to the public until they are approved. But a question
that I have asked you and other IMB trustees, how might one get a copy of the
approved minutes? I have tried and was totally stonewalled, with no real reason
given. So, again, I ask, how might one get a copy of the approved minutes? And,
if that is not possible, why?
A 10-40 Window Missionary
Ron West said...
anonymous,
Another thing Dr. Guy used to tell us was that whoever leads someone to the
Lord should be the one to baptize that person. I suppose that includes those
who are not ordained pastors and I also suppose it includes women baptizing
those they lead to the Lord.
While it is true that there are occasional conflicts among brothers and sisters
on the field, I have not seen anything to appoach the bitterness I see among
our leaders in the SBC on stateside. On the field where I served we were a
family with the usual conflicts but also mutual love and support for each
other. New directions has destroyed most of that fellowship however.
Wade Burleson said...
Anonymous,
The IMB is obligated to give a copy of the approved minutes to any Southern
Baptists who requests. If you can't get them, let me know. There are
confidential minutes for the board only, but the approved non-confidential
minutes are available to all.
Wade Burleson said...
Anonymous,
Thanks for your persepective. We disagree, but I appreciate your
comments.
End of post “IMB
Trustee Meeting,
Serious Questions:
Are you noticing that there are missionaries who are reading and commenting on
this blog? Are you noticing that the comment stream of Mr. Burleson’s blog is
frequented by slanderers and gossips, and that it is characterized by some good
discussion and some malicious attacks upon others? How is a blog administrator
not accountable for slander and gossip? Is the owner of a bar not accountable
for public drunken violence? Is the
owner of a bordello not accountable for
public sexual immorality? Is a banker not accountable for laundering
publicly swindled money? I urge you to be holy as God is holy and stop
tolerating this wickedness.
Are you morally
appalled yet? What if I included many more blog posts and comment streams from
the previous years? Would you like a couple of hundred more pages?
In the following
post, “The Pleanary Session of the IMB, Wednesday, September 12, 2007,
Ridgecrest, NC” Mr Burleson continues his disparagement of the IMB.
Trustee Burleson
initiates gossip and slander against me again for my statement at the end of
Dr. Rankin’s report, that the Trustees literally applauded. He does not mention
that my words were applauded. He falsely asserts that I singled out SBC Outpost
when in fact I said “a blog”. SBC Outpost is a VERY influential blog, and sure
to incite public opinion against me.
Trustee Burleson
calls attention to the guidelines he follows on his blog, the first two of
which are: He will always tell the truth, and he will never intentionally
denigrate any individual. Toward the end of the comment stream he adamantly
denies personal gossip and slander, and a missionary from the field thanks
Trustee Burleson for bringing some “sanity” into the process; and thanks Mr.
Burleson on behalf of the other missionaries in the field.
Serious Question: How
can the Board of Trustees address the sins of slander and gossip on the part of
our own missionaries if we do not address the blatant sins on our own Board?
Mr. Burleson is influencing our missionaries in a way that can only be called
deception. Please wake up!
Mr. Burleson
compliments Trustee Jeff Ginn, “a really wonderful man” in contrast to Jerry
Corbaley, and then mocks the notion of slander.
Dr. John Floyd is
then given to be a target of gossip and slander.
In reference to Mr.
Burleson’s statements that received a reprimand in January of 2006, He states
that he refuses to apologize, and then justifies “every word, sentence and
paragraph” that he has ever written on his blog. He implies that the removal of
the motion for his removal was a public justification of his behavior as a
Trustee on the Board.
Repeatedly in the
comment stream Dr. John Floyd and I are subjected to slander and gossip.
Be sure and read
this! Mr. Burleson presents a “hypothetical” situation where a trustee is
subjected to “unsubstantiated accusations” of gossip and slander by others who
get a “free pass” to “personally attack” a fellow trustee.
Brothers and Sisters!
Please read all this stuff for yourself.
10.
Wednesday,
September 12, 2007
The Plenary Session of the IMB, Wednesday, September 12,
2007, Ridgecrest , NC
Following is my personal perception of the events that
took place during the plenary session of the International Mission Board of
Trustees meeting this morning, September 12, 2007 at
You don't have to agree with me in my perceptions. You don't even have to read
this blog or my opinions. My purpose is to give information, and I come with a
set of guidelines that I follow, which are:
(1). I will
always tell the truth.
(2). I will never intentionally denigrate any individual.
(3). I will not be afraid to voice disagreement.
(4). I am but one voice among many, and I admit I could be wrong in my views.
(5). I desire for the International
I also have a set of biases that the reader should know:
(1). I believe
Dr. Jerry Rankin is a tremendously effective leader for the IMB.
(2). I believe the IMB is most effective when we focus on our mission.
(3). I believe that accountability comes through complete transparency.
(4). I believe that every trustee of the IMB loves Christ and desires what is
best for the SBC.
(5). I believe that unless leaders of the SBC stand up and say we have gone
"far enough" in the conservative purge and resurgence we will
continue to alienate Bible-believing, Christ-honoring, mission-loving people
who happen to disagree on the non-essentials of the gospel but wish to serve in
SBC mission work.
Now, to my opinion of the meeting.
Dr. Rankin's Presidential
Report
This man is a missiological genius.
I heard one of the finest reports I've ever heard justifying the mission of the
International Mission Board to extend the gospel to all people groups of the
world through church planting movements by reaching into unevangelized regions
of the world.
Dr. Rankin explained that the board must always carefully balance between
placing missionaries in established countries like
Dr. Rankin believes we are striking a good balance in providing missionaries
for established regions and sending out new missionaries to reach new,
unevangelized regions. He asked that all Southern Baptists not focus so much on
numbers that we lose the big picture. The harvest is directly linked to people
having access to the gospel - and our mission is to take the gospel to
"all peoples." To be reproducing indigenous local churches requires a
great deal of work in preparing and sowing the new fields. Only after years of
dedicated work and field preparation will the harvest come.
Dr. Rankin's report was filled with some relevant statistics and slides that
showed the progress of our work, and I felt challenged, after listening to him
speak, to facilitate even more people from our church to move to the far,
unreached lands of the world to share the gospel of Christ.
Questions For Dr. Rankin After His
Report
Immediately after Dr. Rankin's report, Jerry Corbaley stepped to a microphone,
not to ask a question, but to make a comment. Jerry said he desired to place
Dr. Rankin's endorsement of the blog SBC Outpost "behind us" and
commended Dr. Rankin for withdrawing his endorsement of a blog that had risen
to the level of slander. Jerry spoke for about five minutes about how blogs can
be used by our opponent - the devil - and we best come to grips with what is
happening. He said that we must not just say we believe the Bible, but we must
do it (I Cor. 5). Jerry also thanked Dr. Rankin for his missiological views and
then he sat down. After he spoke I was personally confused about two things:
(1). What did SBC Outpost have to do with Dr. Rankin's report?
I do not believe Dr. Rankin should have ever endorsed SBC Outpost, but I am not
troubled by the fact he did - especially after he explained why he did and the
reasons he withdrew his endorsement. I was asked to participate in SBC Outpost
in the beginning and politely declined because I only wish to answer for my own
words, not the words of others. In fact, one of the things that still bothers
me is an attempt by anyone to associate comments
on my blog to me. I have no problem answering for what I write, but I don't
even wish to pretend to defend what someone else writes. Endorsements imply
agreement. I can guarantee you Dr. Rankin does not agree with everything
written on SBC Outpost - never has, never will; but in our very intense
political environnment, it should be obvious that a tactic of some is to try to
make someone guilty by association.
(2). What is the slander on SBC Outpost?
I asked Jerry Corbaley after the meeting to give me a specific of what he would
call "slander" on SBC Outpost. I wanted a specific post, paragraph,
sentence or word that he believed to be "slanderous." He may not have
understood my question because he simply said if people would read the Bible
they could come to an understanding of what "slander" is and apply
that to their reading of the blogs. I desire to continue to do all I can to
prevent general, generic allegations of "slander" or
"hypocrisy" or "liberalism" - without supporting evidence.
I have yet to be given any evidence of slander on SBC Outpost, but frankly, I
don't care.
When will trustees learn that the best way to deal with slanderous blogs is to
ignore them? Jerry feels SBC Outpost is slanderous but did not offer evidence.
I can't understand all the attention. Could it be that some blogs, including
SBC Outpost express good ideas, ring true, and are having an impact on the SBC
because Southern Baptists are smart enough to discern truth? Who knows?
Maybe what you ought to do is read for oneself and decide if it is slanderous or rings
true. Southern Baptists always operate best when evidence is presented on both
sides, not just one, and people make up their minds for themselves.
A couple of other trustees went to the microphone after Jerry Corbaley and
thanked Dr. Rankin for his leadership and prayed for our President. I couldn't
help but smile when trustee Jeff Ginn, a really wonderful man and pastor,
thanked the Lord in his prayer for Dr. Rankin's "transparency" and
"openness" on the blogs
when
he answered the questions posed to him about salary. I'm quite confident
Dr. Ginn felt Rankin's answers did not rise to the level of slander.
The Treasurer's
Report
David Steverson gave us an excellent report on the finances of the IMB. We are
well into the fiscal year and revenue exceeds the budget, and expenditures are
within the budget. Those two things bode for a good year financially.
I really like David. He is from
I spoke to Carl Johnson during the break. It is the first time I had met him
and, I must say, I am impressed. His calm demeanor, baritone voice and easy
smile remind me that the IMB has had some wonderful servants over the years.
Carl told me this anecdote about the treasurer's office. Well into Baker James
Cauthen's tenure as President of the IMB, the finance office never invested in
the stock market. There was always a very conservative approach to finances.
During one trustee meeting, a trustee suggested the IMB invest a portion of
their reserves. To overcome the fear that the IMB might lose in the market, the
trustee pledged to cover the first ONE MILLION dollars in losses. The pledge was accepted - but
the IMB never lost money and has never looked back. I like trustees who are
willing to take a stand for what they believe is best and I appreciated Carl
telling me this story.
A Conversation with Dr. John Floyd
During the Break
Right before a brief recess, Dr. Floyd, Chairman of the Board, reminded all
trustees that they needed their passports. Regional committees will be flying
to the regions they serve in the spring of 2008. The IMB will pay for the trip
for all trustees (all except a small portion of the fee). During the break I
asked Dr. Floyd to which region I should go in the spring. He said that since I
was not on a regional committee I would not be participating in the spring
trips. I then asked Dr. Floyd what his rationale was for not appointing me to a
regional committee this year. He said that I had never apologized to the board
and I continue to blog.
I was stunned. I reminded Dr. Floyd that before
the March 2006 vote to rescind the recommendation for my removal, a
recommendation that had to come before the entire 2006 Greensboro Southern
Baptist Convention, I was publicly asked if I would apologize before the board.
I said at the time before the entire board, "I have no problem apologizing
for something that I know is wrong, but I will not apologize for what I know is
NOT wrong. Not only do I not wish to apologize, I stand by every word, sentence
and paragraph I have ever written on my blog." The vote to rescind the
recommendation was still unanimous
- even after every trustee heard me say this publicly before the entire board.
I told John that I would not apologize now and I would not stop blogging. I
also told him that I accepted his decision not to appoint me to a regional
committtee. As I said in a comment yesterday, in this past year I have been to
the South Asia Regional Office, the Pac Rim Regional Office, and I will be
going in January 2008 to the East Asia Regional Office, and have plans to go to
the Central Asia Regional Office as well. The regional leader for Middle
America and the Carribbean is in our church and we wish to partner with him in
missions; and our youth are looking for a partnership with the
The conversation with Dr. Floyd became intense. Right before the end of the
break I apologized to Dr. Floyd for allowing too much emotion to come into my
conversation with him. I ended my conversation with Dr. Floyd with these words,
spoken in as soft and gracious of a voice as possible, "Dr. Floyd, I will
not apologize. I will continue blogging for the good of the Southern Baptist
Convention and the International Mission Board. I accept your decision to not
appoint me to a regional committee."
Dr. Floyd told me he believes that if I appealed his decision to the entire
board he has enough votes to uphold his decision. It is my understanding that
to overrule the ruling of the chair requires a two-thirds vote. I do not wish
to appeal - there may not, at this time, be enough votes - I honestly don't
know. I will continue to be patient. New officers are elected in May of 2008. I
will blog as long as I am a member of the board and any trips I make overseas I
will happily pay for myself.
Overseas Commitee
Report
This report was given by the chairman of the Overseas Committee. Two
significant reportables came from this report.
First, contrary to some who criticize the IMB for not doing anything about
world hunger, the IMB designated $940,847.58 to 50 projects from the World
Hunger Fund the last few months. Second, a new regional leader was appointed to
the
Administrative Committee
Report
The administration committee recommended the adoption of the new salary
structure for employees of the IMB. I am grateful for the example that Dr.
Rankin and our missionaries set in the matter of compensation. Nobody works for
the IMB to become rich, and Dr. Rankin models the attitude needed in all our
SBC executives when it comes to salary and compensation. He is open and
transparent, just as Jeff Ginn said in his prayer. We currently have 502 staff
positions who work to support our over 5,000 missionaries worldwide. Their work
involves monumental tasks. We are hoping to reach the goal of 8,000 appointed
missionaries in the very near future.
Vice-President Gordon Fort's
Report
I always enjoy hearing from Gordon. He is in charge of overseas work for the
IMB, and he gave another very informative report.
Gordon said that in 2007 we face three unique opportunities when it comes to
fulfilling our mission as the IMB. First, for the only time in the history of
the world, the urban population numbers more than the rural population - and
urbanization is only increasing. The IMB is investigating opening an urban
training center, particularly since most Southern Baptists who are called to
the mission field come from rural areas and need to understand the big city.
Second, gospel orality, or the sharing of the gospel to those who cannot read
or write is an ever growing challenge. We must continue to be creative in
taking the story of the gospel to people who can't understand the written word.
I was reminded of what the Apostle Paul wrote as Gordon spoke, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the
word of God." Finally, Gordon told us that ministry to the
deaf is a unique opportunity to Southern Baptists simply because the language
of the deaf person through signs is universal. Gordon ended by challenging all
of us to increase our giving and efforts to see 8,000 missionaries on the
fields of the world.
Last Sunday while Rachelle, the kids and I were eating lunch at El Chico, I
received an email on my blackberry from Southern Baptist missionaries overseas
who minister to the deaf. Their entire family watched our worship service live
and told us what a blessing the worship and the preaching were to all of them.
I thought to myself as I holstered my blackberry - what a day to be alive in
the world. At what other time in history could a Southern Baptist pastor exhort
his people from the word of God in rural Oklahoma, have a missionary family in
San Salvador, El Salvador listen to the message live over the Internet, and
then immediately send a note of encouragement via electronic blackberry to the
pastor while he's eating lunch with his family at El Chico.
It's a great day to be alive. It's a great day to be Southern Baptist.
In His Grace,
Wade
91 Comments:
Gregory Pittman said...
Wade,
Unless there are specific rules adopted by the IMB on appeals, an appeal from
the decision of the chair requires only a majority vote.
I'm still flabbergasted that blogging is vilified in such a manner. I guess I
fail to see the rationale and I don't suffer illogical thought very well.
Wade Burleson
said...
Thanks
for the information. I will research the issue. I am not clear myself, that is
why I wrote, "it is my understanding" and my understanding may
change.
Bob Cleveland
said...
Wade, I
doubt it's the blogging that's the big rub. It's the content and it's the truth
and we know that's painful in unfortunately too many circumstances.
The world is too full of go-along to get-along. Thanks for not being
that.
Wade,
Blessings on you as you continue to keep us informed.
One slight correction to your post. The president of the FMB mentioned by Carl
Johnson was BAKER JAMES Cauthen, not Grady as your post stated. I knew him well
since he was president when my wife and I were appointed.
Anonymous,
Thank you for the heads up on Mr. Cauthen's name. It will be corrected.
In Him,
Barbara
Pastor Wade's secretary
Going
along to get along always gets my goat. (Hey, Jerry C., that's even if I'm the
one doing it!)
I'd press for that vote just to squeeze the truth out of this situation but my
spouse would tell me to hush.
Mr. Spock & I are both puzzled by the insistence of entrenched insiders in
every bureaucracy to act illogically. Why must personal comfort and friendship
always trump reason and fairness? It might be alright if we were talking about
the Mayberry RFD library board.
The good Dr. Floyd: ain't he something? God bless & use him greatly anyway.
Steve in Hoptown
volfan007
said...
steve in
hoptown,
do you know dr. floyd? i know him personally. he's a great man of God who is
devoted to the Lord. he has led hundreds to Jesus Christ, and served faithfully
as a missionary for years. he is very friendly, and he simply tells you how he
thinks and believes about things. he is his own man.
if i took your remark wrong, i apologize in advance. but, it looked as if you
were putting him down. if you were putting him down, you ought to apologize.
david
Wade Burleson
said...
Volfan,
I would agree with your assessment. I believe Dr. Floyd has a good heart. We
disagree on some, not all, of the issues, but I hold him in high regard.
davidbmclaughlin.com
said...
Wade,
I had two questions I was curious about but do not know if you can answer them.
1) Has there been an explanation given by the IMB as to why there meetings are
behind closed doors? If so can you share the reason? By your description, it
sounds like we could all benefit from the information in the meetings.
2) Are there any written restrictions against board members blogging or
expressing dissent with the board that would preclude a member from receiving
assignments? Are there other things that could also cause a member to not
receive assignments and would they know what those things were in advance (ie:
written down)?
Sorry if these items have been rehashed elsewhere. If so, you can just point me
in the right direction.
Thanks.
Wade Burleson
said...
David,
(1). Forums have been explained as a time for trustees to ask anything they
desire with confidentiality ensured. Bylaws strictly FORBID any business from
taking place in the forum. The board can vote to move into Executive Session to
conduct business, but that is different from the forum. My concerns with closed
door forums is that some, if they so choose, could make false allegations - or choose
to personally attack individuals - and be given a free pass to say anything
they desire - since what they say cannot be reported. I believe if everybody
SBC could know ever word that is spoken at SBC agency meetings, then what
trustees say would tempered, weighed out thoughtfully, and much more prudent
than those words which will forever remain behind closed doors.
As a hypothetical illustration suppose a trustee wished to accuse a missionary
of heresy - or a fellow member of gossip or slander - or an administrator of
charismatic heresy - but didn't want his words to be 'on the record.' In
addition, suppose that trustee making the allegations didn't wish to contact
the person with whom he had the alleged 'problem' and simply chose to make the
unsubstantiated accusations in front of all trustees - behind closed doors.
Suppose nobody had the sense or guts to tell that trustee making the charges to
stop. The Southern Baptist Convention would be ignorant of what was said, but
there would be a very visible and difficult problem, not assoiciated with the
agency's mission, arising among those who are serving as trustees.
Again, this is a hypothetical scenario. Suppose that somebody asked that the
allegations be proved, and that to prove them, it would require a public airing
of the 'alleged' problems before the entire SBC. What happens then? Well, some
might just decide they can't afford to make thing public because the
allegations could actually be proven to be false.
I am of the conviction that if someone is not willing to make something
known to the SBC at large - then it ought not to be even breathed behind closed
doors.
That's why I am against forums and will do everything in my power to end them.
(2). There are no written instructions on why a trustee would not receive a
committee assignment. Assignments are at the sole discretion of the
chairman.
I too
know Dr. Floyd, and if I wrote what I thought. Wade would delete my post. I don't
agree with Wade on somethings, but what is happening at the IMB is wrong. Wade
there is nothing wrong with emotions. I feel like calling Mr. Floyd and talking
to him.
Jeff T
Frank (or Chip)
said...
Wade,
let me tell you that I appreciate you and all of our trustees for the work you
do (though this is in no way an endorsement of any blog)! You (plural)
sacrifice much to make these meetings and you come prepared and informed. I
think I speak for many colleagues when I say that we are thankful for godly men
and women who make decisions about our lives and ministries.
Two items come to my mind as I read this blog. The first is about hunger and
disaster relief. I thank God that our board cares about people. Hunger and
disaster relief are not offered like bait on a hook. Rather, it is offered as
an extension of God’s love. Many however, respond to this love in a way that is
tremendous..
The second item would be closed-door sessions. Look, I live in a country where
my visa reads, “missionary.” I have total freedom to shout from the rooftops.
One day though, one of my sons or daughter may be in a place where that is not
so practical and what is said in those meetings might cost them, dearly. I
dislike secrecy, but sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.
Be blessed,
Frank
Quito
www.GodLovesQuito.blogspot.com
davidbmclaughlin.com
said...
Thanks
for the info Wade. By the way, I am particularly interested in this topic
because of false accusations a former pastor of mine endured behind closed
doors that ruined his ministry.
10 years later a person stood up in a restaurant when they saw him and
confessed that the whole thing was fabricated to run him out. It didn't do much
to reverse the ten years of talk though.
Since then I have an aversion to closed door meetings.
--------
One day though, one of my sons or daughter may be in a place where that is
not so practical and what is said in those meetings might cost them, dearly. I
dislike secrecy, but sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.
Frank, this is an interesting insight. Thanks for giving me something to chew
on.
Debbie Kaufman
said...
Merrill
and I are proud of you.
K. Michael Crowder
said...
Sorry
for the double post----I had intended to post this here.
It was said by Wade in posts of old...
“I told John that I would not apologize now and I would not stop blogging. I
also told him that I accepted his decision not to appoint me t0 a regional
committtee.”
“I will continue blogging for the good of the Southern Baptist Convention and
the International
“(1). I will always tell the truth.”
“(2). I believe the IMB is most effective when we focus on our mission. “
“I do not wish to appeal - there may not, at this time, be enough votes - I
honestly don't know.
That is the chairman's perogative and I am not complaining. “
But, I say unto you, if our dear brother even THINKS of an appeal, that the
collective of his readership should indeed ask, "what of the above
quotes?"
Thank you Wade for your honesty and willingness to drop this subject and topic
for GOOD and never speak of it again. At least under the leadership of the
current chair. And always remember dear brother, sometimes, 'unhappiness just happens,
regardless of your circumstances.' John Piper always says: "God is most
glorified in us, when we are most satisfied in Him, through our LOSSES, not our
prosperity.
Oh, just an fyi: the word [committee] only has (2) t's and the word
[prerogative] contains an "r" as its second letter (I noticed you
forgot it.)
Lastly, before I forget. I had a brilliant idea! For future IMB board meetings,
It would be helpful, and much more "transparent" of you, if you could
wear a small lapel-cam, and possibly partner with 316networks to do a
"live" feed to your blog.
Of course we will close our eyes during which times you "duke it out"
with the chair. ;)
ihs,
kmichael
Bill Scott
said...
K Michel
Chowder,
You come accross as rather pompus. Is this a class you are taking at seminary
this semester? Perhaps you have been perfecting your technique over a number of
years.
If perfection is your destination you must be years ahead of schedule. I would
like to attend one of your perfection seminars in the near future. I am sure
that you will pack pews all over the nation.
You must have an autographed photo of Kate Turabian on your nightstand. You must
also have a bronze bust of Noah Webster above your mantle.
I notice you are always careful to sign your posts with "ihs." Does
this stand for "Insolent, Hypocritical Slander?"
Perhaps you should spend more time in fellowship with Him and less time sharing
your "love" for Wade with the readers of this blog.
Wade Burleson
said...
Bill,
thanks for your defense of me, but I wouldn't worry about Michael. I didn't
understand a thing he wrote.
:)
EA M,
I am writing anonymously because of security concerns. But I would like to add
my comments to the others concerning John Floyd. I have known Dr. Floyd for
about 20 years now. Although I don't see him much anymore, I assume he is still
the kind, wise, godly man I have known so long.
Whether one agrees with him or not, those who know Dr. Floyd as I feel that I
do would have nothing but the utmost respect for his service as a missionary,
seminary professor, churchman, and denominational servant. His patient and wise
demeanor is perfectly suited for his work as trustee chairman.
To read statements such as, "The good Dr. Floyd: ain't he something?"
in reference to a truly good and godly man is insulting to me. I appreciate
Wade's defense of Dr. Floyd. Although I know Dr. Floyd does not need Wade or
me, or anyone else to defend him, I want to say that I know, love, and respect
him. I hope others who post on this blog can, and will, say the same.
K. Michael Crowder
said...
"K
Michel Chowder,
You come accross as rather pompus. Is this a class you are taking at seminary
this semester? Perhaps you have been perfecting your technique over a number of
years.
Did you mean:
pompous /ˈpɒmpəs/
–adjective 1. characterized by an ostentatious display of dignity or
importance: a pompous minor official.
2. ostentatiously lofty or high-flown: a pompous speech.
3. characterized by pomp, stately splendor, or magnificence.
*********************
I must say that this is likely the kindest thing someone has said to me in
awhile.
And, I am not in Seminary as of yet, but hope to begin at Southern by fall of
09. If it is a seminary setting you are after, maybe they will let me give one
of my "seminars" as a project in the preaching practicum. :)
Oh, and EVERYONE knows that ihs means "I hate Satan"
:)
kmichael
Benji
Ramsaur said...
Wade,
I'm not sure what to say.
You definitely show yourself to be mature in talking with people face to face
and in apologizing when you thought you were in the wrong.
I think that if your cause is to win out, it will be because, by God's grace,
your integrity protected you.
God Bless
Benji
I do
hold Dr. Floyd and his peer at NAMB in high regard and pray that God uses them
in glorious work with glorious results for as long as they serve. However, I
must admit feeling that to have a man of Wade's value and accomplishment at his
disposal and not putting him (& only him, right?) on one of these
committees is a waste of resources (illogical? perhaps? maybe not) and I simply
assume this comes as a result of needing to maintain amity among board members.
At least Wade is maintaining contacts with many "M"s and the regional
offices.
Should Dr. Floyd be bold and put Wade on one of these committees, or show boldness
in accepting the role of the blogs? It sounds like his days are full enough as
they are. Perhaps the Lord will move in His own way at His own time if this is
an important issue.
Yep, my spouse should have told to hush in the first place, apparently.
Steve in Hoptown
K. Michael Crowder
said...
"You
definitely show yourself to be mature in talking with people face to face and
in apologizing when you thought you were in the wrong.
But Benji, Wade admitted on at least 2 occasions in the last 24 hours that he
did NOt think he ws in the wrong--hence, he did not apologize. This is why he
is being blackballed from the committees. Is that right? Prolly not. But all
the trustees are sorry sinners. They are instinctly going to be leary of one in
whom they cannot place their trust. (whether their perception is right or
wrong.)
I heard an IMB missionary speak today and gained a fresh perspective on just
one of the underground works that are going on around the world. this is a
small work, it a country that has a long history but has rejected religion and
wants little or nothing to do with Jesus. I will pray for this girl and this
work daily. My heart is with them and their struggles to get the gospel of
Christ to the ears, minds and hearts of all who wil hear and listen.
We have no clue what persecution is.
k
Benji
Ramsaur said...
Michael,
Wade stated "Right before the end of the break I APOLOGIZED to Dr. Floyd
for allowing too much emotion to come into my conversation with him."
(emphasis mine)
I stated "You definitely show yourself to be mature in talking with people
face to face and in apologizing WHEN YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE IN THE
WRONG."
(emphasis mine on my own quote)
You stated "But Benji, Wade admitted on at least 2 occasions in the last
24 hours that he did NOt think he ws in the wrong--hence, he did not
apologize."
Therefore, the apology that I am referring to is an apology Wade gave when he
thought he was in the wrong, not an apology that Wade did not give because he
did not believe he was in the wrong.
Grace
OC Hands said...
Wade,
I do admire you for your persistent search for the truth, as your blog heading
states. Also I appreciate your willingness to serve the convention and the IMB
under the circumstances that prevent you from being assigned to a regional
committee. Your patience and ability to see the good in less than ideal
circumstances is a good example for us all.
But I still do not understand what you have done wrong that you need to
apologize for. Perhaps my memory is failing me, but were the charges specified
in the accusation by Mr. Floyd?
It seems to me that the punishment does not fit the "crime" and that
you are being a scapegoat for all "bloggers" with which some
disagree. How un-Christlike to continue to hold grudges against a fellow
Christian and servant of the IMB. I confess that I have not been as diligent in
praying for our leaders, but now I promise to pray daily for all the trustees,
including the chairman. This is a situation that God must resolve, and I do
believe he will.
Blessings
jasonk said...
I don't
know Dr. Floyd, never met him. Several on this thread have testified that he is
a good and godly man. Fair enough. However, what I read from Wade is that
because Wade refused to apologize, they have refused to appoint him to a
committee. That smacks of "do what I want you to do, or I will get you
back." You can call it a lack of maturity (it is) or you can call it a sin
(it might be) but you can't call it right, or good.
I am sure that the testimonies of Dr. Floyd's character are true, but in this
case he is wrong, any way you slice it.
Wade Burleson
said...
OKC
I assume I am to apologize for 'gossip' and 'slander,' the original 2005
charges which I not only adamantly deny but flew to ST LOIS in 2006 and met
with SBC leaders and showed them in detail the basis for everything I have
written on this blog. I have never been given the opportunity to speak to the
IMB board to defend myself against the charges, but the recommendation from
those trustees who were at St Louis with me when I made my presentation was
that the entire matter of my removal NOT come before the convention.
Their recommendation to the board to drop the recommendation for my removal was
made saying 'trust us.'
It was then, before the board voted to rescind the motion for my removal, that
I was asked by a trustee NOT in St Lois to apologize.
I said that I stand by everything that I have written and will NEVER apologize
for telling the truth. The IMB board then voted UNANIMOUSLY to rescind the
motion.
I didn't apologize then. I won't now.
I only apologize for those things I am guilty of.
Wade
K. Michael Crowder
said...
Benji,
Thanks for the clarification. I should have caught that. But as to THAT
apology, all one can say is "Grandstanding."
I can assure that, had that been me Wade was talking to, regardless of how the
conversation ended, happiness would not have been my first reaction, for
posting its contents on the blog is a far cry from:
I accept your decision to not appoint me to a regional committee.
That fact is that Wade does NOT accept this position. He is angry, and he is
hurt. I am sure rightly so. But the chair and the trustees must feel violated
all the same. I am sure rightly so.
So, I propose assigning Wade as sole trustee to the newly created Northern
Canadian, Antartica,
:)
~K
Debbie Kaufman
said...
Michael
Crowder: I must admit it is very hard to sit and read your comments concerning
Wade. A man you have never met and possibly do not know the whole situation as
I have not seen you post in the beginning. You know not what you speak of. Wade
is a man of integrity. It has not been easy for him these last two years but he
puts people ahead of position. The only thing Wade has done is try to right the
wrongs done to potential missionaries by the new policies now guidelines at the
IMB. He has made messengers better informed and has never hid behind anonymity.
I say this honestly when I say that men like Wade are few, where there should
be more like him, and his wife Rachelle who is a woman of grace, love, and
integrity, stands proudly by him as does his church. I for one have had many
ministers in my lifetime and have never been prouder of any of them as my
husband and I are Wade.
And Michael, you should be glad he is as strong in his convictions as he is,
you may need him by your side some day, who knows. And you know what, he nor
Rachelle wouldn't hesitate to help you. Any of you.
I would
not apologize now and I would stop blogging. Just remember that tomorrow is
another day. In do time, people will see the light and will thank you for
telling it like it is, about what is going on with SBC. “OGF”
K. Michael Crowder
said...
Debbie,
et al,
Thanks for your comment. In light yours, and other comments, I shall rephrase
one paragraph from my post. Here is that corrected (and humbly resubmitted)
paragraph:
That fact is that Wade does NOT accept this position. If I were in this same
position, I would be angry, and hurt. And rightly so. But the chair and the
trustees must feel violated all the same. And rightly so.
It was not (should not have been) my intention to place ill advised emotion to
said conversation.
My resubmittal will serve as my official apology.
ihs,
kmichael
CB Scott said...
Wade,
Due to the fact that we both know my nature is far more choleric than yours you
may delete my comment, but before you do please consider the following:
What I am about to say I have said to the person I am speaking of several
times. He has knowledge of my position.
I own my words. You own yours. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we do not. I still
consider you a brother, SBC pastor and a conservative one at that.
This is your blog and you control it. I have no beef if you delete me. I do
think my comment is my opinion which is public to many already.
So..Here goes.
I have, for some time, believed Jerry Corbaley should resign from the IMB. I
believe it more today.
As far as John Floyd is concerned, well.......It is an established fact within
the SBC that even great men do wrong things from time to time. I believe that
this is one such time for Dr. Floyd.
cb