12 Witnesses

This weekend, IMB Board of Trustees Chairman Tom Hatley was quoted in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette as saying something quite new concerning the ongoing conflict with embattled Trustee, Wade Burleson. I had to purchase the article from the newspaper online, for $1.95. If you would like to do so, you may at www.ardemgaz.com under the archives. The article was published on the 25th of February and is entitled, “Southern Baptist board tries new tack.”

Simply put, Tom Hatley, for the first time since this entire conflict arose, said that the problem was not the blog but was Wade’s handling of himself in his relationships with other trustees. Specifically the article says, “He described it generally as Burleson’s ‘behavior toward his fellow trustees… just a general approach to his relationships on the board.’” When pressed for specific issues, he, as has been the case since this conflict became public in January, fails to give us anything that would lend even a shred of credibility to the accusations. Instead, “Hatley declined to specify what the conflict with Burleson is. ‘We’re not going to do mudslinging in public,’ he said. ‘It’s not biblical.’”

EXCUSE ME?!?! Of course it is not Biblical, but the motion to remove Wade Burleson from the BOT has been the epitome of mud slinging and I refer you to my article, A Clumsy Retreat. Moreover, by claiming that Wade has had issues with other Board Members - a new claim - and by not providing a scrap of evidence to that end, Tom Hatley has done nothing but sling mud publicly with this new statement, all the while claiming there would be none.

I would also like to add that Rick Thompson counters the charge that Wade has had problems relating to other board members. He posts a denial of such as an eyewitness on his blog, The Road We Travel. Rick is a fellow trustee and pastor of the Council Road Baptist Church in Oklahoma City (or “the city” if you’re from OK, like my lovely wife).

Mr. Hatley says there are two models for handling conflict within the Board. “One is the biblical model in Matthew 18, in which Jesus says someone who feels wronged should speak personally with the one who wronged him. ‘And that was exercised,’ by Hatley himself and other trustees, he said.”

It may be that several trustees went to Wade, but it is a matter of record that Wade was not allowed to speak to the issue of the policies in question when they came to a vote. To speak to them outside of the business session would have violated policy against caucusing and, though others may have no problem caucusing, Wade has not done this. He was also, and more critically, denied any opportunity to address the motion for his removal, even though he had no idea that it was forth coming. This denies that the Biblical model was followed, because no one came to him, prior to the vote, with the information that they were at the point of breaking fellowship in an attempt to make it right. If you deny someone the right to come to you, you are not being Biblical.

The second model of handling conflict, according to Mr. Hatley, is to go to the convention, which is what Wade was doing after being denied his right to speak as a trustee. It is what the Board is seeking to get out of after coming to the realization that the convention might very well take them to task, should the subject come up.

Penultimately, I quote this particular exchange:

“The fact that Burleson has written about the board and the policies on his Web log was not a factor in the original motion to ask for his removal. ‘We’re not against his blogging or anybody else’s communication in public,’ Hatley said. Burleson isn’t so sure. ‘I’ve got a good relationship with the board,’ he said Tuesday. ‘The issue is the blog, bottom line. To allege it’s something else is totally misleading.’”

I have said in my post, The Hidden Issue, that I believe there to be an undercurrent of censorship running through the Board of Trustees. As proof of my thoughts, I refer again to the new policy that all stories released by the IMB concerning its trustees must now be approved by the chairman or his designee. Moreover, I submit that this entire issue with Wade has been about censoring his public dissent: by blog or other means, but specifically the blog. The words, “slander” and “gossip” were read into to record at the January meeting when Wade was accused and those words pointed directly to the blog. The revised wording that Tom Hatley released to the press, “broken trust” and “resistance to accountability” also point directly at the blog and Wade’s refusal to quit informing the SBC of the Board’s dangerous directions. Additionally, this statement is contrary to the repeated requests posed to Wade by “trustee leadership” to quit blogging. Wade refers to this on his blog and asked the readers for their input on February 12, in his post, A Fair Minded Request.

Finally, I am happy to have Tom Hatley on record stating that he is against limiting public dissent; either Wade’s or anyone else’s. I assure you that the meetings in Tampa the third week in March will be closely watched for any action that would run counter to this public statement. If the board moves to limit public dissent in even the slightest way, I predict an outcry the likes of which they have never seen. I know that the last month has been bewildering for them. They will be more bewildered than ever if they follow the path of censorship that they have trod thus far.

*Warning: If you are a missionary in a Muslim country (or Israel) and miss eating bacon with your eggs for breakfast, this post may make you feel hungry and/or homesick.

Ever seen those commercials that compare everyday life with investing? I always thought they were a little goofy, but sometimes clever.

I had that kind of moment today. You see, on Saturday, since I was a kid, I like to cook bacon and eggs for the family. I did it as a teen for my Mom and Dad, and do it now for my wife and kids. You see, I am awesome at cooking bacon. It is always cooked through and still soft and tasty. So as I cooked a full package this morning, I thought through my principles of bacon and realized they lined up with something else that I have had on my mind lately… namely, the IMB Board of Trustees conflict. So here are my thoughts.

What can cooking bacon teach us about dealing with difficult situations with closed door politics?

Low heat is critical. Putting the burner on high will create a situation where the bacon will burn before you know it. The slow simmer will reward you with great bacon and good results when dealing with confrontation. Too much heat in a confrontation will create a situation that becomes explosive and damages everything, leaving us with nothing worth having. (Yes, this is me on simmer, and I have very much been watching the fire closely.)

The first pieces grease the pan and are critical. If you don’t want to burn these first pieces, you need to tend them closely. All the other pieces will fry in the grease from this first batch. As they cook without grease already in the pan, you risk them as well as risk leaving the taste of burned grease in the pan souring the taste of what is yet to come. For us, if we handle this first confrontation of conservative vs. conservative within the SBC poorly, we will have the sour taste of it in the SBC for some time to come and could leave us severely, or even permenantly, damaged.

Constant attention gives perfect results. Ignoring the bacon will burn it and picking it out of the grease too early will leave it uncooked - which is not what you want with either bacon or confrontation. We will need to focus our conversation on this topic consistently between now and the SBC in Greensboro. The March meeting of the BOT in Tampa is important, but there is much more that we will not know until after those meetings. Developments will be ongoing for a long time and I daresay that the SBC will have more than we can imagine.

Anything to add?

Here are two things on which to chew this weekend:

Remember the Young Leaders Conference 2, War Memorial Auditorium, Monday, June 12, 9:30 pm Eastern.

I have talked with Marty and he tells me that the line up of speakers is coming together beyond what any of us had hoped. I have to say that I am very excited about being in Greensboro this year. It will be a big year for the SBC and I think that is good. Once again, YSBC, if you want the current leadership to take you seriously, take the SBC seriously and be there for this conference.

Also, Bill Dodson has released a statement to the press stating that he will nominate Wiley Drake for 2nd VP of the SBC this year. Some of you may know that Bill did this last year, with no pre-event publicity and Wiley received 21% of the vote. Wiley is well known to many who have attended the SBC as “Mr. Resolution.” Read the rest of the press release and you will know why.

Before you do, however, let me tell you briefly about Bill Dodson and why his nomination matters. Bill is a conservative that has pastored four churches over the span of fifty years. In each of the churches, before he left, the Sunday School attendance was over 1,000. Bill is a soul winner and his churches have reflected that.

He is among those who fought for the authority of the Bible alongside Adrian Rogers, Homer Lindsey and others. He told me that when Adrian passed, he thought, “Oh, no. I’m the last pea in that pod.” He will turn 80 this year, but is still vital, visiting members of his church in the hospital regularly, even though he is now retired. This will be his 62nd straight convention. Of course, I am leaving out all of the denominational posts in which he has served, because they are too numerous to mention. The great thing about his service is that he never sought it, but humbly served when asked.

When Bill steps to the microphone to nominate Wiley this year, I hope that everyone gives him a rousing ovation for the work he has done and still does for the Lord. He is a treasure in the SBC.

Having said that, here is the release:

February 24, 2006MURRAY, Ky. Wiley Drake, pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, California, will be nominated for second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention at the 2006 annual meeting in Greensboro, NC, June 13-14. Bill Dodson of Murray, KY, will make the nomination.”Over the past fifty years that I’ve been attending Southern Baptist Conventions, I don’t think I’ve ever met a Southern Baptist anymore committed to our conservative values than Wiley Drake. He has the kind of guts that Southern Baptists have always loved in their leaders, and I think it’s time we recognize that Wiley really does represent a segment of Southern Baptists,” Dodson said.For many years, Southern Baptist messengers have heard from Wiley Drake, who is often seen hovering around a microphone in the convention hall, ready with a string of motions and resolutions to call Southern Baptists to take a stand on moral concerns like abortion and homosexuality.”The only disadvantage of having Wiley Drake as second vice president is that we won’t get to see him on the convention floor. But maybe some folks will think that’s an advantage. Either way, I’ve grown to love Wiley and appreciate his consistency, integrity and wit,” Dodson noted.Little doubt exists that Wiley Drake is one of Southern Baptists’ more colorful figures. A native Southerner who pastors a church in the Los Angeles area, Drake has taken heat in his community for promoting biblical values. But the man some have come to know as “Mr. Resolution,” has a great heart for missions and personal soul winning.In recent years, Drake has been cited and put in jail for violating city ordinances against sheltering the homeless without a permit. Insisting that the State of California could not prohibit a local church from fulfilling its mission, Drake persisted in providing shelter for the homeless on his church property, an act that would ultimately get him a probated sentence and 1500 hours of community service. Undeterred, Drake fulfilled his sentence of community service, something he said he had been doing as the church’s pastor all along.”Wiley has a great blend of heart for social concerns-not just the big issue items that conservatives talk about all the time, but concerns for the poor and for justice-and he’s got a keen eye for doctrine and fidelity to our Baptist Faith & Message,” Dodson explained. “I just think it’s time that we recognize Wiley Drake in this way. We all love him. He’s one of us, and I think he’ll serve our convention commendably.”

I have read several remarks over the last day or two about the whole business with the IMB BOT becoming a distraction from God’s work. The implication, I believe, has been that we should pay attention to the mission and let the Trustees take care of themselves.

As I was reading the Word yesterday, I started out with Paul’s first pastoral epistle to Timothy. This immediately jumped out at me.

1 Tim 1:3-7

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work-which is by faith. 5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. (NIV)

I want to pull a few things out of this Scripture for us all.

1) Quibbling about doctrinal minutiae leads to controversy (3b - 4a). Amen to that. I think we all can see that happening. (I know there is more to that section, but I summarize for brevity.)

2) The controversy becomes the hindrance of God’s work (4b). We have seen this to be true. We all know that the Lottie Moon offering and our Cooperative Program giving are both on the line. Our generation gives to what they think is important and is handled well. Trust is sacred - hard earned and easily lost. The controversy endangers the conviction that we are handling God’s business well and that the task is important.

Let me say here that my church is one of the state’s highest per capita givers to all of our missions offerings and to the cooperative program, and I fully support that. In fact, our church gives so much, that we routinely make the top 100 givers in the state in bulk giving (not the prorated per capita standings) even though we are much smaller than many of the churches in larger towns. I say this to explain that I believe in the CP and the missions emphasis and I do not want to threaten them in any way. In fact, just the opposite is true. Also, the giving of this church is also not dependant on me. We were big CP & missions givers long before I arrived and will be long after I go. I just am saying that I am in agreement with our church and giving.

3) There is a worthy fight within the verse that Paul encourages. It is the fight to stop the quibbling over doctrinal minutiae (3a). Paul tells Timothy to get these people on task and to refocus on God’s work, the goal of which is love, which comes from a pure heart, good conscience and a sincere faith. The fight to focus is the one that Paul endorses.

It is to this fight that I call us. We need to be unswerving in our commitment to get everyone back on task. No one should feel guilty about it, either. Rather, we should feel sober and humble. I know that I do.

I want to say something about the Trustees of the IMB, here. I believe that the great many of them fulfill all three of the qualifications that produce love, the goal of God’s work: a pure heart, a good conscience and a sincere faith. I can not say this of everyone on the board, but I do say this of virtually all of them. I beg them: please act openly to set aside doctrinal issues that have created the controversy. Let us all go about the Mission of winning and making disciples of the world.

It is just under a month until the IMB Board of Trustees meet in Tampa, Florida. The meeting is scheduled for March 20 - 22 and all the eyes of the SBC will be on the meetings. There are the obvious reasons for paying attention to the meetings, of course. We want to know if the Executive Board will be able to make good on its promise to reconcile the Board of Trustees with Wade Burleson. This has become the topic of conversation of many across the Southern Baptist landscape.

There is an issue, though, that is lurking and unresolved that may come up during that meeting. The issue is that of Trustees speaking to the Southern Baptist Convention about issues concerning the business of the Board. Specifically, there has been a charge leveled at Wade that his blogging of these issues was out of bounds. In a previous post (Target: Young SBC), I mentioned the sentiment that many on the Board had toward blogging and the action they might take would be to outlaw blogging by members of the Board of Trustees.

I now suspect that the move to outlaw blogging is not one that the Board will make. It is too complex an issue and singles out the Young SBC, as I mentioned before.

LET ME STATE CLEARLY THAT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE MY SUSPICIONS, AND THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO OFFICAL MOVEMENT TO IMPLEMENT ANY PLAN AS OF THIS POST.

Still, because it would be of vital importance to nip this in the bud, I am going to outline a possible action that I suspect to be “in the works.”

Because of comments on Wade’s blog, statements made within the media, personal conversations with some who were at the last BOT meeting and ultimately because of the adoption of a policy restricting all press releases concerning the Board of Trustees to those approved by the chairman or his designee, I believe the move that is lurking in the background is one that will SILENCE DISSENT of any trustee IN ANY FORUM.

The move would be simple and would target no group in particular (i.e. blogging by YSBC), but would regulate all media communication unilaterally. That is to say, it targets all media equally and targets trustees in the minority of any decision specifically.

If such a move were made, it would complete a stranglehold on communications, forcing all statements to be in line with the majority vote. Here are some problems with such a stance:

1) It strengthens any caucus’ ability to operate behind the view of those to whom the Trustees must answer: the Southern Baptist Convention. If a group of Trustees are able to win a majority vote - even by a 51% to 49% vote - the commentary on that issue will be controlled by the group controlling the majority. All we will hear is what this sub-group wants us to hear.

2) It weakens us tremendously. Conversation, communication and even conflict can make us strong. It shores us up when we are weak and is the foundation of the Biblical principle of “iron sharpening iron.” By only allowing one message to come from a governing body, we create an oligarchy, where control is maintained by a few. I mentioned in my first point that the message would be controlled by the few, but because the message is controlled by the few so are the legacy and the direction of the entity.

3) It disenfranchises trustees who are absent for a vote. Things happen and trustees have conflicts that can become unavoidable. When the issue of Wade’s removal came up in January, several trustees who agreed with Wade were absent and therefore unable to weigh in on the subject. If a rule silencing the minority from public dissent were in place, these trustees would have had to publicly support the action or issue the ubiquitous, “no comment.” In fact, such a rule would have silenced Wade from even defending himself. Since he was not allowed to respond to the Board’s allegations in the Board meetings, he would have been left with no recourse whatsoever, other than to defend himself from the floor of the convention.

4) It short circuits the Biblical principles in dealing with confrontation, disallowing the final step and keeping us from resolution. The Biblical principles of confrontation are that if there is conflict, you must go to your brother or sister. If the matter remains unresolved, you must then go to the greater body and seek resolution. (General principles drawn from Matt. 5:21-24, 1 Cor. 5: 9-12, 2 Cor. 2:6-11, Gal. 6:1-2, 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15, Titus 3:9-11 in short) By not allowing dissent to turn, ultimately, to the SBC for resolution, such a move would be unbiblical, and therefore wrong under any circumstances.

The rationale for such a move is that it promotes unity within the Board and within the SBC. Nothing could be further from the truth. Such a move to silence dissent will only produce resentment and frustration within the Board and will intensify the feelings of disunity. This will only lead to greater conflict and damage to the institution. Moreover, to “pretend” that a group is unified when they are not is nothing short of falsehood and is beneath us.

To silence minority dissent would be seen clearly as the leadership within the Board not feeling it can stand the scrutiny of the Southern Baptist Convention. Frankly, it is tantamount to an admission to that effect.

The next meeting is a month away. I believe, next to Wade’s reconciliation with the Board, this particular topic must occupy us constantly. There is nothing more important than these two issues over the next month as it relates to the politics of the IMB and the SBC.

Some may argue here that the most important issue is that we fulfill the great commission to win and make disciples of the world. I agree wholeheartedly. These subsequent issues stand in the way of that happening, and therefore must be overcome with all haste so that we may fulfill the task that is ours.

As a former disaffected Young Leader, I know many of you may be struggling with the whether or not to spend time and money away from your flock to come to the SBC in Greensboro this year. I know that you think the SBC isn’t listening to you and that the process of getting business to the floor of the convention is under the control of the older generation anyway, so there is no point in you being there. I want to give you a few reasons to show.

1. “Young Leaders Conference 2.” Monday night, War Memorial Auditorium, 9:30 pm. Not only will you get to meet your peers in the SBC, you will get to hear from Wade Burleson and enjoy an evening of good food and good music.

2. Let them hear you. “YLC2″ not enough of a draw for the time, money and energy? Fine, I understand. How about getting our seniors to pay attention to us? If you want them to take us seriously, we are going to have to take seriously what they take seriously: showing up at the SBC and getting involved. The builder generation knocks the busters and/or gen x, y, and z (or gen internet, etc.) by saying that we aren’t “committed,” and they are right. We have a tendency to show little denominational loyalty and that is well documented.

I don’t worship the SBC, but that doesn’t mean its not worth fighting for. It is the greatest missionary sending body in the New Testament age and we are being distracted from the mission by politics. Show up and they will know that you believe that. Sacrifice to be there, like they did when they were fighting for the survival of the convention on the battlefield of Biblical authority, and they will take you seriously. Stay home, and they will know that you don’t really care that much.

Take that thought a step further. If you really don’t care enough to show up, then you are saying that you don’t really care if the SBC goes the way of the dinosaur. It’s saying that you think you can do more by yourself than you can with us. My brothers and sisters, these things ought not be.

As for me, I will sleep in my car and eat bologna sandwiches if I have to. It was good enough for those who have gone before me and it is good enough for me.

3. There will be things that need your official attention. You may not see avenues to voice your opinion other than your presence, but that does not mean there will not be any. Frankly, we need to be there for whatever gets voted on. There are so many possibilities that will play out between now and then. Who knows what the IMB BOT report will say? Who knows what resolutions may come to the floor? To be there, however, means that you must plan NOW! I promise that you will leave with the knowledge that you voted on things that mattered and that your vote and your voice made a difference.

Commit, plan and implement. Be there!

In my last post I held out Dr. Rankin to be a good model of open, honest leadership that confronts situations with truth and love. What about us? How does the responsibility to fulfill the mandate of Christian Leadership apply to us in this situation?

First, we must confront the situation. Many among YSBC (see previous article, Target: Young SBC) have already become disaffected and have no desire to meander into the hurtful actions that they saw happening in their parents’ SBC. Still, whatever the actions of past generations, as leaders we have the responsibility to confront the issues of the day. We do not have the luxury of bowing out of the controversy. That means that we must speak out in every venue that is available to us. We must speak to our peers locally, we must speak to our church body and we must speak to the Convention. How we communicate - through mail, email, phone or face to face conversations or even blogging, is a matter of who we are. That we have these conversations is a matter of what we are: Leaders.

Second, as we deal with the issues, we must speak the truth, but we must temper it with love. We do not have the prerogative to use the bully pulpit, afforded to us as leaders, to intimidate or belittle. I write and re-write every article and every comment I post now to choose my words carefully. It is never acceptable to be harsh with people, but now more than ever, we must be responsible in the tone of our conversation, always insuring that it reflects Christ’s affection for His own body. It is this mark that is the sign of authenticity to those who are listening to the various voices all around. They will know that we are His disciples by our love for one another. Patiently bear one another in love.

Finally, we must point to a particular direction. In this sense, I mean that we must be in Greensboro, and we must bring others. By speaking in a loving and honest way to the Convention, we can hope to affect change. Many have yet to commit to being present at Greensboro. Let me encourage you to do so. Make your room reservations and follow your church’s procedures to be sent as their Messenger.

You may think that, since the recommendation to remove Wade Burleson from the Board of Trustees of the IMB has been called back by the IMB BOT Executive Committee, there will be no reason for you to go. Let me give you a few thoughts.

1. The Executive Committee of the BOT does not have the authority to rescind the vote made by the entire Board. Its promise is just that: a promise. When the Board meets again in March, there will be an opportunity for the Board to accept a substitute plan, but until this occurs, nothing has changed.

2. The issues that led to this crisis have not dissipated. There are still the issues of caucusing, undue influence of agency heads over the trustees and staff of other agencies, overly restrictive policies enacted by a missionary board that go beyond the Bible and the BFM2000, and, of course, the actions of the Board of Trustees that disparaged the character of Wade Burleson, yet have never been apologized for nor has responsibility for them ever been taken other than the aforementioned promise. You may not be seeing any avenues for addressing these situations currently, but I can give you my word that your presence will be important in doing so.

3. Finally, there will be a Young Leader’s Conference at the War Memorial Auditorium on Monday night, June 12. This conference will take place under the auspices of the SBC in an effort to unite us all across generational lines. We will be there from 9:30 pm until 11:30 pm (Eastern Time), and a fair amount of that time will be spent in meeting each other and enjoying the good food provided. You will want to be there for this - I assure you - not just for the food and the company. Wade Burleson is our keynote speaker and the rest of the program will be electrifying, including the band.

People often look as leadership as benefit or a way to receive benefits. In a way that is true. It is certainly a privilege to be the one who gets to cast a vision and motivate others to work toward the accomplishment of that vision. The negative aspect of leadership is when you have a leader who considers that “getting one’s way” is the benefit that is their prerogative.

The biblical view of leadership is that it is a responsibility and not a right. Jesus, while settling the dispute among the disciples concerning who was most important and would receive the most honor dealt with it this way:

24When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. 25Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave- 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Matt. 20:24-28

When a leader is faced with a dispute, either among others for whom he is responsible or a dispute that he is having with another, it is his responsibility as a servant to deal with it in an honest, straightforward manner. The admonition is that we would speak the truth in love, which is the mark of maturity in Christ according to Ephesians 4:11-16.

It is a sign of immaturity to be anything other than plain spoken, honest and loving while dealing with conflict. Avoiding conflict is also a sign of immaturity.

In recent days we have seen leadership that has demonstrated a maturity that represents this plain spoken nature and willingness to lovingly deal with conflict that is raging around him. That leader is Jerry Rankin.

In a meeting with the editors of the state Baptist papers last week, he opened himself up to any question that the reporters wished to ask. Of course, the first question asked (by Kentucky’s own Trennis Henderson) and the following bulk of the discussion was over the IMB’s new policy prohibiting anyone from serving as a missionary if they practice a private prayer language. The policy is controversial in Southern Baptist life for many reasons, but it is particularly controversial for Dr. Rankin because he has openly declared that he practices a private prayer language.

Some have questioned the motives of the IMB BOT in instituting this policy, suggesting that it is to embarrass Dr. Rankin and possibly to force him into early retirement. If it is true that the motivation for the policy is to accomplish the aforementioned goal, then those pressing for the adoption of the policy have shown a lack of mature, Christian leadership. A leadership that has been put on display by Dr. Rankin in the interview, reprinted in part below, but found in its entirety online at the Baptist Press. All emphases are mine and are what I perceive to be examples of plain spoken leadership or the lack thereof.

IMB president speaks plainly with state editors about private prayer language
Feb17, 2006
By Staff
Baptist Press
BANFF, Alberta, Canada (BP)–

RANKIN: What would you like to ask about? Go in any direction you want. You know I’ve been here before. I know you guys. We’ll try to help out in whatever you’d like to talk about.

Trennis Henderson(Western Recorder, Ky.) — Jerry, just to jump right into it I suppose — you referenced issues that are distractions. It seems like one of those distractions of recent has been the discussion of policies related to private prayer language. Private prayer language certainly sounds like something that you don’t discuss publicly, but [laughter from editors]

RANKIN — I’m impressed, you’re coming along. [more laughter]

Henderson — However, however, it seems that your practice of private prayer language has become a public issue. I know there was the discussion at the time of your election as well some discussion of what your current practice remains today. And just interested in a clarification from you to the extent that you’re comfortable, just about what your current practices are related to that area.

RANKIN — Well, I would really prefer to be very guarded in what I share. You know in our discussion with our board, just sharing — I do have a private prayer language, have for more than 30 years. I don’t consider myself to have a gift of tongues. I’ve never been led to practice glossolalia, you know, publicly, and I think the spiritual gifts clearly in the didactic passage of the Scriptures are talking about the public uses, edification and gifts in the church.

[...]

but like you said, I mean, I’ve been very open with the board. I don’t talk about it. I don’t advocate it. I don’t see it as normal or that I should propose that anyone ought to pray in tongues. It’s just what God had chosen to do in my life and maybe it’s, mine is just psychological make-up or my needs, but goodness, my morning devotional time — [it's] not frequent, but I just want God to have freedom to do everything that He wants to do in my life and I’m going to be obedient to that. I don’t see it as a public issue or something I should talk about. You know, it was all out there when I was elected. I mean, just go back and read your files, and some of you have. I mean it was headlines in all your papers –Baptists selecting a charismatic [some laughter]. Well, how do you define a charismatic? I don’t consider myself a charismatic. I know what neopentecostalism charismatics believe and I preach against that. But anyway –people where they’re coming from. But even in [the] recent thing, whatever motivated the board to move in this direction, you know, I can’t control that. I’m under their authority. They have the prerogative of doing what they feel is in the best interest of our board and our missionary work. They’re very conscientious about their sense of accountability to the Southern Baptist Convention and it’s not the first time, in fact, quite frequently; I mean, I clearly recognize if God has put me in this position to lead the international mission efforts of Southern Baptists, I do serve under the authority and submission to our board and to Southern Baptists and I have to recognize that that’s going to have an expression and parameters that I have to accept. I would never compromise or violate personal integrity and convictions. But every leader sometimes has to do things that they wouldn’t necessarily prefer to do or even be in agreement with. But there’s an accountability to implementing the policies of our board and carrying them out and I’m going to do that to enable us to fulfill our mission task. Yeah, we’ve shared my personal perspective openly, and as one trustee said, Trennis, said, ‘well, you’ve just told us you have a private prayer language so it’s not private any more.’ Well, I think it is because no one’s ever heard me pray in anything other than English so I think it is still very private and it will remain so, but it’s nothing to deny. You may have been asking more than that. Alright, having gotten that out, that pretty much opened the door anywhere you want to go.

[...]

Greg Warner (Associated Baptist Press) — A couple of your trustees and some other observers have speculated part of motivation was directed at you. That the policy was intended to scare you or force you out or in some way directed to embarrass you. Are you aware of any of that being true and if so or if not, what do you think about that? Is that –

RANKIN — I would just refer to the comment earlier, that I think one of the reasons that that allegation or at least suspicion was there is that it was so difficult to identify any compelling reason why we needed to do this. Certainly biblically it goes beyond the doctrinal parameters of the Baptist Faith and Message. It was restrictive in appointing missionaries; so whether or not that was a motivation, you know, I think it did create suspicion, you know, with that regard because of an awareness of my personal practice. But no one on the board has admitted to that. And uh, folks you always got to be guarded about judging anyone’s motives. I mean, you can see they do something, that’s clear. But why they do it, you just can’t go there. And so, it’s certainly not in my interest to go there. [some laughter] And, uh, in fact they’re now being confronted with that and saying, no, this isn’t an effort to get at Jerry. I kind of consider it as having assured my tenure for as long as I want to serve. [more laughter] I mean who’s going to stick their neck out and say it really was now you know and we want to use this against you. So, I think, I don’t think it’s a dead issue. I think there’s a lot of reaction momentum, uh, to the publicity and the reaction that’s been generated across the convention to revisit it and look at it. Is it really advisable? Do we need it? I don’t know, you know, they may choose to live with it, but I kinda sense that we’re going to continue to be dealing with this.

Jim White (Religious Herald, Va.): Just to clarify what Jim had asked — If I understand your response correctly, the personnel committee of board had said this is what we will — these are the parameters we will use and your feeling was that needs to be acted on by the full board before those parameters are set in concrete?

RANKIN — Right

White — So your taking it to board then was not because you wanted to get this out in the open for the board to act, so much as you wanted to see if the full board supported this narrow interpretation?

RANKIN– Well you know, you’d just seen two years of work in a committee that had kind of generated this, and I, along with others just wasn’t confident that that represented the conviction and consensus of the full board and we shouldn’t have to implement what is in essence a policy, even if they call it a guideline, you know, and then deprive most of the board members from being able to even speak to this. So, whichever way it went, you know, it just needed to be affirmed, voted up or down by the full board.

White — So, if board members were to say, ‘well, the only reason we acted on this was because Dr Rankin insisted on it,’that would be a little misleading wouldn’t it?

RANKIN — Well, yes, in fact, if that was actually said, you know, well, the only reason we’re doing this is our president wanted this adopted as a policy, not a guideline — I said, ‘excuse me [laughter] — it was not that I wanted it as a policy, but I just wanted the full board to vote on it.’

White — Well, I was one of those editors and I’m sure there were others, who was told that very thing?

[...]

The Executive Committee of the IMB Board of Trustees has begun a clumsy retreat on behalf of the Board. In January, the Board voted to recommend to the SBC that Trustee Wade Burleson be removed from its ranks. The allegations read into the record were that he had committed “gossip” and “slander.” Those are serious charges, but they were immediately backed away from when Tom Hatley, Board Chair, released a statement to the press and said that the reasons for the unprecedented action were the result of “broken trust and resistance to accountability.” This is a far cry from accusing a pastor of gossip and slander.

On Wednesday, the Board’s Executive Committee actions were published in an article by Tammi Ledbetter in the SB Texan. The article contained language that suggested there would be some internal discipline of Wade Burleson. After Wade called Chairman Hatley, the SB Texan altered the language in the post you can read here. (Please note the connection in the chain of events: Texan publishes story, Wade calls Hatley, Texan changes story.) Hatley himself issued a “clarification” to the Baptist Press on Thursday.

Here is my latest commentary on the situation:

By rescinding the Board’s majority vote to ask the SBC to expel Wade, the Board’s leadership will be admitting to several things. We have not heard them admit these things verbally, but their actions are speaking for them.

First, by their actions they admit that they overestimated their own influence. While the alleged “caucus group” was able to sway the majority of the Board during the meeting, they did so by not allowing Wade to defend himself. They are still trying to control the flow of information to the Convention, but they have been, and will continue to be, unsuccessful. (I will soon post concerning the newest plan to restrict the flow of information. It will not be to eliminate blogs, but will be a much broader, more restrictive plan.)

Second, by their actions they admit that they underestimated the influence of Wade and his integrity, the ability of the internet to communicate and the willingness of the SBC at large to question their actions instead of blindly trusting them. In fact, there is a growing dissent within the SBC that is tired of the backroom deals that produce decisions that the SBC is expected to rubber stamp.

Thirdly, by their actions they admit that they have no evidence of either “slander” or “gossip” that can substantiate their claims that Wade was guilty of those actions. Moreover, they are also admitting that the alternate charges in the press release, that there was “broken trust” and “resistance to accountability,” are also ones that are not sustainable.

Fourthly, and finally, by their actions they admit that they can not win this fight in the open, so they are seeking to go behind closed doors where they better control the field. By taking this issue off of the table, they knowingly take away the single most identifiable rally point that their opposition has used to convince the members of our convention to show up in Greensboro.

I would like to say two things in response to these actions, hopefully providing a few new rally points for us to gather around.

First, I say that since there is clearly no evidence of the very hurtful and public claims against Wade Burleson, the Board of Trustees should publicly apologize, in humble nature, for the slander that they have committed against him. If you want our respect and trust, then you should act like men and women of God and accept responsibility for your actions. It is unconscionable that these statements would be made without any evidence and it is worse that you would expect that we will ignore the fact that you haven’t apologized for doing it.

Second, I say that the leaders who have coordinated these actions can not and will not win this fight. Moving it behind closed doors, where many of us are not allowed to go, will not stop us from publicizing the end results. Wrongdoing that is done in secret will be brought to the light. You will be held to account for your actions, not only by God, but by the Southern Baptist Convention that has trusted you to serve it and God.

The thought is not original with me, but I quote you Dan 5:25-28:

25 “This is the inscription that was written:

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN

26 “This is what these words mean:

Mene : God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.
27 Tekel : You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.
28 Peres : Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”

My words to you: The days of your reign are numbered; you have been weighed and found wanting; that which you rule is divided, and will be given away.

I have posted twice on other blogs about the upcoming issue of International Mission Board’s Board of Trustees censorship of blogs. Many are speculating that the IMB BOT will adopt a policy in its upcoming meeting that will prohibit members of the BOT from posting on blog sites. Obviously, this is in response to the fair and even handed criticism of policy changes that were posted by Wade Burleson over the last several months. This has created a hornet’s nest for the leaders of the IMB BOT and the SBC.

At the January meeting in Richmond, the BOT adopted a policy that all news relating to the BOT must be cleared by the chairman or his designee. This move has become the foreshadowing of the potential move to silence news stories by trustees on the internet. At the core is the desire to control the flow of information whose subject is the IMB BOT.

The Alabama Baptist carried an article recently that addresses the general situation of control. It is excellent and I refer you to it here.

My specific concern here is the tightening of the censorship noose. The potential move to eradicate blogging is a move that is designed specifically to eliminate the flow of information to a group I will call “Young SBC,” or “YSBC.” YSBC has become a problem for the leaders of the SBC for several reasons.

1) YSBC is not easily led, but questions the relevancy of moves made by the leadership and stands in opposition if they disagree.

2) YSBC communicates quickly via the internet, which cuts deeply into the ability of the leadership to control the flow of information.

3) YSBC is committed to the betterment of the SBC, but their perception of what is best differs radically from the perception held by current leadership. Specifically, we are not afraid of conflict and conversation. Our generation is marked by the need for dialogue. It is who we are. We can sit peacefully and talk about all manner of opposing ideas with people who are diametrically opposed to our faith and practice. After the conversation, we can shake hands, smile and wish them well. This is important to us because we know it is through these conversations that we can share the Gospel. Without these conversations, we know that our culture will increasingly turn the deaf ear to our Lord.

This stands in stark contrast to the marketing of Christianity that is so prevalent among us today. I recently saw an interview with a de-churched college student from the University of Louisville who said that the Christians he knew were never interested in what he had to say, but only interested in converting him to their set of beliefs.

My point? We feel that leadership wants to convert us to their ideas and will not listen to us, even though we are conservative Southern Baptists.

4) The most scary problem that YSBC poses is their willingness to chuck it all. Now most of us are planning on going to Greensboro and trying to make a difference. However, if we become convinced, over the next few years, that the SBC has no room for us to lead and no ear for our ideas, I am quite sure that most of us will find a different place of service. That could have a troubling domino effect as well. If the YSBC leaves, how many SBC churches will they take with them? Of all the churches that remain, who will fill the pastoral void that the young leaders leave in their wake?

In our association, there are 12 churches without pastors. Most have little or no prospect of getting a pastor any time soon. The reason? They don’t want a young leader to come in and make changes. They won’t listen to new ideas, but would rather just exist the way they always have. This could be a widespread picture for the SBC, also.

If the SBC doesn’t make a place for us, they will not have the problem of dealing with us for much longer.