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.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Jeff Richard Young
on Feb 17th, 2006
@ 3:30 pm:
Dear Friends,
I have never attended the SBC annual meeting before, so I am quite unfamiliar with how we do business. Here are my questions for those of you who are more familiar with the proceedings:
1. How do we fire Hatley and Company?
(To apply Timothy 5:19-20 to this situation, I say, “Now that Hatley and Company have been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar, let’s not let them off without a good spanking.”)
2. How do we nominate Dr. Burleson for President?
(To apply Daniel 6:4 to this situation, I say, “Since Dr. Burleson’s character has been on display, and we have seen him act Christian no matter what his enemies have shot at him, let’s put him in the position of trust that he so obviously deserves.”
Love in Christ,
Jeff
art rogers
on Feb 17th, 2006
@ 3:46 pm:
Jeff,
Good questions.
First, the caucus group denys their own existence, so they are slippery fish to hold, so to speak. When I know something more, I will let you know.
Wade can be nominated the way anyone is nominated. To do this, though, a certain perception will have to be conquered. Many conservatives have been kept together with the idea that if there are two conservatives on the ticket, a more liberal candidate may sweep in and steal the election because the conservatives split the majority vote.
This is a lesson learned from H. Ross Perot’s presidential bid that allowed Bill Clinton to be elected over George H. W. Bush – Clinton had less than 50% of the vote.
At this stage, though, I think it would be prudent to continue to support Bobby Welch as our president and let Wade stand with our support in the position in which he now serves. Promoting Wade at this juncture will only allow his opposers to paint him as a power grabber.
Kdawg
on Feb 17th, 2006
@ 3:55 pm:
Jeff,
Wade has told me that he is not campaining and will not campaign- but if someone has prayed about it and feel led to do so he would be open to the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Art! You are the man! What an awesome sumation. Keep it up.
Kevin
Jason Sampler
on Feb 17th, 2006
@ 4:07 pm:
Art,
A minor correction [a serious one, not like the one I posted on D.R.'s blog :)]. Welch is the sitting president, but his second term will be finished in June when the convention votes on a new president.
I suspect you know this already, but Jeff may not: A president is elected to a one-year term. The ‘unwritten rule’ is to allow the sitting president to run for a second, unopposed term. After two years, the man’s time is up and a new nominee is put forth.
On the http://www.founders.org/blog, Dr. Tom Ascol has made two posts regarding this year’s purported presidential nominee. The word is that it will be Johnny Hunt. The comment section (for the first post) got really hairy, to say the least. The Drs. Caner (Ergun and Emir) joined in to liven the conversation, all the while poking straw-man jabs at Calvinism (though I myself am not a 5 pointer, I can spot a strawman attack a mile away and have no use for them).
Therefore, Jeff is not being ‘unsupportive’ of Welch (whether he intends to or not). There will be a new SBC President this year.
Just my $.02 cents.
art rogers
on Feb 17th, 2006
@ 4:31 pm:
Jason,
Of course, you are right. I was not intending to support Bobby Welch for a “third term,” but just to support him now and support Wade now in their respective positions. I see, though, how what I wrote could be interpreted the other way. Sorry for the confusion.
Also, Jeff, I am sorry if you may have thought I implied that you were not supportive of Welch.
My main intent was that moving Wade to the forefront opens him to the criticism that he is grabbing for power. Not that he is, but for many, this attack from certain people would be enough to sway the opinion against him.
That being said, if he were running, I would vote for him.
Art
Anonymous
on Feb 17th, 2006
@ 5:24 pm:
this is nothing
read the Georgia Index expose on NAMB, and NAMB’s reponse that tries to spin the article by ignoring the basic allegations
i have several church members working at NUMB. their morale is low, they cannot talk about anything, they fear they’ll be fired for speaking out about the waste and lack of focus on evangelism and missions
Anonymous
on Feb 17th, 2006
@ 5:27 pm:
Art,
What a wonderful synopsis of the recent happenings. Your blog was really well stated, boiling down the essence of the matters at hand.
I agree that the politics and caucusing have caused great harm to our fellowship. I do not think that the harm is irreparable. This however depends on the willingness of the masses to get involved and stay involved and the willingness of the heirachy to develop and maintain transparency in their actions.
I will be visiting your blog often.
Thanks.
Bill Scott
Anonymous
on Feb 17th, 2006
@ 5:29 pm:
NAMB article at http://www.christianindex.org/1978.article
and response at http://www.namb.net
(Baptist Press had a story for about 6 hours today, but pulled it this evening before the weekend (what courage!)
Jeff Richard Young
on Feb 17th, 2006
@ 8:12 pm:
Dear Art,
I’m very offended that you would think I was opposing Dr. Welch. I’m going to recommend to the SBC annual meeting that you be removed from this blog for lack of slander, broken libel, speaking with your tongue, and un-heated baptism. And don’t expect to be included in any secret pizza parties in the lobby of my hotel, either. I think I’ll go issue a press release about you.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
art rogers
on Feb 17th, 2006
@ 8:49 pm:
Jeff,
Funny. You have a gift.
Art
Charlie
on Feb 17th, 2006
@ 9:28 pm:
I support Wade. I believe he regards GOD’s word above “pick and choose policy” of the IMB. Tongues
are for Believers. If you don’t believe it is for today then don’t worry you won’t exercise the gift supplied by the HOLY SPIRIT. We are all christains who choose to attend a Southern Baptist Church
Phillips Lynn
on Feb 17th, 2006
@ 9:37 pm:
Bro. Art, Amen! I totally agree with you. May your tribe increase.
Tim Sweatman
on Feb 18th, 2006
@ 12:05 am:
Art,
Very insightful analysis. I’m keeping my eyes open to see what the power group does next to try to suppress “unofficial” information. I don’t think they would be dumb enough to impose an outright ban on blogging, although their track record is not too impressive thus far, so who knows?
From what I’ve seen out of Hatley, I think he is trying to be fair in this whole mess. (Actually, I think he wishes it had never happened.) It seems to me that he really doesn’t have much control over the board, but I could be wrong.
As I mentioned on another blog, while Wade would be my first choice for president, I don’t see any way for it to happen in 2006. Give him a year or two serve as a spokesman for those of us who are “cooperating conservative Southern Baptists” (and for this mess either to die down or to become THE dominating issue in the convention) and then the time may be right.
art rogers
on Feb 18th, 2006
@ 7:35 am:
I want to add to my comments that we should be supporting Bobby Welch. In the original context, it sounds as though I am advocating his re-election. That is not what I was thinking – as I said before – but lest I sound hair brained, let me explain why we need to support Bobby Welch for the next few months.
First, Bobby is a genuine Christian and, it appears to me, a wise leader. Some may have expected him to jump into the “IMBroglio” (to coin a trademarkable phrase from Tim Sweatman). Instead, he wisely defered public comment on a situation that could come before the SBC – over which he will be presiding.
Secondly, although we are not seeing him active, that does not mean he is not active. I do not know of any specific actions by him, but I trust that he is not ignoring the situation either.
In the end, I am saying that we should support him with prayer and encouragement. This is a tough situation that needs a great leader with Solomon’s wisdom.
As to supporting Wade where he is, we all know what that means. Prayer, encouragement and be there at Greensboro to vote on anything relevant – and there will be relevant things on which to vote, I’m sure. Taking the issue of Wade’s removal off of the table will not settle us.
Finally, Tim, I agree that Wade would make a great President – one clearly outside of the “kingmaker” process. I just think that his nomination now would open him to the accusation of self promotion. An accusation which is unfounded, but since when does that matter around here?
art rogers
on Feb 18th, 2006
@ 7:41 am:
Wait, does Bobby preside over this SBC, or do they turn the reigns over? I forget when the new Pres. takes control.
Anyway, as President of the SBC, it wise for him not to publicly take sides on this issue.
Clear as mud?
Anonymous
on Feb 19th, 2006
@ 4:25 pm:
I am amazed that anyone is surprised by the actions of the trustees of the IMB. When you allow a system to develop in the SBC whereby trustees for all of the Boards are selected for their commitment to fundamentalist principles ( with the exception of the board formerly known as the Annuity Board – for obvious reasons), you are asking for discord and strife. Loyalty is demanded by leadership and anyone who refuses to go along with the power structure is going to be treated badly. But isn’t that the history of the change that occurred in the eighties. Just ask Richard Jackson.
art rogers
on Feb 19th, 2006
@ 5:12 pm:
I, for one, am not surprised at these actions. I am upset. I have seen dirty politics in SBC life for all of my time in it.
Let me say this, plain and clear:
It is never ok to be mean spirited, dishonest or in any way conspire to hurt the reputation of other people – whether or not they believe as we do, as baptists, Christians or humans.
My problem with the IMB BOT is theological in respect to the issues of PPL and the issue of qualified administrator baptism. My further problem, which this post addresses, is the reaction to a member of their number when he dissented in the same manner.
I have never agreed with these types of actions, no matter who was the actor or the receiver.
Anonymous
on Feb 20th, 2006
@ 3:06 pm:
anonymous and art
“Discord and strife” come from hearts of men, not organizational structure.
I thought that trustees were supposed to set policy that could be supported by the Bible first, but second by the largest number of churches who give to their support. Therefore, when I disagree with an agency policy, I am actually disagreeing with sister churches.
I also welcome dissent and am invigorated by dialogue. However, I also know of many church staffs that accept dissent and dialogue within the staff, but require a unified voice on the outside (did someone mention Richard Jackson?).
Please keep the talk going, we grow and are strengthened by thoughtful interchange. However, I personally try to keep my assertions at the level of observable behavior, and leave the judgment of motivation up to the Father.
DH
art rogers
on Feb 20th, 2006
@ 3:26 pm:
DH,
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the discord and strife comes from the hearts of men and not our denominational structure.
However, I could not disagree with you more that the trustees are respnsible to the majority in any perception of said majority other than what is expressed in the Baptist Faith & Message. Their loyalty to the Bible’s revelation of God’s direction goes without arguement.
The recent policys overstep the BFM and the Bible, creating new, more restrictive interpretations to which our missionaries must hold. Moreover, they supercede the very good policies that were already in place that guarded the convention’s interests very well.
That being said, I believe I have every right to call them on it. Wade also had the right to speak his mind, but he was hindered in that attempt. At some point, the SBC has to be brought in to hold the agency and its governing board accountable to us all.
Also, “the majority” has yet to weigh in on the issue. The Board was not allowed a free debate on these policies and therefore many who voted for them were in the dark, trusting BOT leadership. It is my opinion that the majority of the SBC, if well informed of the issues, would not be for these policies.
Therefore, I consider it my personal responsibility to inform the SBC of what is going on. My latest post argues that we need to speak the truth in love. The problem is that neither have been in abundance lately.
Kevin
on Feb 20th, 2006
@ 9:13 pm:
Art
My name is Kevin Lancaster i am a Pastor in Oklahoma and have been keeping up with the IMB &BoT soup opra That Wade brought to Our attention I have started a blog and would very much like to have your input
Thanks and here is the site
youngpreacherssbc.blogspot.com
Tim Sweatman
on Feb 21st, 2006
@ 11:08 pm:
Art,
Bobby Welch will be presiding in Greensboro. The new president will be given the gavel at the end of the convention.
I agree that he has conducted himself properly by not getting directly involved in this controversy.