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.

Posts with related content

• No Related Post

TAGS: None