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.

Posts with related content

• August 27, 2009 -- GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon (2)
• October 7, 2009 -- Ed Stetzer and the Future of Denominations (0)
• October 5, 2009 -- The Future of Denominationalism Schedule (3)
• August 26, 2009 -- GCR Task Force Listening Luncheon Today (0)
• August 5, 2009 -- The Great Commission Resurgence, MissioScapes and Partnering with the Unholy (1)

Tags: missions, Politics, SBC