12 Witnesses

Since I am now selling this design in the store, I am no longer giving it away. Sorry.

Today, I am wearing the t-shirt of our church’s last mission trip - it was to Memphis. We had a phenominal time and incredible experiences sharing Christ with lost children.

The experiences were life changing, as they always are when you are on mission.

I love the words that we put on the shirt. To me, they represent just a slice of the missional heart.

The point that I tried to drive home to our team was that we are always “on mission” and that the lost people that are on God’s heart, and to whom we must go, are across the hall, across the street and across the globe.

As far as I am concerned, it is my responsibility, and the responsibility of every Christian, to go through every open door to reach the lost - no matter how long or how short the trip is through that door.

About the logo above - feel free to download it, change it or keep it the same, and use it yourself - so long as you don’t sell it for a profit! Other than that, it is yours, if you want it.

[update]

This was done in Adobe Photo Elements. If you want the file, so you can edit the background color or the words, or whatever, email me and I will send it to you.

[/update]

My final post concerning the IMB Trustees and their responses to my Open Letter is upon us. This time the author is Trustee Skeet Workman. If you are not familiar with her, she is mentioned in the letter you can find in my post, The Perspective of History.

Once again, Trustee Workman indicates that the issue is not dissent. In fact, she says that my concerns are “invalid.” This is a pretty curt dismissal of me and my concerns, especially when I have been warning of this issue for more than a month prior to it actually happening just as I predicted. This indicates that, as Tim Sweatman has aptly pointed out in a comment section, she either 1) did not understand me, 2) she ignored me, 3) she misled me, or 4) the Policy of Conformity was a last minute addition.

Obviously, I believe the last to be the issue.

Trustee Workman’s words are in italics and mine are in bold.

Mar 2, 2006

Dear Art,

You need to know that I am one of those people who speaks out on issues and have done so in the Southern Baptist Convention since l978. I have been in many Resolutions Committee meetings and debated on the floor of the convention and served on other committees and boards and spoken out then. I have never been shunned and forced out. BUT I have spoken out within the proper channels at the proper time to the right decision-making people. I never went to the press and to non-Baptists to debate my concerns. I found that it is better to “catch bees with honey” than to be obnoxious and rude and treat those I am trying to reach with embarrassment and intrusion. After all, I want the people I am addressing to hear and response rightly to the issues of my concern. Turning them off is not the way to win hearts.

So my issue to you is that I have found if done properly, there are many ways to have yourself heard in the SBC and otherwise. I have spoken out in the IMB meetings and not everyone agreed with me and some spoke out against me, but I have found the trustees are fair and listen. With time and respect, some agree with me even on issues they first do not agree on.

I think your concerns are not valid. Thanks for writing.
Best wishes,
Skeet Workman
Trustee from Texas

March 2, 2006

Skeet,

Thank you for the reply to my email. I appreciate the time you took to write me and address my concern.

By His mercy,

Art Rogers
FBC Russellville

——————————
While there are no missing emails to report here, everyone should note that there is a line in my response that is a mistake, but I am posting exactly what was sent. The line, “You graciously replied to my email and invited me to communicate with you after i knew more,” was a cut & paste from my email to Bill Hudgins. What I said in that line applied to Bill, but clearly does not apply to Skeet.
——————————

March 24, 2006

Dear Skeet,

I emailed you in February with my concerns about the potential of the Board of Trustees enacting a policy which would limit the ability of Trustees to dissent. You graciously replied to my email and invited me to communicate with you after I knew more.

I am attaching a “Word” document that is a transcript of our communication for your convenience - just to remind you of what we both said.

In your response, you seemed to indicate that dissent was not the problem, but the comportment of Wade Burleson was the problem.

I noted that the vote to rescind the move to remove Wade was unanimous, so I assume you were there and were a part of that vote.

Have you changed your mind concerning the move to remove Wade or did I misunderstand you before?

Moreover, you seemed to indicate that since the problem was with Wade, public dissent was not the problem. Specifically, you told me that my concerns were “not valid.”

You can imagine my frustration when I learned that the policy I feared was coming was actually installed after your personal statement to dismissing my concern. Were you surprised by this motion and had no idea that it was in the works? I would have no other way of reconciling your statement to me, unless you were overtly lying to me. I would like to think that you would not do that.

If the problem really was Wade, then could you explain why you supported a policy that, in any way, limits the dissent of Trustees?

Since I am asking you to support your vote, and it is the majority decision of the Board, any comments you can give me in this area would not be in violation of the new policy.

As always, I am grateful for your service and for your time.

By His mercy,

Art Rogers
FBC, Russellville

I would like to say that Bill Hudgins was very gracious to me in his first email back to me. I appreciated his kindness. Unfortunately, after the Tampa meetings he did not email me back.

I must affirm what you will read in Bill’s email to me - these views are individual Trustee perspectives and not official statements of the Board. However, I think the honest evaluation of these collective statements will lead us again to the conclusion that the reason we have language governing Trustee Communication in the policy is because it is reactionary to Wade Burleson’s situation.

Remember also, the orginal policy wording did not protect the staff and the President from disparaging words. That was an ammendment to the policy that was worked on overnight. I think some would have you believe that it was always the intent of the committee to protect the staff and President of the IMB. This is not the case.

Again, Trustee Bill Hudgins words are in italics and mine are in bold. This is in response to my Open Letter to the IMB.

Dear Art,
I assume that you are from South Carolina which is dear to me being formerly a pastor in Aderson, but more especially because I have two grandchildren in North Augusta.

Thanks for you concern. This is not just a nice cover but my heart.

What Mr. Guenter (srong spelling probably) said may or may not be true but it is totally irrelevant to the issue with Mr. Burleson. I would assume that later documentation will be available but this is not my
responsibility to address.

The one thing I will address is the idea of silencing other trustees. His opposition to the two major issue (Baptism and private prayer language) was NOT the issue. Niether is the suggestions by some that these
issue to attack Dr. Rankin.

In the later, the integrity of myself and other Trustees is challenged by making the accusations. If I, or all the trustees I talk with, wanted to attack Dr. Rankin it would be done—not by some back-door
approach.

The former statement, virtually every issue that come before us has dissention. Most of the trustees decide for themselves on issues. There is often great dissention on particular issues.

Never has anything bothered me like the issue with Burleson. It was a very emotional issue. It was one that -given the same situation I would vote again the same way and I would be surprised if you would not
have voted the same way….notice given the same situation.

The problem existed long before the two issues (prayer language & baptism) were discussed by the entire board.
Expect a message from our chairman soon. Digest the materials and I believe if I knew nothing of the surrounding circumstances I would be pleased by the decision of our board.

Since Alexander Campbell caused the split in baptist life over baptism over a century ago I don’t believe that there have been serious challenges by Southern Baptist concerning our stand on Baptism.

Now, If you don’t believe that our missionaries should be sent even if their mode of baptism was not emersion,if they believed in baptismal regeneration, if they did not believe in the local church was the authority in administering baptism… then you might have a problem with our decisions.

On the other issue, Southern Baptist, as a whole, have not been caught up in the Charismatic movement of the past few decades. We affirmed this position.

The actual policy states this but then has a clause at the end that, as I interprete it, allows freedom with specific cases.

Go to the NAMB web page and read their policy. It is very direct and more binding than the IMB policy.
No one is discussing this which leads me to believe that ‘the enemy” wants to attack the very heart beat of Southern Baptist life…the IMB>

This statment takes nothing away from the task of NAMB, nor the importance of Lifeway, & certainly not other task such as the Annuity board (whatever it is now called.).

I suggest you hold you final opinion until you hear from Tom. (our chair).
Note: This is his opinion just like this is mine. Mine is NOT the opinion of the board and as an individual I have no more authority than any other Souther Baptist church member… but I do have an opinion and thanks for letting me share a portion of it.

Understand that e-mail get disected and often times the real intent of the writer is not clear and could be misunderstood, so give me that freedom if you will.

After you have heard from Tom I would certainly be interested in your conclusions.

In His service,
Bill Hudgins, Trustee from Alabama

————————-
Again, I sent a note of appreciation for contact, but did not copy it. The substance was insignificant.
————————-

March 24, 2006

Dear Bill,

I emailed you in February with my concerns about the potential of the Board of Trustees enacting a policy which would limit the ability of Trustees to dissent. You graciously replied to my email and invited me to communicate with you after I knew more.

I am attaching a “Word” document that is a transcript of our communication for your convenience - just to remind you of what we both said.

In your response, you seemed to indicate that dissent was not the problem, but the comportment of Wade Burleson was the problem. You also told me to wait for a statement from Tom Hatley justifiying the action of the Board.

Dr. Hatley’s only further statement cocnerning Wade was that they needed to rescind the motion to remove him because “it was the right thing to do.”

I noted that the vote to rescind was unanimous, so I assume you were there and were a part of that vote.

Have you changed your mind concerning the move to remove Wade or did I misunderstand you before?

Moreover, you seemed to indicate that since the problem was with Wade, public dissent was not the problem. You can imagine my frustration when I learned that the policy I feared was coming was actually installed after assurances by several Trustees that it was not a concern.

If the problem really was Wade, then could you explain why you supported a policy that, in any way, limits the dissent of Trustees?

Since I am asking you to support your vote, and it is the majority decision of the Board, any comments you can give me in this area would not be in violation of the new policy.

As always, I am grateful for your service and for your time.

By His mercy,

Art Rogers
FBC, Russellville

Again, I have yet to hear back from Trustee Hudgins. He seems honest and forthright to me, but nothing he said lines up with what the Board of Trustees or Tom Hatley has said concerning the “Policy of Conformity.” Instead, it all seems to revolve around Wade and the policies. I have not critiqued what he said about the policies, either, that is another post.

My point now and as always is that this is not an issue that was a coincidental arrival happening to fall within the same meeting that Wade Burleson’s issue is resolved.

One final post coming from Skeet Workman.

The following is a history of my communication with IMB Trustee Jerry Corbaley following the reception of my Open Letter. Jerry’s words will be in italics and my words will be in bold.

March 2, 2006

Hi Art,

I found your blog, scanned it, and will read it more carefully.

Blogging is communication. It is morally neutral.

At any given time the IMB Trustees are considering 50+ issues that are in process. They are reasonable people, just like you.

It is absurd to conclude that the IMB Trustees will prohibit communication. God has a lot to say about “how” and “what” we communicate.

Consider this email to be open to anyone on the planet who bothers to read it.

Your brother in Christ,

Jerry Corbaley
corbaley.blogspot.com


March 2, 2006

Hi back, Jerry,

Thanks so much for the open communication. I appreciate your statement and your time.

I just had found your blog when I received your email. I look forward to hearing from your heart on it.

By His mercy,

Art Rogers
FBC Russellville

March 2, 2006

Hi Art,

I am in McKinleyville, Ca, just north of Eureka on the Pacific coast. Where is Russellville?

Jerry

——————————————————–
I think I emailed you back at this point, telling you that I was in Kentucky, but I can’t find that email.
——————————————————–

March 24, 2006

Dear Jerry,

I emailed you in February with my concerns about the potential of the Board of Trustees enacting a policy which would limit the ability of Trustees to dissent.

I am attaching a “Word” document that is a transcript of our communication for your convenience - just to remind you of what we both said.

You indicated that public dissent was not the problem. In fact, you said that my concern was “absurd.” Did you not know of any move at that time? If you knew of this move at any time prior to its being presented to the Board, and since you knew of my concerns about such a move, not only through this letter but through my numerous blogs on the subject, I would like to think that you would have contacted me again to correct the impression with which you left me. The only other option is that you overtly lied to me. I hope that this is not the case.

You can imagine my frustration when I learned that the policy I feared was coming was actually installed after assurances by several Trustees, you as strongly as anyone, that it was not a concern.

In light of your statements about open communication, could you explain why you supported a policy that, in any way, limits the dissent of Trustees?

Since I am asking you to support your vote, and it is the majority decision of the Board, any comments you can give me in this area would not be in violation of the new policy.

You should also know that I have floated the idea of webcasting the plenary sessions of the board on my blog yesterday. In light of your statements about openness, I recommended that you be the person to take this idea to the board. The newly adopted policy would allow this at the discretion of the Chair. The Executive Committee could arrange it and have it in place for your meeting in Albuquerque. The financial cost would be minimal and would not require staffing by the IMB. It would certainly not override the cost of loss of trust that is running rampant as a result of the adoption of the recent policy concerning Trustee communication.

As always, I am grateful for your service and for your time.

By His mercy,

Art Rogers
FBC, Russellville

Again, although I emailed Jerry, and although he has openly espoused open communication, he has not returned my communication.

I would like to highlight this line of Jerry’s first email: “It is absurd to conclude that the IMB Trustees will prohibit communication. God has a lot to say about “how” and “what” we communicate.”

This tells me two things. First, the “how” and “what” we communicate reference indicates that the issue is Wade - that this policy is not coincidental in its timing.

The second thing is that the use of the word “absurd” tells me that Trustee Corbaley did not take me or the issue seriously at the time. It could be that it was me that he didn’t take seriously. It could be that just the issue that he didn’t take seriously. Maybe he was clueless about the workings of the BOT concerning re-writing the Blue Book.

I suspect, rather, and I assert again, that the policies were being revisited over a two year span. The words governing Trustee Communication, however, I do not think were a part of the original plan of renovation, but were added as a response to Wade Burleson’s issues.

This leads us to that pair of infamous Questions:

“What did he know?”

&

“When did he know it?”

I have asked. I have not been answered.

[update - 4-3-06]

The following is the email exchange that I received after Jerry Corbaley returned from travels after the Tampa meetings.

I will let them speak for themselves and comment at the end.

March 31, 2006

Dear Art,

Thanks for your willingness to engage in improving the faithfulness and cooperation of Southern Baptists as a whole, and the IMB in particular.

I assume you will be posting this email in chronological order along with our other correspondence. This is one of the advantages of blogging.

As I said in my email to you, “Blogging is communication. It is morally neutral”. And later, “It is absurd to conclude that the IMB Trustees will prohibit communication. God has a lot to say about “how” and “what” we communicate”.

A lot is being said about “principled dissent”. Certainly the passage of Ephesians 4:29 (NIV) applies: “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”. Southern Baptists may be in a period of doubt regarding what the “needs” are. While that is being sorted out, there is still divine direction forbidding “unwholesome talk”. I do not see perfect people anywhere in this controversy. The last 35 years has demonstrated a crying need for wholesome communication that addresses the issues, holds one another accountable, and presents viable alternatives instead of raw criticism. I have no confidence in methods that rely on “tearing others down”.

The Trustee Responsibilities adopted in March of 2006 actually defines “principled dissent” for the Trustees. It should be noted that there is virtually no prohibition regarding public dissent of issues under current consideration except that no one is to “disparage” another. This is a needed solution that was adopted by the Board. Once the Board officially moves a deliberation of an issue to an “action” it is time for the Trustees to cease public dissent. Note that Trustees who still disagree can work within IMB procedures to reverse an action or propose a better action. Once the Board officially reopens an issue the Trustees are again free to publicly dissent. This allows for the _expression of opinions by all Southern Baptists.

As time goes on I will address why I support policy that limits dissent but I will do so on my own blog, Corbaley.blogspot.com, where I have more effective means for interaction with those who comment.

The newly adopted Trustee Responsibilities were in process for at least six months prior to the March meeting, and were initially delegated to the Trustee Orientation Committee. I did not know of this until the Tampa meeting. Had I known, my response to you would have been the same. If you wish to conclude that anything less than absolute freedom to dissent is crooked, then that is your right. While the Trustees have adopted a policy on principled dissent, I have yet to see the blogging community attempt to do so. It seems to me that the time is ripe for such an effort. Trust needs to be built on both “sides”.

Concerning your idea of webcasting the plenary sessions: Great idea. I am sympathetic to the idea; believe it would be better for Southern Baptists as a whole, but do not have the time to research the issues and implications, nor to assume responsibility for bringing it to pass. Such a change would require trust on behalf of the IMB Administration and Trustees toward whoever was in control of what is disseminated. Such a “simple” change will require a hundred hours (or so) of effort on the part of whoever initiates the process. It is a complex and daunting task to change or adjust the momentum of such a massive entity as the IMB.

I join you in loathing backroom politics. Christians must acknowledge that walking in the light is normal for disciples. We are in God’s hands and he takes care of our present and our future. I have heard rumors from prominent members of the blogging community of testimony of secret witnesses and secret documents. I have asked for names and copies and have been denied. If this is the convention that “is” or “was” or “is to come” then I want no part of it. The sooner I am ousted, the better for me. For my part, truth is more important than employment. Further, loathsome backroom politics is detestable no matter what “side” is practicing it.

The age of instant and international information is upon us. Good. Let us acknowledge that those who make policy must be accountable, transparent and Christian in every way. The same must go for opinion-makers. Accountability, transparency and Christian behavior applies to everyone.

I am not your enemy. Perhaps we are not, yet, friends. I am willing to be a bridge, to get walked on and detoured around. Such is life. I will not be a puppet for the established SBC entities, nor for the blogging community.

May God bless us all with the ability to treat each other lovingly, as Christ commanded.

Jerry Corbaley

March 31, 2006

Dear Jerry,

Thank you for responding. I was glad to get your email. Wes told me you had been out of town, which I did not know or I would have probably waited for a response before posting your communication.

I will, of course, post your email exactly as I received it, as promised on my blog.

You seem to imply someone is violating Ephesians 4:29. Can I ask you to clarify this statement? Is there someone being unwholesome with their words? Who was it and what have they said? I assure you, if it was me, I will repent publicly, but I think such an implication, if that’s what it is, should be validated. Otherwise, I think as a subtle implication alone, it falls under conviction of Ephesians 4:29 itself.

Of course, I agree with the “disparaging remarks” language and I don’t think anyone has found fault with this stipulation.

The problem is that the limiting of publicly shared viewpoints provides opportunities for “backroom politics.” Take the policy at issue, for example. It was announced and voted in as policy within 24 hours - and that was with major changes of the language. When was a Trustee to vocalize principled dissent? This type of rule will allow for controversial issues to be presented and passed and silence those who oppose from explaining their views to the SBC afterward. This is simply an untenable situation and smacks of poor planning and poor judgment. Frankly, for a group who frequently points to the history of Baptists for guidance, it is very non-Baptist in nature.

I would go further and say that there is no home for such a provision in Scripture.

I also think you make a straw man out of my position when you say: “If you wish to conclude that anything less than absolute freedom to dissent is crooked, then that is your right.” I never said it was “crooked.” I said it was short sided and makes allowances for controversial things to be enacted without full accountability to the SBC. This is based on the premise that I hold that the Trustees of all of our institutions are accountable to us, and not themselves.

I am glad to know that you did not know about the policy before Tampa. I believed that about you, that you wouldn’t intentionally mislead me. I am happy to have that confirmed.

As to webcasting the plenary sessions, I never intended for you to oversee the implication of such. I merely recommend that you advocate it to the Executive Committee. They can delegate it easily and I assure you that it would not take more than a few hours to set up. In fact, you could go now to the store, buy a webcam and be webcasting in your home in less than a couple of hours from the time you walk out the door. Whoever suggested it would be a hundred hours is grossly mistaken and does not understand the availability or functionality of modern technology.

Perhaps you were referring to the time it would take to walk approval through the BOT. I would think that this decision could be made by the Executive Committee, but if not, they and you could advocate it to the Board at the next meeting. It could be easily set up for the meeting after next. The SBC webcasts its sessions, so we do have denominational servants who know exactly what to do and how to do it. I assure you that it would be easy and cheap. Again, though, research could be delegated. Or the Board might just contact a couple of us “Young Leaders” and we could get it done overnight.

As to the allegations that there are “secret documents,” you and I are not talking to the same people. I have never heard of such. As a matter of fact, it has been the habit of the blogging community, I perceive, to post any relevant documents they might have.

I don’t know how you might expect the blogging community to enact a policy that might govern our accountability, since we are not an organization. For myself, I am accountable to God, my local church and the body of believers. I am frequently challenged in my statements, and that is fine. I have only removed two comments by people posted on my blog, and they were both anonymous and attacked the credibility of Chairman Hatley. I would think this would show my desire to be fair and accountable. Since you are now a part of the blogging community, maybe this could be the subject of some of your posts.

I do not see you as my enemy. I see you as a brother with whom I disagree. I also see you as a Trustee who is supposed to be representing me, among many others, so my disagreements with you over this issue are important.

Again, I thank you for your communication and look forward to the answers of my questions here.

By His Mercy

Art Rogers

March 31, 2006

Dear Art,

Concerning the Ephesians 4:29 statement: I do not say that you are in violation. However, you also stated that you removed a couple of comments because they attacked someone’s credibility. This is, itself, what I am referring to. The blogging community has an identity to non-bloggers. Not everyone shows your moral calibre. Whether it is intentional in its trends and corporate agreements or not is secondary in the minds of non-bloggers. “Perception is reality” in the blogging world. It tends to be true in every group. When the BoT is slow to respond to false or exagerrated information it contributes to misunderstanding. Perception, even when based on partial information, assumes a momentum of its own. Even though I know that the majority of the blogging community is communicating independently, I have trouble separating the individuals from the whole. This should be taken seriously, because I am one of the few “enlightened” trustees (That should be good for some comments). If you apply Ephesians 4:29 to the issue of “trust toward the BoT” then you can easily conclude how the BoT feels about the current outcry. The BoT still stings from the blogging communities assertions from as far back as September of 2005. The BoT actually thinks it is maligned. I do too.

Again, the inability of the BoT to respond to the spontaneous generation of rumor makes the problem of deteriorating trust worse. It doesn’t make the accusations right.

Now, we have a good conversation going here, and I assure you that I have some good ones going amongst the BoT. But I want to remind you that I need to move this conversation to my blog. An ongoing dialog regarding the IMB is most important. I simply cannot answer every question many separate times. I want to speak to the issues as much as I can make time for, and it is better if I do so in one location. I can cover more ground in the same amount of time.

I am the one who says it would take a hundred hours to bring a webcast to reality. The logistics are indeed simple. I couldn’t do it, but I know many could. The time would be consumed by attempting to convince those on staff and on the BoT to give it a try. Both groups are involved in many other items of business. The nature of a live webcast would have to be debated. The need for a time delay would be recognized; if confidential information were to be released, or someone made a disparaging comment, it would have to be edited. Dry runs would have to be conducted. Those who present reports, some of whom only come a couple of times a year, would have to be consulted. Guidelines for what information could be spoken would have to be developed. Once this is underway, such proposed proceedures would be called “stalling” and “attempts to hide”. The trustworthiness of those in the blogging community who were attempting to work closely with the BoT to bring about the webcast would be called into question. All of this is just off the top of my head. I’m sure there would be many more concerns raised. It remains a good idea. It is not simple to effect. I have little confidence that it could be enacted by the meeting after next, unless the Chairman of the Board or President Rankin made it a personal high priority. By the way, after the next meeting, there will be a new Chairman and most likely a significant change in the Executive Committee of the BoT. This happens virtually every year.

Some changes in proceedure are needed. The deliberative processes of every SBC entity are obsolete in regards to responding to the rapid spread of information on the blogs.

Also, you point out that since I am a part of the blogging community, I might be able to point out some ways to assess blogging behavior. I know that is not an exact quote, but I think you remember what you said. That is the main, and long-term, purpose of my blog. I have already begun.

God Bless you Art,

Jerry

March 31, 2006

Jerry,

You have asked that I allow you to move this conversation to your blog and I will. I feel it is a reasonable request and since you have been forthright enough to have a blog and to attempt to interact with the blogoshpere, you should be able to answer each question once.

Thank you for your communication.

In the end, I still disagree with the policy. I am glad that you clarified not knowing about it until it was presented in Tampa. That settles many issues concerning our prior communication.

I will wait until the weekend is over to post these emails so that they can get a fair readership.

Again, I thank you for your time and your service.

May God bless you as well,

Art Rogers

Let me clarify my statement to Jerry that I allow him to move this conversation to his blog. I think that with as many people asking him questions as he has, it is only fair to give the guy the opportunity to do his answering in one place.

That will not prevent me from addressing this, and every other issue that is relevant, on my blog. Nor will it keep me from asking any or all of the Trustees the pointed questions that I feel are pertinent.

Look for more. There is plenty.

[/update - 4-3-06]

Like Marty Duren, I have taken a couple of days off. Although I wrote prolifically over the weekend, I spent Monday and Tuesday with my family during their Spring Break - My wife’s a teacher, so they all got a break.

Unlike Marty, I didn’t tell you I was doing it. Sorry.

In fact, as is often the case, I am covered up today having been out of the office for a couple of days. I was not planning on posting anything substantive until tomorrow, but then I received word of a certain news story from the SB Texan.

Now, you may remember the Texan as the chosen news source of Dr. Hatley when he released the information that the motion to remove Wade Burleson would be rescinded. Of course, he then contacted Baptist Press to correct the story after some of the things that he said were reported in a way that was not comfortable for him.

In this article, Trustee Guidelines Not Intended To Stifle Debate, Texas Trustee Says, orientation Committee Chair, Mike Smith says that the policy change has been in the works for two years. The way the article is written, it leads us to believe that the specific section governing Trustee communication was a part of that two year process and that the Wade Burleson issue is completely coincidental.

I questioned that before, but now I want to share with you why I thought that specific section was a response to Wade.

In February, I sent a letter that I published as an Open Letter to each of the Trustees. The subject of that letter, of course, was my concern that there would be a limiting of Trustee communication, specifically a limiting of public dissent.

I received a few responses as a result of my letter. Four Trustees told me that this was not an issue. The first, and by far the most gracious, was Paul Chitwood, who is also the president of our state convention. He and I are still in communication over this matter and have a meeting upcoming. I will say that he has maintained a gracious attitude toward me and I am grateful.

The other three, Jerry Corbaley, Skeet Workman and Bill Hudgins all said that there was no such desire to limit public dissent.

I have struggled with how much to release of their communication. Jerry Corbaley said that he had no problem with me making his email public, but the other two did not mention it either way. I have considered posting just clips of their emails, but then thought I may be accused of not giving the full context of the quote. I did receive on letter that specifically asked me not to share their response and to keep it private. I have honored that, and will continue to do so, though it is telling that this Trustee considered this issue to be very real and was against it.

Since I received news that this policy limiting a Trustee’s ability to dissent publicly was enacted, I emailed a transcript of my communication to each of the Trustees who assured me that this was not the issue and asked them for further comment.

To this date, I have received communication from Paul Chitwood alone. I find this particularly interesting on the part of Jerry Corbaley, considering his words at the time and the continued words on his blog leading up to the meetings in Tampa that were promoting openness. Skeet Workman was also very emphatic, almost dismissive, so her silence to date is interesting to me.

Because I have not received any request from them to keep this communication private, and in light of the fact that I made clear the letter was an Open Letter, and therefore public, I will be posting the specific emails of Jerry Corbaley, Bill Hudgins and Skeet Workman, in full over the next day or two. Should they like to comment further, they can email me. Comments posted to the blog claiming to be them will be removed by me. I will post only comments I receive from their personal email accounts so that I can verify that it is them.

After I posted The Hidden Issue on February 22, I posted another article on the 23rd I think is just as important. The Hidden Issue has gotten alot of attention lately because it predicted the move of the IMB BOT to quell public dissent. I would like everyone to reread the following post as well.

Steve McCoy has posted an article called Churches Louder Than Blogs calling for us to be more concerned with the Mission of the church and less with the politics. I appreciate Steve’s thoughts, and a thorough reading of my blog will reveal that I have every desire to let go of denominational politics and I will - when we are all focused on the mission.

I want to say that I agree with Steve. The mission is primary. Still, I think the politics within the SBC is hurting the mission in this way: We can do more together than we can apart. That is the reason we have cooperated together for this long and it is the reason we should fight for the ability to continue. Our other options are to leave and work alone or try start a new collective. I think it is easier to by far, and infinitely more effective, to correct this situation.

Because of this, I think our involvement in the political issues of the moment IS MISSIONAL. Remember, this is not the grind that I am choosing for my life’s work. I want to let this go soon, but we must fight now

In light of this, I encourage you to reread The Right Fight. I think it is just as relevant today as The Hidden Issue.

I posted some of these thoughts in the comment section in a previous post, but thought they might be well suited for the front page.

There is some celebration about the Policy of Conformity because it protects Staff and Trustees from disparaging remarks from Trustees. It is telling, isn’t it, that we need a policy to govern what God’s Word leads us to do anyway. More telling that we celebrate it.

As it specifically concerns Dr. Rankin, who was the target of some disparaging conversation DURING THE MEETING this week, the policy cuts both ways for him. He is protected from public verbal assault, again, something that shouldn’t require a policy to govern. However, any subgroup within the trustees that might seek his removal, if they have the votes, can walk in, put it on the table, and vote it through without the SBC being able to intervene. Moreover, any trustee that stands opposed to such an action will be muted from talking about it to the SBC afterward, unless they were to resign. The problem with them resigning is that it strengthens the party opposed to Dr. Rankin. There will be little accountability for any who choose this action.

In the last week, you have heard several trustees remark that if someone can’t abide within such and such expectations, they can resign. Why would certain trustees want this? It strengthens their position when their opposition removes themselves.

This is why I think it is imperative that Wade and other must NOT resign under any circumstances. We will do the dissenting and they can do the voting.

Why is dissent a big deal?

It is all about control. The ability for a trustee to dissent publicly - after a Board action - is the ability to appeal to the Southern Baptist Convention.

Why do we need for Trustees to appeal the SBC? Sometimes groups of people can get “tunnel vision” and do things they think are representative of the whole, but they are not. Also, sometimes subgroups within a group seek to “sneak” things through without getting caught and the freedom to dissent calls attention to this.

Depending on your perspective, this is what has happened with the IMB BOT.

The silencing of dissent is an issue of control. People may say that it is about being unified or not distracting the Board from the mission, but that is smoke. Being silent does not equate unity within the Board. Being silent does not facilitate the Mission of reaching the lost nations. At least not when there are issues that are hindering the Mission to start with and they need to be handled.

No. Silence is about control. I am sure that the Board was working on revising the Blue Book, but I am equally as sure that the wording governing Trustee communication, known at 12 Witnesses as the “Policy of Conformity,” was not being considered until Wade Burleson’s issue arose within the Board.

By instituting the Policy of Conformity, those who control the BOT are able to go about the occupation of their plans without worrying that the SBC will be alerted to their actions by Trustees that think we will disagree. All they have to do is bring business to the Board and have it voted on in the same meeting.

Will that happen? Sure. The policy itself was done that way. Why would any new issues, at least ones important to such a group, not be done in the same way?

Be sure that this portends more sinister motives. I don’t think that all the Trustees who voted for the policy or against Wade are in some secret conspiracy. I am sure of several who are not.

However, it does provide the cover for any who might choose to be.

I know of a few people who are predisposed to trust the establishment of the SBC. I must confess, I have seen far too much politics within the SBC to be among them. I personally know that this element exists, and the Policy of Conformity gives any among them cover to operate within the IMB BOT.

What might they be seeking? It is well documented, on this blog, sbcoutpost and others, that many suspect the Board is being stacked to get rid of Dr. Rankin. Dr. Hatley, Board Chair, denied this several times over the last month, but Marty Duren quoted a highly placed SBC source who said that he was told the BOT was within three votes of getting rid of Dr. Rankin last year.

Make no mistake. The policy is about control. The issue with Wade is not that he dissented, nor how he dissented, but that he was effective in his dissent when he “woke the sleeping giant” of YSBC (Young SBC). YSBC, whose alienation with back room politics found a flash point in the issue of 2 policies with which they did not agree, but more importantly, that they sensed they were ignored and disrespected when the policies appeared to originate in the backroom. They felt that the more they voiced their disapproval of the policies and the tactics, the more they were snubbed and told just to “mind their elders.” That has brought about a tipping point for the issue of control within the SBC. I’ll post more on that later.

The Policy of Conformity does not silence dissent. It just keeps Trustees from doing it well.

I was forwarded the content of a piece of paper that was being passed out at the IMB BOT meeting before the “Policy of Conformity” was passed. In fact, there was a stack of these papers by the door to the meeting room, but Chairman Hatley was observed picking up this stack and throwing them away. Inside, a Youth Worker from Georgia had some copies and continued to distribute them to Trustees who asked for one.

I give you the content of this paper:

Trustee Policies and the Perspective of History

Someone must speak against the new policy on “Trustee Responsibilities” not because the joint committees’ efforts were in vain, but because this policy lacks historical perspective.

Until 1979, a tight system of power and control enveloped our denomination, and party loyalists who supported the leftward shift in our denomination were continually appointed and reappointed to serve on our convention’s boards of trustees. But in 1979, the election of Adrian Rogers offered a real hope that the system could be changed and that our denomination could be saved.

In those early years of the conservative resurgence, inerrantists slowly trickled onto the boards and agencies of our denomination, each year joined by others until sufficient majorities could turn our seminaries, our commissions, and our mission boards around. Some of the people in this room - men and women who stood against overwhelming opposition and endless assaults on their motivation and character - were among those early trustees of the conservative resurgence. But they kept carrying the message back to the people that things were not well with our agencies. They kept reporting the problems, the compromises of doctrine, the ethical misconduct and the abuses of power that had infected our denomination. And in time, the convention listened. In time, every seminary president who would not affirm inerrancy was replaced, and every mission board president who would not respect trustee governance resigned.

Those were not easy years for the men and women who first began to push for change, for accountability, for doctrinal faithfulness in our convention agencies, boards, and institutions. But they kept taking the message, the criticism, the bad news and the reports of problems back to the churches and the people; and in time, our convention was restored.

However, if this policy had been in place during those early years when Adrian Rogers sent his first appointees to the boards, when Bailey Smith and Jimmy Draper and Charles Stanley were slowly but methodically appointing inerrantists who would stay the course and save our convention, then the message would have never been heard. There would have been no conservative resurgence if Midwestern Seminary and Sunday School Board trustees had not stood firmly against board policies in the Elliot Controversy. There would have been no conservative resurgence if Jerry Johnson had been silenced from publishing his criticisms of the Roy Honeycutt administration at Southern Seminary. There would have been no conservative resurgence if Ralph Pulley had not taken the hard line against Russell Dilday at Southwestern Seminary. If W.A. Criswell had never written “Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True,” if James Hefley had never printed “Truth in Crisis,” if Skeet Workman had never stood against abortion and homosexuality at the Christian Life Commission, and if Paul Pressler had not publicly spoken out against the abuses of our denominational press and criticized the editorship of Al Shackleford, then none of us would be here today.

Last night Trustee Ken Whitten said something prophetic when he noted that one day none of us would be here, and that these policies will still be binding. If we adopt them, we have tied the hands of the W.A Criswells, the Jerry Johnsons, the James Hefleys and the Paul Presslers of tomorrow. They will be kept from doing what made the conservative resurgence possible in the first place. They will be kept from taking the problems to the people, to the pastors and laymen who support the Cooperative Program, and to the WMU ladies who pray for our missionaries.

This we cannot do for the sake of our own service, or for the sake of theirs.

Trustees must vote against this policy and, in doing so, preserve the very means by which we have all been afforded the chance to serve in a denomination that would not have had us thirty years ago.

Your thoughts?

Many of you have asked me to post further about the new policy forbidding public dissent. As you know, this is a pressing issue for me and you can catch a “reader” of my thoughts at The Policy of Conformity. There I took a very hard line, but many seem to think that I softened it with my subsequent post. Let me assure you that my stance concerning this policy is unchanged. I thought we needed to say that we appreciated being taken seriously as evidenced by the removal of the recommendation concerning Wade and that this policy is not what it was. I have yet to see the original version side-by-side with the current version, but I am told by people who were there that it is positively changed.

The problem with the policy, on a practical level, is that it does not allow public dissent after a vote has been taken. Several supporting the policy have argued that dissent is allowed before the vote, but after the Board should be unified before the convention, pointing out that dissent is still allowed within the Board. That creates a negative situation when issues arise and are voted on before the Trustees can dissent to the SBC.

The adoption of the “Policy of Conformity” itself is the best example of why this is impractical. The policy was still being printed Wednesday morning as Trustees were opening the Plenary Session. There were 60 copies for the entire room full of people. It was voted into policy during that session, effectively silencing dissent before any could get out to the SBC. As this issue has been a great concern to me, and I suspected that it was on the agenda - despite being told by several Trustees that it was not - I would have liked to have been there. Unfortunately, I couldn’t because I had an appointment this week that I couldn’t miss.

There has been much discussion today between those who were there and those who weren’t as a result of this policy being adopted. On the blogs today, mine in particular, there has been a call for openness and transparency within the Board. Emails and phone calls have been exchanged and one thought, passed on to me by Ben Cole, was to webcast the Plenary Sessions of the BOT. Since the BOT says they have never tried to hide anything from the SBC, there should be no problem with this idea. Also, there would be no need for staffing at the IMB for such a position as it is a reasonably inexpensive and simple thing to do, if one knows what they are doing. The SBC is now webcasting the sessions of the convention, why not the BOT?

Webcasting would allow anyone who is interested, including - if not especially - our Missionaries, to see for themselves what is going on. Any Trustee dissent can be easily voiced for whomever is listening at that time. Jerry Corbaley has called for openness and I think he is just the man to take this idea to the Board for us.

If the Board wants us to trust them and see them as not hiding things or trying to slip things by us, then they should have no problem letting us in on sessions that are public anyway.

I think this would be excellent policy for all our major entities public meetings. It would engender an air of openness that is clearly lacking. The trust of YSBC (Young SBC) is not high right now. In fact, the lack of trust of the IMB BOT is rubbing off on the SBC as a whole. The entire convention needs to rise to the challenge and let communication flow. The very appearance that our leaders might be hiding things incenses us. The move to open communication would draw us in.

Remember, I am still against “The Policy of Conformity,” but webcasting would not violate this policy and is a step further in the right direction.

Tomorrow morning I will post the contents of a paper handed out to the Trustees as they were getting ready to vote on the “Policy of Conformity.” I think you will be very interested in it.