Two days ago, the IMB BOT released a series of papers relating to the goings on within their midst. I will be taking these issues one by one over the next several days. Today I will discuss the overall announcement. Tomorrow I will discuss Chairman Hatley’s Open Letters and over the weekend I will discuss the position papers and their underpinning document, the definition of a church according to the IMB.
The issue still to be discussed is that of the tension between the Board and fellow Trustee, Wade Burleson. They have neither provided proof of any wrong doing by him nor have they spoken of how they intend to deal with him personally or public dissent in general. Do not let the advent of these papers distract you from this unresolved issue. This issue must be dealt with in the March meetings, so don’t forget it.
The timing of the papers’ release was interesting. To say they were overdue is an understatement of colossal proportion. In the release, the time of two and a half years has been attributed to the process of arriving at these policies. If they have worked for that long, then the rationale should have been readily available. It seems to me that the delay indicates that the two and a half years they took to get these through was maybe more about political positioning. That is why it has taken them so long to get to the point where they could release rationale – the last few years has not been about doctrine or practice, but politics.
These position papers should have been drawn up well over a year ago and passed out to the BOT six months before the vote. Ample discussion should have then been given to the policies and, in light of strong opposition by some on the Board, possibly the vote should have been delayed.
That they had to work on them after the vote and subsequent outcry – sparked by Wade Burleson and others – tells us more than the actual papers do. This delay tells us that they were unprepared for opposition, they expected that they could bully Wade into acquiescing, and that these policies did not reflect the strong views of the Board – hinting even that they may be the influence of others outside the Board.
Here I direct you to Dr. Paige Patterson and Dr. Keith Eitel, who have both critiqued the Board and sought to influence it. As evidence of this I repeat links given to you originally by Marty Duren in late January. This link is to a paper called “The Church in the 21st Century” that Dr. Patterson wrote and distributed to the BOT himself. This link is a critique of the IMB, called, “Vision Assessment” and written by Dr. Eitel, who has been suggested for VP at the IMB by Dr. Patterson, unsuccessfully. The “white paper” was sent with a cover letter, authored by Dr. Patterson, to every member of the Board of Trustees at the IMB.
Why does this matter and what does it say?
It matters because it is completely inappropriate for a President of one of our agencies to attempt to influence the Board of a different agency. It is as inappropriate for this to happen as it would be inappropriate for me to send papers suggesting sweeping changes to the Board of Deacons, Church Counsel or other governing body in your church. It says that Dr. Patterson has a track record of attempting to influence the Board at the IMB and if you listen to some of the rationale, the words sound familiar. I cannot accuse anyone of undue influence in this particular situation – but I believe these policies are supported by Dr. Patterson and will address that when I address the papers this weekend.
I also noted that the papers came out the day before I was to publish my Open Letter to the IMB Trustees concerning the allowance of public dissent. The chairman knew that the day of my publication would be Wednesday, as it was in my letter. Now, I would be pretty full of myself to think he timed it to cover and distract everyone from this issue and my post – knowing that I would want to turn my attention to the newly released papers and so would you. That would never happen. Would it?
All of that is just about the timing of the papers. Now to the announcement…
1. In the announcement, Dr. Rankin says, “While some will not be in agreement with the rationale, these documents will help others understand the deep convictions of those on our board for moving in this direction.” Now Dr. Rankin is a class act. He knows and accepts that they have the right to make any policy they choose, so he is not going to openly oppose what they have instituted since it is not his place to do so. (It is the place of other Trustees, though, like Wade Burleson.) I agree that the convictions of those who may have them are deep, but I disagree that they represent the Board. In fact, I believe that they are representative of a few and that a great many of the Trustees simply followed the leadership in supporting these policies.
This argument is supported by the fact that there was no opportunity to discuss these policies prior to the vote that passed them. Had there been a free debate, then many on the Board would have heard two sides. Instead, they voted and then heard the outcry of the SBC. This was both embarrassing and unexpected.
2. The announcement gives the impression of a “safety net” with this statement: “Exception clauses were included in both the guideline and the policy for special situations. Neither the guideline nor the policy is retroactive and neither will be applied to anyone already in the missionary appointment process.”
First let me say that the policies can be made retroactive in one vote with no prior warning, so that should not make anyone feel safe. Secondly, the policy was applied immediately to a couple in the appointment process. Wade posted about this couple who were turned aside immediately because she had a PPL, unbeknownst to even her husband. Fortunately, the outcry was so great after he posted about them, they were brought back and are being walked through the process as a special exception. This statement is not true of the immediate situation upon the passing of these guidelines, but is a result of backlash from you and me.
3. Chairman Hatley said that, “The decisions that were recently made have been matters of review and study for more than two and a half years. Similar precedents adopted by staff in dealing with these issues have been used for years. They were not as strong as the current guideline and policy but they were the base upon which the current statements were constructed.”
This stands in direct conflict with Dr. Rankin’s account of the process, given during a recent Q&A with the Editors of State Baptist Papers in Canada. In it he says that he did ask for the Board to vote on the policies, but that was because he didn’t believe a subcommittee or a small part of the Board should institute policy level guidelines without the full vote of the Board, and he doubted that the full Board felt this way.
Dr. Hatley goes further in saying, “Trustees have been blamed for having the motive of trying to hurt our president … The force that pushed the issue to this higher level, however, included the president and a few others on staff and on the board.’”
But in the interview alluded to earlier, Dr. Rankin replied to the insinuation that he was pushing for the policy by answering this:
“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.’”
4. Penultimately, Dr. Hatley blames the division occurring on the devil by saying, “We are on a great adventure together … it stands to reason that our adversary would love to put us against one another. Let’s put all blame on our real enemy and work harder than ever to reach every person with the Gospel in our lifetime.”
I couldn’t agree more about the source of the division and the goal of reaching the lost. I would, however, like to point out who let the door to division open by silencing debate and expecting that the SBC would sit silently and do as they are told. It was not Wade Burleson. It was the minority group who hold key leadership positions in the IMB BOT.
5. Finally, the cherry on top of the sundae is this statement: “I pray our hearts will be obvious as you read these pages.” I will sum up this monstrous post by saying that the hearts of the group who wrote the paper is more easily seen in their actions than in their words.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Kdawg
on Mar 9th, 2006
@ 8:07 am:
“It matters because it is completely inappropriate for a President of one of our agencies to attempt to influence the Board of a different agency.”
Amen!
My problem is that I don’t know any SBCer’s who do agree with the new policies. I know it is because of the circles I run in. But are the leaders trying to weed us all out?
Wes Kenney
on Mar 9th, 2006
@ 8:46 am:
Art,
Since you pointed out the insufficiency in the analogy I used in my post about the attempted removal of Burleson, I feel compelled to point out a similar deficiency in an analogy you have used here. Please understand I hold you in the highest regard. :)
To compare Patterson’s alleged attempt to influence the IMB Board (IMB Board – redundant?) to your theoretical interference with another autonomous church is apples and oranges. Patterson is, as you stated, president of one of our agencies, but you are pastor of one of our churches, the supposed source of all authority within the convention. Patterson is a Southern Baptist, with exactly the same right to interact with the trustees of an SBC entity as you or I have. While his attempts at influence may carry more weight than yours or mine, this is entirely up to individual trustees.
Paul
on Mar 9th, 2006
@ 9:39 am:
I’ll tell you this statement has convinced me that these are intractable people who will say just about anything – and have – for their cause.
I find it interesting that the analogies they use (the policeman and the doctor) are analogies that Dr. Hershael York posted on his blog months after the policies were passed! To say that those are the things that were guiding them all along is disingenuous.
And then his revision of the history of the policies once again tries to throw the issue back on Dr. Rankin and the IMB staff without taking responsibility for the mess of a process among the BoT that caused Dr. Rankin to press the issue with them.
I’m sorry, but I can’t support this nonsense.
art rogers
on Mar 9th, 2006
@ 10:08 am:
Kevin,
That seems to be the final destination. I think they wold prefer if we stayed but acted like they want us to act. If we will not, then I think they will begrudgingly cede our absence. Although, remember the bitterness many still harbor the CBF.
I feel that they should have felt free to leave if they felt they were not represented well in the SBC. (I know I am at odds with Wade Burleson on this issue, so there is some evidence that I am not just trying to do his dirty work. The difference is that we can disagree and still affirm God’s work in each other and cooperate for the Mission.)
That is not true of many within the leadership. They begrudge those who left for the CBF or are supporting both conventions – these hold a special place of ire. I suspect we will be treated the same way if the bonds of cooperation break and we lose fellowship with one another. We will be the enemy, robbing the Convention of Southern Baptist people and churches (not to mention money).
By the way, I spoke to an older pastor at lunch yesterday and he said this: Just as our churches are autonomous, our associations, state conventions and national convention are autonomous. They have the right to act differently than we believe they should. I countered that they answered to us as members, and he agreed, but that doesn’t mean they have to do as we say. To which I replied that YSBC would feel disenfranchised and would leave the convention as a result.
His look of sadness had a hint of pity in it. I took it to mean that he would hate to see us go, but that is the curse of our generation – we don’t stick to stuff. (This interpretation of said look comes from the context of previous conversations.)
What I still don’t think he understands is that we represent an entire generation of people who are sick of this very thing – and they will come with us. In fact, many precede us.
I talked with a woman today at breakfast with a friend who introduced us. She left her established church to help start a house church. She talked passionately about stripping away the clutter that surrounds the church and all of its politics. They have grown from thirty to over 120 in two years, but still have no building. They meet in schools and have almost no overhead so she says, “all the money we collect goes to spreading the Gospel.” You should have seen her face when she made this statement. They are exiting without our leadership. What would they do if we feel cut off and start to lead away from the convention?
Wes,
Thanks for waiting…
You make a valid point. I have also thought about the fact that Dr. Patterson is a Southern Baptist and must also have some rights to speak out.
However, two things keep his situation from being like mine.
First, his position calls for him to be more like a statesman and less like a Majority whip. Sending thological briefs critiquing the IMB to its trustees and attempting to influence their direction is beneath someone of his office. If you have that kind of influence, you should wield it gently, not like a bull in a china shop.
Secondly, these are the most gentle of his overtures. In January you can find several comments of Marty’s blog about him trying to insinuate Dr. Eitel into the VP position as a “stalking horse” to Dr. Rankin. It is much deeper than these two papers – they are the surface of a deep pool.
Paul,
Excellent point about Hershael York’s blog.
This has brought up a new/old issue. I assume that they know we will read these blogs and will recognize the descrepencies. Why include them?
This is big, boys and girls, and it could be the ball game.
Dr. hatley has the ability to mail these letters to each church – each Southern Baptist, if he wants to and apparently will be doing that. They should arrive just before the Convention.
Are the average Southern Baptists reading our blogs? No. Are they reading the print media and will they read the letter? Yes.
This will signal the loss of our argument if we do not get the word out to the local pastors and the members of our churches.
This is how the resurgance was won and this is how the Caucus Group will win if we fail to counter it.
steve w
on Mar 9th, 2006
@ 10:41 am:
A very insightful and informative discussion of SBC organizational autonomy (and why the president of one entity should keep his hands out of the business of another entity) is The Baptist Way (link) by Dr. Chuck Kelley, president of NOBTS. Maybe the reason Dr. Kelley doesn’t send position papers to the IMB BoT is because he understands SBC polity.
Wes Kenney
on Mar 9th, 2006
@ 10:42 am:
Art,
Thanks again for the interaction.
If Patterson’s position as a seminary president calls for gentleness, how much more our position as pastors. Again, the local church is the supposed source of authority in our convention.
And while he is responsible for how he uses his influence, the trustees are responsible for its ultimate effect. Last I checked, Dr. Eitel was getting his mail in Ft. Worth, not Richmond. So for all the talk of undue influence, it seems not to have had much effect.
art rogers
on Mar 9th, 2006
@ 11:06 am:
Steve,
Thanks for the information.
Wes,
Let me say again how much I respect you for your civility and for your grace.
As to Dr. Patterson’s influence differing from that of Pastors, we are the guardians of our flocks and the denomination is an extension of that. I don’t think my voice is more important than the voice of any member of my congregation. However, it is my job to make sure they understand what is going on. Dr. Patterson does not share that privlige, since he is not a pastor.
You said it yourself:
“…the local church is the supposed source of authority in our convention” … not any Seminary or its head. And I agree tht we need to be gentle as well.
I will go a step further, I have been far more gentle in my attempt to influence the BOT than Dr. Patterson, so I am well within your guidelines.
Still, I disagree that we should be more gentle on any given day than any other entity head. I think they bear the greater responsibility – since they surely would not the agency heads around the convention publicly critiquing them or attempting to covertly influence their board in a way that they themselves do not do. That is outrageous, Wes, and there is no excuse for it.
As to Dr. Eitel, whether or not Dr. Patterson was successful in placing him at the IMB is not the point. That he would attempt it is the point and it is a huge one.
I love ya,
Art
Wes Kenney
on Mar 9th, 2006
@ 11:21 am:
I agree that Patterson could be seen, as you have described, as a “bull in a china shop.” And I agree that that is not appropriate for the president of a seminary. But that anger should be directed primarily to Dr. Patterson and not to the trustees of the IMB, except to the extent that they allow themselves to be swayed by him. And they are accountable for that extent.
***BEGIN GIANT PARENTHESIS***
By the way, speaking of what is “appropriate for the president of a seminary,” if you’re in need of a good laugh (in addition to kdawg’s outstanding contributions in this regard), go to Southwestern’s website (swbts.edu) and click on “President Patterson” in the left-hand column. The banner at the top of his page is eerily reminiscent of a Tammy Faye Bakker album cover in a recent “Divine Vinyl” post on Purgatorio. Surely Patterson knows that record is out there, right? At least he’s not wearing a pith helmet…
***END PARENTHESIS***
Kdawg
on Mar 9th, 2006
@ 11:24 am:
“His look of sadness had a hint of pity in it. I took it to mean that he would hate to see us go, but that is the curse of our generation – we don’t stick to stuff. (This interpretation of said look comes from the context of previous conversations.”
This is true of our generation. But we have church members who work for corporations that will fire them for any reason. So now people go for the big bucks when they can.
Also, we live in a very dysfunctional society. Most of our generation has been brought up in broken homes.(not me, but my wife) We are tired of fighting and being told it’s for our best interest! It’s time we start having a say!
art rogers
on Mar 9th, 2006
@ 11:26 am:
Wes,
I agree with you wholeheartedly at every level of your last post. Dr. Patterson needs to be taken to task for meddling and the Trustees should only be held accountable for allowing him to influence them – if they were influenced.
No Trustee should be held responsible for receiving mail, and I do not advocate such.
Kevin,
Amen, as always.
Paul
on Mar 9th, 2006
@ 3:53 pm:
Wes,
If Jerry Rankin commissioned another IMB employee to write a paper critical of theological education as practiced at SWBTS and sent it to the trustees (not Patterson, mind you, but to the trustees) of SWBTS and if his hope was that this IMB employee might become a Vice President at SWBTS in an attempt to influence the direction of SWBTS to his liking, I can assure you Patterson would be throwing a hissy fit and would almost certainly find a way to have Rankin removed. He would rightly object that Rankin should have addressed and resolved his issues with Patterson himself, not with the trustees.
Neither Patterson nor any other entity head is like your regular Southern Baptist church member. To whom much is given, much shall be required. He has an extra measure of responsibility to the convention. He has more influence than most of the rest of us. He is responsible to use that influence appropriately and with care. He has not done so in this regard.
Tim Sweatman
on Mar 9th, 2006
@ 5:45 pm:
As great as our disdain toward organized “political” methods is, we are going to have to do something to get the word out to greater numbers of SBC pastors and laypersons. We’ve seen that people who are aware of these policies tend to oppose them, but the majority of those who are not really aware of them will support them just because they are the “official” position. The hard part is figuring out what we can do to inform them. Direct mail seems to be out of the question, unless you have about $16,000 for postage. If there are any sympathetic editors of state papers, then they can be helpful. Marty Duren keeps implying that there is a grass roots surge that will surprise people. I’d like to know what he knows.
Alan Cross
on Mar 9th, 2006
@ 10:35 pm:
I wrote this today on Marty’s blog and it is basically a long question (sorry for the long comment) and I think that it addresses a lot of what is being said. I am posting it here to ask if I am on the right track with my logic. If I am, it has pretty severe implications. If I am not, it would be great to see my error, because this is what I am wrestling with. Thanks for any feedback. I do not want to be dogmatic and I am trying to be very open right now to what is the truth, but opinions are starting to harden.
“As Baptists, we have a confession of faith called the Baptist Faith & Message (BF&M). This confession provides the basis for our cooperation. The arena for our cooperation takes place in our missions agencies, associations, and state conventions. Those entities cannot and should not change the theological basis for cooperation that we have all agreed upon as being the BF&M by instituting new policies on theological issues. If they do, they then supersede our confession of faith and render it worthless. If they want the doctrinal basis of cooperation to change, then they should attempt to change the BF&M. Failing that, they should get along or leave.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a group of people that wants to change theological/doctrinal positions for the SBC, not through the BF&M, but through political control of missions agencies. This is exactly the same thing that liberals have done by taking over the courts and instituting judicial tyranny.The trustees have followed the same course.
If I lead my church to be faithful to the Bible as interpreted by the BF&M, yet find that my members are not eligible as candidates for missions through SBC agencies because of further, stricter THEOLOGICAL positions, then the BF&M is worthless. We have another basis for cooperation that is controlled by a handful of men who are appointed by an elite. This is postmodern relativism at it’s finest, especially when that small group can change policy at their discretion with little Biblical basis or accountability. Thank God for Wade Burleson, or we never would have even heard about this.
So, what is truth? Apparently whatever the Board of Trustees says it is. Surely, the BF&M is not consulted, so of what use is it except as a political tool to be picked up when it serves the purpose of the elite? This is exactly what the liberals/moderates did that caused the conservative resurgence, is it not? Whether or not you agree with these policies, there should be cause for major alarm in our Convention. What if tomorrow the issue is Calvinism/Arminianism? What keeps the same thing from happening? Nothing, because policy is being made by taking straw polls of what trustees “feel” most Southern Baptists practice. I’m glad that we fought that battle over the Bible. A lot of good it did us.
I’m not trying to be harsh or personal toward the trustees. I am sure that they are all honorable men. But, I am trying to figure out what our basis of cooperation is, and if there is none that is identifiable, then how do they justify the Cooperative Program? Why should we participate in this?”
One other thing: If similar doctrinal policies exist at NAMB that go beyond the BF&M, aren’t we already at this point. This is distressing to say the least.
JUSTAMOE
on Mar 9th, 2006
@ 10:37 pm:
I graduated from SWBTS-Ft. Worth.
The late Dr. Curtis Vaughn, one of my New Testament Greek professors at Southwestern Seminary, served on the search committee which recommended Dr. Kenneth Hemphill as president of SWBTS.
I recall reading Dr. Vaughn’s report of the candidate interview of Dr. Hemphill, after his election. Dr. Vaughn said that he thought of Dr. Hemphill during the interview, “Looks presidential . . . Sounds presidential . . . IS presidential”. Dr. Curtis Vaughn, in my opinion, was not a man easily impressed.
SWBTS has changed, and is not better for it.
art rogers
on Mar 10th, 2006
@ 9:10 am:
Alan,
I answer your question in the next post.
Justamoe,
When did you graduate? We may have known each other.
Email me if you want – Your secret identity is safe with me…
JUSTAMOE
on Mar 10th, 2006
@ 5:39 pm:
Art:
I graduated before ’95 (not one of the younger bloggers here), but with an MDiv.
It’s good to know that SWBTS alum are serving faithfully–keep up the good work of faith and labor of love!
art rogers
on Mar 10th, 2006
@ 7:07 pm:
Justamoe,
email me, bro. We graduated together.