Many of you will be looking for news out of the IMB Board meetings in Tampa this week. Since I was unable to go, I will not be able to bring you first hand accounts, but I did want to give you a few things to focus on when sifting through the news.

I am sure that the root of the issue is the one thing that will not yield any real action. The policies concerning Baptism and Private Prayer Languages will not have any significant change this week. I perceive that the board has actually felt the need to “stiffen its back” in response to the outcry from the SBC. If, at this point, they were to withdraw their support for the policies, it would be tantamount to admitting that they were wrong to implement the policies. To do so would be to admit that they had not fulfilled their duties well; failing to properly research the issue and failing to understand the SBC and its willingness to allow the circle of cooperation to be tightened beyond the beliefs of the majority of the convention. As you can imagine, they are not about to do this.

I even remember recently reading a quote from Chairman Hatley that said the uproar seemed to have strengthened the resolve of the Board. Since I can’t find the quote, you will have to take my recollection with a grain of salt. Still, the policies will not be the focus of any business this week. If you want the policies dealt with, Greensboro is going to be the one and only chance you will have to make a difference.

What will be on the table is the typical business of the IMB. Potential missionaries will be interviewed by the committees, under the new policies, and reports will be given. At the end will be the commissioning of a group of missionaries on Wednesday night. This is a great thing that is somewhat bitter sweet for me. While we are sending out missionaries to take the Gospel, we are still playing politics with the cooperative mechanism that facilitates such a thing.

What is out of the norm will be the handling of the Wade Burleson issue. We are promised that the Executive Committee will ask the Board to remove the recommendation to remove Wade as a Trustee. Wade has stated that he was told there were “no strings attached” to this move and that it was being done because it was “the right thing to do.”

I can only wholeheartedly agree with that, but you will have to forgive me if my mistrust still lingers. At this point, the Trustees as a whole have shown a lack of wisdom in asking for his dismissal, failing to provide evidence of any wrongdoing on Wade’s part, assaulting his name with these charges that could not be substantiated and failing completely to understand the internet and the generation(s) that use it for their primary communication.

Here are a few ideas about the potential move and what you should be looking for:

1. First, look for a closed door, executive session to deal with Wade. Wade said that he would not attend any executive sessions as a Trustee when the charges were first leveled against him. Moreover, he has said since that he would not submit to such a meeting to deal with the issue, preferring it to be in public. Trustees may have been counting on the regular “Trustee Forum,” scheduled for tonight. This is a closed door meeting where Trustees are given freedom to speak “off the record” on subjects of their choosing. Wade has said that he will not attend this meeting either.

Not going behind closed doors is a wise move on Wade’s part. This presses the trustees to deal with him “on the record,” where they will be accountable for what they say. The downside is that the Trustees may simply handle the issue without Wade present. This may, in fact, be easier for them. Their words behind closed doors will be private and the outcome will be that the issue will be off the table. Look also for conditions to be put in place on Wade’s part. Wade, I do not think, will be willing to submit to any as he feels that he has done nothing wrong, but that may not stop some who want to curb his tongue.

2. This leads us to the other potential issue for which to look: The dealing with communication of the Trustees concerning Board business. I have read many recent statements about the freedom of blogging and many of you know this issue was the primary focus of my recent “open letter” to the Trustees of the IMB. Everything being said right now seems to indicate that there will be no move to silence “bloggers,” but I am wary. A move may not focus on blogging, per se, but may focus on communication in general. Several trustees seem to think that the defeated minority should be silent and support the “winners” of a particular issue. Obviously, this is ludicrous and those espousing such ideas call into question their own fitness to serve the SBC at any level. It is un-Christian and un-American. Weight placed, obviously on the former and not the latter, though the latter counts for something. Watch for any move to regulate information given by Trustees.

3. Look for an assault on Wade’s character. I know this seems like a rehash of the first item, but it is not. It has been intimated to me that there are things that may be released about Wade at this meeting. There are a vast many reasons to do this, but they center around a desire to discredit Wade, who has become a thorn in the side of many. The reason this is separate from the first item is that it is not an attempt to deal with Wade and the situation concerning him. Rather, it is an attempt to retaliate and eliminate – which is no solution at all. It may not happen, and I hope it doesn’t, but I will be looking for something in this area. You should, too.

This does not address whether or not Wade is or isn’t hiding skeletons in his closet. The fact is, I don’t believe he has any, but if he does, the way to deal with it is to go to him personally and get the full story. Then, if you feel there is an issue, you should pursue reconciliation, but if he is unrepentant, he should be turned over to the leadership of his local church. If you can’t do these things, you should definitely not be releasing any information about Wade, as it is a testimony to a lack of character on your part.

Of all the things that could happen, the last one scares me the most. I am not afraid for Wade. He can stand on his own two feet and I think his character speaks for itself. I am afraid that our whole missionary sending process will shatter if we turn to such actions.

I will admit, that the third item is also the least likely to happen, but because it is so potentially dangerous, I take it very seriously.

Posts with related content

• No Related Post

TAGS: None