I have been posting this week about what to watch for in Tampa during the IMB BOT meetings: What to Watch for in Tampa & Tampa Update. If you are reading the blogs, you know that we have now gotten quite a show. While my post yesterday was optimistic, I must now turn to what I feared may happen – it appears that I was right about what we should be looking for, and I am sorry to say that.
Before I go through my three things to watch for, I want to address the overarching issue of Wade Burleson and the recommendation that he be removed. My first post on the subject reflected the promise that had been extended to Wade that the removal of the recommendation was “the right thing to do” and that there were “no strings attached.” It seems that it there are a great many strings attached and I refer you, for the first time today, to Wade’s own words on the subject in the post on his blog, My Last Post as an International Mission Board Trustee?.
As I was about to post this, Wade’s newest post, Decisions, was posted. Apparently, the string is that Wade is not allowed to serve on any committees within the IMB, making him, in effect, a lame duck. This will be in effect until the Chairman decides to change it. Obviously, any assurances that there were no strings attached were complete falsehoods. What else can be said about this?
1. The first thing that I said must be watched for was meetings that were behind closed doors. While Dr. Jerry Rankin was publicly vilified and as much as called a liar in public session, the closed door meetings may yet come into play today. If you will note, several things that were on the agenda for public meetings were skipped. I feel that this portends a “closed door” session in the making. I believe that the BOT will deal with Wade behind closed doors if they can. This move will be solidified by the next item…
[UPDATE]The board did move into “executive session” to deal with the Wade Burleson issue. Because of the policy discussed next, and because it is “closed door” we are not privy to what went on there, other than the move to remove Wade was rescinded but with the caveat that Wade is not serving on any committees.
2. The next item to watch for has been of particular interest to me over the last month. In my mind it is the whole ball of wax. In the new policy paper for trustee behavior, superseding the old “Blue Book” manual for Trustees, we find that trustees will be called upon to abstain from being critical, in any venue, of a majority decision by the IMB. This has been voted into effect today. In responses to my “open letter” to the IMB, several trustees dismissed my concerns on this issue. I will be contacting them personally to ask them whether or not they lied to me.
Wade says that there were some substantive changes in the policy that he feels good about, however, you will note that he also says that he will no longer criticize any move by the IMB. This is clearly in compliance with the policy, the full wording of which I am waiting for right now. As soon as I get the wording on the new policy, I will post it. For now, you can read thoughts on it at Marty’s blog.
Let me be clear, free dissent of trustees from the majority is vital for a healthy Board and a healthy SBC.
3. The third item for which I suggested we watch is an assault on Wade’s character. I will refer you, yet again, to Wade’s own words on the subject posted today on his blog: My Last Post as an International Mission Board Trustee?.
Brothers and Sisters, these things ought not be. Once again, I point out that we are playing politics with the greatest missionary sending body in the history of the New Testament Church.
I am going to post a substantive article on the new policy later today. I had originally included it here, but it was too long and I felt people may not give it the full attention it deserves, so I have pulled it out and will post again later today.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Kevin Bussey
on Mar 22nd, 2006
@ 12:19 pm:
This stinks!
Kevin
on Mar 22nd, 2006
@ 12:41 pm:
Art
I posted on Wade’s site and if i understand right he will no longer post commentes until? I don’t no when. So if I can I want to put it on your comment’s to see if their are those who agree with me.
thanks and at least the BoT Can’t turn us off.
Wade
As I read your post I was so hoping and praying for a “good” word, and there was none. My heart breaks for you, your family, your church, and the SBC I have posted a few times and as I (as have you) have all ways tried to be gracious to those who disagree, but my first reaction is to call for the removal of the trustees who have resorted to name calling and calling into question the integrity of anther trustee without documented facts that back up the accusations. Then I went and got some hot wings and a drink and have calmed at lest a little. I still lean to removal at Greensboro but I want to give them a chance to present all that they have in a public and open form not in secret and that I can put a name with a face and that we if the facts are so inclined censer at the very lest there must be accountability for what is being said I despise secret meeting that in my opinion are from the pits of Hell. I did say I calmed down didn’t I? I fell very strongly that the BoT has over steeped their rights and need to be reminded we the Southern Baptist Churches do not work for them they work for us. May the Churches, the missionaries and the Pastors rise and remind them of this in June.
Praying for you as always rejoicing in HIM.
Kevin Lancaster
art rogers
on Mar 22nd, 2006
@ 12:45 pm:
Kevin B., yeah, it does.
Kevin L.,
You are free to post that here with my appreciation for your passion. Wade may or may not be commenting here though.
Remember, that the policy covers all communication, not just one’s blogs, so he could not dissent here either.
Art
steve w
on Mar 22nd, 2006
@ 12:48 pm:
I don’t know the best way to word this, but I believe Southern Baptists should make the IMB trustees long for a return to the dissent of a few principled trustees. I’m not sure of what exactly they were trying to accomplish, but I think they should taste the dissent of thousands of Southern Baptists.
Perhaps that dissent would best be expressed through vacating this board in Greensboro this summer.
Jeff Richard Young
on Mar 22nd, 2006
@ 1:57 pm:
Dear Art,
You have been kinda mysterious about what measures might be proposed in Greensboro. Is that part of the strategery, or what?
Does anybody know what it would take to propose the whole board’s removal?
Love in Christ,
Jeff
art rogers
on Mar 22nd, 2006
@ 3:42 pm:
Steve,
I am hearing that all day today.
Jeff,
I am not trying to be secretive. I just don’t know the ins and outs of those moves. I do know that they are being worked on by others and that we can expect that something will be done.
Show up and vote.
Anonymous
on Mar 22nd, 2006
@ 3:53 pm:
Messengers to the SBC can make motions until the allotted “time runs out”. Once “time runs out” the convention would have to approve additional time. If the chair does not call for the convention to approve additional time, a motion to do so would have to come from the floor.
At any rate, all motions of instruction to the IMB will either be called “out of order” or “referred” to the IMB itself to consider.
The ONE motion that the SBC in session can treat on the floor is to remove trustees. And I believe it would have to be accompanied by the names of replacements, maintaining the representation of trustees from each state. It is possible though that the chair would rule that a separate motion be made for each individual trustee position. There are 87 trustees.
Kevin Bussey
on Mar 22nd, 2006
@ 3:54 pm:
let’s march around the G-boro coliseum 7 times…. No that one has already been done.
cylec
on Mar 22nd, 2006
@ 4:04 pm:
Do you ever wonder if the IMB has your name on a blacklist somewhere?
art rogers
on Mar 22nd, 2006
@ 4:16 pm:
Anonymous,
You are right concerning motions from the floor. However, the address of the IMB will most likely come through the resolution process. If the convention resolves something or other and the IMB brings its report and is conflict with a resolution of the SBC, we can reject their report and call them to get in line with our resolution.
This will not happen from the floor. It will be on the docket.
Cylec,
I know certain leaders do have a blacklist. I am quite sure I am on it.
I had a friend in Seminary who was threatened by an SBC big wig. In response to being asked, as part of a room full of people, to evaluate the leader, my firend gave an honest but critical evaluation. This was not what he was used to hearing and not what others in the room had been saying.
The leader threatended that he would never work in the SBC again. My friend said: “I don’t pray to you.”
Today, he is in the SBC, but the leader is long gone.
I take great comfort in knowing that I pray to God and the SBC is a place where I serve. If He wants me here, I will be here. If He wants me gone, I’m gladly gone. No one else will matter.
Remember, too, that the whole “blacklist” thing is an issue of gatekeeping the positions of power.
If you don’t seek power, this is no threat.
Kevin Bussey
on Mar 22nd, 2006
@ 4:19 pm:
Actually, we will be “Blue-listed!” :)