[This is not the post I promised at the end of my last post. I am holding on to it for now. Look for me to continue to address the issue of the policy controlling Trustee communication later on.]
I was up late last night and up again early this morning. Apparently the internet is “pull start” in Tampa, and information was slow to reach me. I was expecting it yesterday at lunch and received only part of it this morning.
Apparently, the mixed message out of Tampa is because there is a mixed bag of information. Of course, the Trustees can’t be negative about any of it, but other bloggers there could. At this point, they are choosing to encourage the Trustees.
I think I understand this. If all you give is correction, at some point people stop listening to you. They need to hear it from us if they move our way at all, and I think they did, some.
I am not happy about the new policy prohibiting dissent. I believe that the censoring of Trustees is absolutely wrong at any level. However, I am told that it was much “worse” and that serious changes were made to make it better. The attitude was more conciliatory. While I am not done with this policy, I am grateful for a more gentle spirit than we have seen in the past.
I am thrilled that the vote was unanimous to rescind the motion to remove Wade. It should have been that and it was, so some right was done there. I think they should have apologized for disparaging his character, but they could have just as easily insisted on an apology from him. They just let it go, so there is some good news.
I do believe that they need to fully reinstate Wade to the committees on which he served. It is a bit of a hollow victory to have him on the Board but not bearing any of the work load. In a sense, he is in the penalty box until the Chairman deems it is appropriate to do otherwise. That could last the remaining 7 1/2 years of his term.
I do want to add that the reports of Chairman Hatley’s leadership seem to be all they were cracked up to be. Everyone is confirming the kind a gracious way he moderated the issues. Reports are also coming in that he spent some time talking about listening to Young Leaders in the SBC. This is something on which you could hang your hat.
It’s a mixed bag, folks. Celebrate the good stuff. We’ll get to work on the rest tomorrow with the knowledge that WE DID HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE PROCESS and it was evident this week.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Clif Cummings
on Mar 23rd, 2006
@ 9:37 am:
I believe the minuses for out weigh the pluses. Negative One – there was never any disclosure of exactly the words that were used by Wade that constituted the charges of “gossip and slander”.
Negative Two – as a result of number one there should have been a public apology – there was not.
Negative Three – The continued implementation of new policies so that those who are in control can remain in control of everything and now every word.
Negative Four – Wade being removed from all committees.
Negative Five – the continued “disconnect” of the BoT from the feelings and hearts of the men and women on the field.
On the Plus side:
Plus One — the unanimous vote to withdraw the motion to remove Wade.
Plus Two — the meeting is over.
Net result – negative three.
Kevin Bussey
on Mar 23rd, 2006
@ 10:04 am:
I agree with Clif!
I am a postive person by nature, but my opinion is the BOT’s just gave in enough to sweep the changes under the rug. I don’t like the PPL or new Baptism policies. Keep up your posts Art!!!!
steve w
on Mar 23rd, 2006
@ 10:41 am:
To all my fearless friends,
Have you seen this
North Carolina Biblical Recorder article (link)?
There are some positive statements in it. I liked this statement:
Hatley said IMB trustees are now more aware of the younger generation of Southern Baptist pastors and leaders who rallied to Burleson’s defense. “This high-tech generation is fearless,” he said, adding their fearlessness is often taken for insolence.
I think their perception of us is beginning to change.
There’s still a lot of work to be done, but there has been some movement in the right direction, and you are right Art, we have had an effect.
Phillips Lynn
on Mar 23rd, 2006
@ 1:19 pm:
When we get to Greensboro in June there should be an outcry for a public apology from the IMB BOT for the hurtful way they have treated Dr. Burleson, his wife and children. Mr. Hatley and Mr. Corebaley besmirched and berated Dr Burelson’s character as if he constituted less then the personhood of the image of God which he is.
Dr. Burleson stood for up for Dr. Rankin when obviously no one else would.
The IMB BOT also owes Dr. Burleson’s church an apology for they have surely laid hands on God’s anointed.
The IMB BOT owes the SBC an apology for they have truly treated us as if we are little children without capability to understand information pertaining to the IMB and insulting our intelligence by issuing new guidelines that suggest we have no ability to discern right from wrong. It seems that they have “anointed” themselves as guardians over us and the mission program of which we as the SBC finance in total. The IMB belongs to the members of the Southern Baptist Convention which is made up of members of Southern Baptist churches. We send trustees to represent us to the IMB.
Trustee Bill Hudgins from Alabama was quoted as saying “Many people think that we are a representative for our state at the IMB, but that is not the case. We are trustees for the IMB we are not delegates for the state.”
Obviously Mr. Hudgins is poorly versed in the ways of the SBC. Let me illustrate:
1- First of all it is correct that trustees do not represent state conventions but they do represent every co-operating church within state conventions because those churches make up the entirety of the SBC.
2- There is no such thing as a Trustee “for” the IMB. Trustees are voted upon and appointed “to” the IMB by the messengers in session during the annual Convention. It may help Mr. Hudgins to look up the word Trustee and study it’s meaning carefully.
3- No knowledgeable Southern Baptist ever uses the word “delegate” in reference to the trusteeship of any Board, Agency or Institution within the SBC now or any time in its history.
We should give the IMB BOTs an opportunity in Greensboro to make the proper apologies that they so obviously owe to Dr. Burleson, Dr. Rankin, their families, Dr. Burleson’s church, and the SBC as a whole.
If they refuse to do this it may be time to consider Pastor’s Cole’s motion to vacate the Board and declare an election from the floor using the guidelines which are in order to elect the proper number from each state or joint convention of churches within various states as are prescribed therein.
We owe it to the Burlesons, the Rankins and the SBC to deal with this matter.
Most of all we owe it to the missionaries on the field who cannot speak for themselves for they know full well after Tampa that if they do so it will be their own peril.
I am going to Greensboro. I hope to see you there.
Tim Sweatman
on Mar 23rd, 2006
@ 3:13 pm:
Art,
You’re more optimistic at this point than I am. I’m hoping that Marty will have some information that generates optimism, because I really didn’t get that from Wade’s or Rick’s reports. I’m cynical about changes in attitude that are not accompanied by changes in actions. I tend to see such attitude changes as being an attempt to manipulate others. Hopefully I’m wrong, but until I see some concrete action that demonstrates a genuine change in attitude I’ll remain somewhat suspicious.
I agree that we should affirm the trustees when they do the right thing or make an effort to move toward us. The vote to rescind the recommendation to remove Wade was a positive. And I guess it was a positive that the new policy was amended to make it less offensive (although I haven’t seen any details about the changes), but it’s hard to celebrate going from horrendous to merely terrible. And it does seem that Hatley’s conduct of this meeting was far more effective than his handling of the issues over the past few weeks. Hopefully his remarks about listening to us were sincere.
Regarding the issue of a public apology to Wade, I think one is warranted. But if Wade does not insist that one be made, then I believe we should drop that issue.
Looking over my comment, one of the legacies of the recent board actions stands out. I simply cannot take anything said by the trustees at face value. How sad!
Kevin Bussey
on Mar 23rd, 2006
@ 5:25 pm:
The only plus at this point would be to do away with the new policies and let Dr. Rankin lead.