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.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Anonymous
on Mar 25th, 2006
@ 12:04 am:
EXCELLENT post! I’m afraid you are right on.
Jeff Richard Young
on Mar 25th, 2006
@ 1:27 am:
Dear Art,
Good article! I don’t think the trustees understand that for many of us, including me, passing the KGB police state policy they just passed was like saying, “Sick ‘em!” to a bulldog. I’m going to find a place to bite and hold on until the power hungry in the BOT are defeated.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Anonymous
on Mar 25th, 2006
@ 1:28 am:
Chairman Hatley should consider blogging. I mean it.
Because the things he says publically, at least to the degree they get reported by various media, lead me to conclude that of all the trustee chairmen we have had at IMB, he is the least supportive of field missionaries.
Read the Florida Baptist Witness article recently released, and Hatley goes to lengths to taint the credibiltiy of missionaries (using the tired straw man argument: “some haven’t been to seminary so they may have theological abberations”).
I have never heard a chairman who would speak so disparagingly of missionaries, all of whom leave family and home to live in far away places, to raise their children away from grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins.
I have never seen a chairman who would look at a young couple about to move to a place where they could easily die for their faith, and insinuate that they are somehow theologically suspect (after all we go through to get to the field).
He seemingly abdicates his leadership role with every news release (which he approves if it comes from IMB).
He should take up blogging because he is either constantly being misquoted, or selectively quoted or he seriously has nothing positive to say about the work of IMB missionaries.
At least if he blogs all the content is his.
art rogers
on Mar 25th, 2006
@ 7:08 am:
Don’t you people ever sleep? I mean, I know I stay up late to post stuff so it will be there in the morning, but then I wake up and you people are already all over it.
And they say our generation has no passion.
We may have a lot of faults, but that just isn’t one of them.
Phillips Lynn
on Mar 25th, 2006
@ 7:50 am:
Pastor Art,
Amen!!!
You are correct on all accounts. The issue is about control; people are placed on boards to do the bidding of the “one or ones” seeking control; Dr. Rankin’s removal is one of their goals; the “backroom political powers” did greatly underestimated the Young SBC and they surely never considered the power of blogs.
I thank God that we have fine young men like you and Pastor Marty who are working so hard to keep the issues in front of us. I am praying for you both.
CharlieMac
on Mar 25th, 2006
@ 8:26 am:
Why do we need so many people on the IBM BOT? Rubber stamps can be procured at almost any print shop anywhere in the USA at far less expense and they last forever.
All you have to do is reink them.
Jeff Richard Young
on Mar 25th, 2006
@ 2:43 pm:
Dear Art,
I have vowed not to sleep until the new KGB-BOT no-dissent policy is rescinded, the two new missionary policies are revoked, Dr. B is voted Chairman of the BOT, Dr. Dever is voted President of the SBC, Marty Duren is editor-in-chief of BP News, your join Dr. P as co-President of SWBTS, and every church in the SBC has a 1-to-1 member-to-baptism ratio.
Just out of curiosity, how long do you think that will take? I’m getting kinda drowsy.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
art rogers
on Mar 25th, 2006
@ 2:56 pm:
I can safely say that Dr. P and I will never serve together as anything other than fellow Southern Baptists, so go ahead and go to sleep.
Actually, I don’t think anyone on your list wants a job, per se.
Still, thanks for the vote of confidence – as always.
Kevin Bussey
on Mar 25th, 2006
@ 5:43 pm:
Right on as usual!
art rogers
on Mar 25th, 2006
@ 6:05 pm:
Egnaro posted this under the article, The Hidden Issue. I thought it was timely and therefore more relevnt here, so I have moved the comment:
egnaro said…
Maybe I am naive, however, I do not see a problem with what I understand to have passed.
1. They should not attack each other
2. They should not attack our president
3. They should not speak against decisions that have already been made -publicly.
Our president is our leader. I feel that our leaders deserve our respect, and the respect of their co-workers. I have a great deal of respect for all of them, although I really know none of them.
When they start to destroy our trust, as well as the trust of other SBC entities, this cannot honor our Lord.
When there’s a MT 18 issue, the first step is to take it to the offender. Secondly, take a witness, then take it to the church. If our trustees want to make decisions that are illegal, unethical or harm their own mission, I would expect a or the or those men of God to do whatever it takes to offer guidance -even resign if necessary.
Secondly,
There’s no rule about open debate over issues that are undecided. When a motion hits the floor, each trustee has the ability to postpone voting, post it on their blog, discuss, debate and argue the issue, not attack each other.
BTW: I know of no such case where anyone was attacked by a trustee, however, it would be detrimental to the mission.
I do have one question: Should there arise the need to take another look at a decision that has already been made, would the fact that they are looking at it again give them freedom to discuss the pros and cons openly, and share their beliefs, fears, and concerns?
Thanks,
art rogers
on Mar 25th, 2006
@ 6:27 pm:
Now, then, egnaro, to answer your post…
There are no problems with the move to silence disparaging comments toward either the staff or other trustees. The only problem is that a policy should have to be in place to govern us where the Word clearly leads.
The problem with silencing dissent has several layers. First, as I said in this post, and you should read it – although we should all give grace here since this comment was originally posted on an article from a month ago – issues that should be discussed and the whole of the SBC should be able to opine concerning can be brought in, voted on and made official when no trustee has the opportunity to dissent to the SBC.
That was done with this policy and can be done with any other new issue, if a group seeks to do things for which they don’t want the SBC to hold them accountable.
As far as Dr. Rankin being our leader, you will find that this policy cuts him both ways. He is protected from public verbal assault, again, something that shouldn’t require a policy to govern, but 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, unless they were to resign. The problem with resigning is that it stregnthens the party opposed to Dr. Rankin.
You have several trustees remark that if someone can’t abide within such and such expectations, they can resign. Why would they want this? It stregthens their position.
This is why I think it is imperitive that Wade NOT resign under any circumstances. We will do the dissenting and he can do the voting.
This is not to imply that Wade is giving us inside information so that we can dissiminate it for him. I know some will read that statement that way, but I reiterate that I have not – nor would I ever – do that.
You said that each trestee has the ability to postpone voting – this is not true, and leaving to post dissent is impractical.
Better to allow people just to speak their mind in love.
This policy is about control: getting and keeping it.
art rogers
on Mar 25th, 2006
@ 6:44 pm:
Follow up: As to the issue of trustees attacking – and I mean this kindly – you need to read some more. Dr. Rankin was assaulted at the meeting this week. For another perspective, read Wade’s post: Why Does It Not End?.
Also, I think the answer to your question about it coming up again, my understanding is that they will have to be silent leading up to the meeting. In fact, showing the knee jerk nature of this policy, if that case were to happen, they would have to suspend the policy for the sake of the meeting.
Anonymous
on Mar 25th, 2006
@ 8:20 pm:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
art rogers
on Mar 25th, 2006
@ 9:19 pm:
Anonymous,
I deleted your comment, but saved it. If you will email me, I may repost it.
Thanks,
Art
egnaro
on Mar 27th, 2006
@ 5:31 am:
Thanks for clarifying the issues. Seems that we would have checks and balances in the system. The Lord bless you guys as you make vital decisions that give those of us on the field direction, protection and examples.
This for me is just a reminder that we trust in the name of the LORD our God, and not our employer.
Thanks for all your work and support.