I was forwarded the content of a piece of paper that was being passed out at the IMB BOT meeting before the “Policy of Conformity” was passed. In fact, there was a stack of these papers by the door to the meeting room, but Chairman Hatley was observed picking up this stack and throwing them away. Inside, a Youth Worker from Georgia had some copies and continued to distribute them to Trustees who asked for one.
I give you the content of this paper:
Trustee Policies and the Perspective of HistorySomeone must speak against the new policy on “Trustee Responsibilities” not because the joint committees’ efforts were in vain, but because this policy lacks historical perspective.
Until 1979, a tight system of power and control enveloped our denomination, and party loyalists who supported the leftward shift in our denomination were continually appointed and reappointed to serve on our convention’s boards of trustees. But in 1979, the election of Adrian Rogers offered a real hope that the system could be changed and that our denomination could be saved.
In those early years of the conservative resurgence, inerrantists slowly trickled onto the boards and agencies of our denomination, each year joined by others until sufficient majorities could turn our seminaries, our commissions, and our mission boards around. Some of the people in this room – men and women who stood against overwhelming opposition and endless assaults on their motivation and character – were among those early trustees of the conservative resurgence. But they kept carrying the message back to the people that things were not well with our agencies. They kept reporting the problems, the compromises of doctrine, the ethical misconduct and the abuses of power that had infected our denomination. And in time, the convention listened. In time, every seminary president who would not affirm inerrancy was replaced, and every mission board president who would not respect trustee governance resigned.
Those were not easy years for the men and women who first began to push for change, for accountability, for doctrinal faithfulness in our convention agencies, boards, and institutions. But they kept taking the message, the criticism, the bad news and the reports of problems back to the churches and the people; and in time, our convention was restored.
However, if this policy had been in place during those early years when Adrian Rogers sent his first appointees to the boards, when Bailey Smith and Jimmy Draper and Charles Stanley were slowly but methodically appointing inerrantists who would stay the course and save our convention, then the message would have never been heard. There would have been no conservative resurgence if Midwestern Seminary and Sunday School Board trustees had not stood firmly against board policies in the Elliot Controversy. There would have been no conservative resurgence if Jerry Johnson had been silenced from publishing his criticisms of the Roy Honeycutt administration at Southern Seminary. There would have been no conservative resurgence if Ralph Pulley had not taken the hard line against Russell Dilday at Southwestern Seminary. If W.A. Criswell had never written “Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True,” if James Hefley had never printed “Truth in Crisis,” if Skeet Workman had never stood against abortion and homosexuality at the Christian Life Commission, and if Paul Pressler had not publicly spoken out against the abuses of our denominational press and criticized the editorship of Al Shackleford, then none of us would be here today.
Last night Trustee Ken Whitten said something prophetic when he noted that one day none of us would be here, and that these policies will still be binding. If we adopt them, we have tied the hands of the W.A Criswells, the Jerry Johnsons, the James Hefleys and the Paul Presslers of tomorrow. They will be kept from doing what made the conservative resurgence possible in the first place. They will be kept from taking the problems to the people, to the pastors and laymen who support the Cooperative Program, and to the WMU ladies who pray for our missionaries.
This we cannot do for the sake of our own service, or for the sake of theirs.
Trustees must vote against this policy and, in doing so, preserve the very means by which we have all been afforded the chance to serve in a denomination that would not have had us thirty years ago.
Your thoughts?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Wes Kenney
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 1:28 am:
I think this may be an example of the difficulty of enforcing the new policy. I’m assuming since you said you were sharing the content and made no mention of edits that the document was unsigned, but it was obviously written by a trustee. Certainly, it is critical of this new policy, and it makes some good points. But with the policy forbidding public criticism by trustees, this seems to illustrate what the policy says about the difficulty of drawing fine lines.
Nick
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 1:51 am:
This isn’t an example – the policy had not yet been passed, according to Art. As I understand it, any trustee would be able to even publicly criticize the document.
So whether it was or wasn’t a trustee, this seems like it would not even break the new policy.
Kevin Bussey
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 8:25 am:
Wes,
With all do respect, how do you assume it was a trustee that wrote the letter? That is the problem with all of this mess (me included). We all have glasses that we see our view from. That is why we can’t stop dissent. I don’t like it when people disagree with me. But I am often wrong. The BOT’s can be wrong too as they were in the 1970′s!
Phillips Lynn
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 8:41 am:
The writer of the paper definitely researched the history of the SBC which is apparent that the committee of IMB BoTs who authored the “new document or policy” to silence dissent have not done.
I had blogged earlier in the week on another blog site the following:
“If the current trustees of the IMB were the trustees of LifeWay in 1990, there would be no Sanctity of Human Life lesson in our Sunday School material today.
I remember when CB Scott made the motion in 1987 and over half of the trustees and the whole LifeWay administration were against his motion to include a Sanctity of Human Life lesson in all Sunday School material on the third Sunday of January until Rowe V. Wade is overturned.
He did not cease to push for his motion to be adopted. Finally in 1990 enough trustees voted to support the motion and we now have a Sunday School lesson every year to support Sanctity of Human Life.
Had Mr. Hatley and Mr. Corbaley and others like them who now serve as IMB BOTs, Mr. Scott would have been expelled immediately from the board for he was far more aggressive and pushy in his endeavor than Dr. Burleson has been.
This is only one illustration. There are countless others such Jerry Johnson, Paul Pressler, Larry Holly, Paige Patterson, Robert Tennery, Bill Powell, T. C. Pinkney and countless other men who sought change in the last 30 years of the SBC.
Dr. Burleson has only followed a precedent which has been handed down to him by those who served as Trustees of various Boards and Institutions in the history of the SBC. Not one has ever been expelled. Possibly some should have been, but Dr. Burleson is certainly not one who should have been.
We have got to go to Greensboro in June. This cannot be ignored any longer”
No longer will Dr. Burleson be able to follow the “trail of dissent” that has been so evident in Baptist life throughout the history of our Convention.
The developments of the past few days should make us all even more determined to travel to Greensboro.
If this “new policy” adopted at the IMB becomes embraced by our other Baptist entities then the person or persons controlling the caucuses will become more powerful to continue their agenda for control of the SBC.
Ron West
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 8:43 am:
While I would not disagree with his desire to speak out against the new policy on trustee responsibilities, the writer’s perspective on history is seriously flawed. You have to wonder if he has been on another planet for the last 30 years.
There was no tight system of control before 1979, it took place after 1979. There was no slow trickle of inerrantist on to the boards, there were inerrantists on every board before 1979. Ralph Pulley took a hard line against Russell Dilday out of personal vindictiveness not because of conservative theology. Dilday was an inerrantist. Paul Pressler got Al Shackleford fired because he was reporting openly what was happening in trustee meetings. The so called conservative resurgence can not maintain control in an atmosphere of openness, accountability and transparency.
Let’s test his perspective of history with the facts. We will just look at the 70s immediately before the magic year of 1979. W.A. Criswell, Jaroy Weber and other inerrantists served as president of the SBC. Ralph Smith, Morris Chapman and Jim Henry served on the FMB (now IMB), Ralph Pulley served on the SWBTS board, Bailey Smith and Adrian Rogers served on the committee on committees, Tom Elliff and Jerry Vines served on the Committee on Boards, Homer Lindsey Sr. served on the Midwestern Board, Fred Wolfe served on the HMB. I could go on and list many more theological conservatives and inerrantists serving in that one decade. In addition, Southern Baptist baptized more people in the decade of the 70s than we did in the 80s when the conservative resurgence was taking control or in the 90s when they were in control.
art rogers
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 8:43 am:
Wes,
Your observation is right and wrong. I was told after i had written the post who the author is, and it was not a Trustee, and, Nick pointed out, the policy was not adopted yet so there was no violation there. Even if the policy had been in effect, it would have been in the tiny window that allowed public dissent.
You are right in that unsigned documents like this one will now carry question marks. I would like to think that Trustees would have enough integrity to abide by the policy, even if they disagree.
BTW, I was also told that there were some trustees who voted for the policy even though they felt it rushed and even somewhat restrictive.
The good news that you are reading about on Rick’s blog is that the staff of the IMB was added to the language of the policy. This now attempts to prevent people from “disparaging” Dr. Rankin in public or private. That’s a good thing no matter how you slice it.
art rogers
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 8:52 am:
Ron,
I will leave your debate of history to the author of the paper.
Still, the point made is that the room was full of dissenters who voted to outlaw the very thing that gave them what they wantedwhen they were dissenting – a free voice.
That point is undeniable.
It does, however, point to the issue that it seems that dissent is not the problem they have. Dissent against those now in control is the problem they are trying to address.
steve w
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 8:55 am:
Thanks for posting this, Art. I like the spirit of the letter. I believe the freedom to disagree and debate is healthy and vital. But this new IMB trustee policy would not prevent a lot of the people listed in the letter from doing what they did. Many of the people weren’t board members of an SBC board. I think our IMB trustees should be able to speak freely. But what comes to mind is a school situation where a few misbehaving kids that keep refusing to obey, cause a whole class to lose privileges. I think there is a better way to handle the situation than this new trustee policy. But I have a hunch that some trustees are simply fed up with and embarrassed by the years of trustee bad behavior, and so now the whole class has lost privileges.
As far as the SBC at large ever clamping down on dissent, they’ll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands! :)
Kevin Bussey
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 9:06 am:
Ron,
I don’t doubt any of your history. I was @ SWBTS when Dr. Dilday was fired and I was angry and was one of those protesting.
My whole problem with this motion is we will never hear opposing views. We need dissenters even if we don’t like what they say.
We must be open to other points of view.
Steve W,
I love that last line. That should be the motto of the Young Leaders Meeting!
steve w
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 10:43 am:
Anybody want to print up t-shirts that say: You’ll have to pry dissent from my cold, dead fingers
“Fingers” has a direct analogy to blogging. I’ll buy one if somebody wants to print ‘em up for the convention. I’d love to see a bunch of us wearing them, but I don’t have time to do it. Of course, maybe somebody should advise us on whether or not it would hurt our cause (the NC Baptist paper says some people already think we’re insolent).
But anyone is free to do it. I don’t want any of the profit that could be made.
Paul
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 11:06 am:
A couple of thoughts.
Like Ron I believe this paper is poor history. A lot of resurgers would like everyone to believe that the denomination was full of petty tyrants prior to 1979 and that we have simply exchanged petty tyrants with one agenda with a different set with a different agenda. But there really is little comparison. Those in control now far outshadow their predecessors in their tyrrany.
That said, if I were Tom Hatley I would have thrown it in the trash as well – not because of its history but because it was unsigned. I wouldn’t put up with anonymous letters being distributed in our church and I don’t think he should put up with it on the IMB board, either. I recognize the need for some of our missionaries to maintain their anonynomity, but the rest of us don’t have that same need. That’s why I’ve put my name on every post, comment, e-mail and letter I’ve sent to critique the direction of our convention both now and prior to last November. We will gain no respect for our cause hiding behind our anonymity.
All that said, it’s still a horrible policy in its restrictions on dissent and we can only hope that a future board will amend it.
If you want a biblical perspective on this sort of thing read Walter Brueggemann’s book The Prophetic Imagination.
Wade Burleson
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 11:45 am:
Art,
I did not write the paper to which you refer, but I know who did. I did not agree with the outcome of several anecdotes within in the paper (and frankly, I don’t know if the author does either), but I think his premise is that Baptists have always demanded the privilege to dissent.
Our freedoms as Americans, the freedom of speech, the freedom to dissent, the freedom of religion, and all other inherent freedoms within our consitution are the result of 18th century influential men of God like the brilliant Baptist Isaac Backus.
Art, you continue that tradition. You are doing a great job blogging.
I have never met you, nor do I believe we have ever had a private, personal conversation, but I am amazed that you continue to nail the issues so clearly.
Wade
Kevin
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 12:11 pm:
Art
I don’t know the real history of the SBC but I do know major changes happened and I also know that it took place because men got involved in the system and made those changes happen. My biggest concern is the fact that they (BoT) stuck Wade on the sidelines and as of now will not let him be involved. That is the one thing that put a bur in my saddle and it is something that needs to be addressed in Greensboro. My prayer is that God would send help to those who can’t go like He did for me. I am excited about the convention and really hope and pray I don’t leave discouraged. By the way it is good to see the comment from Wade on here Look who’s in high cotton now.
In Him
Kevin Lancaster
art rogers
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 12:11 pm:
This post has been removed by the author.
steve w
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 12:42 pm:
We are building momentum for Greensboro.
Another t-shirt idea:
Dissent is as Baptist as potlucks
Maybe on the back
…and you’re not going to get rid of either
steve w
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 12:49 pm:
It never even occurred to me that my previous comment about misbehaving kids could be interpreted as a reference to Wade…until Wade’s name popped up here in the comment section.
I just want everyone to know that I have never thought of Wade as a misbehaving kid. My hunch is that what motivated this new policy was occurring long before Wade was even a trustee (as has been stated, it has been in process for 2 years).
I have always seen Wade as a voice of reason and biblical truth.
Phillips Lynn
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 12:58 pm:
Pastor Art,
Have you had opportunity to read Villa Rica’s post today?
Pastor Steve,
I would like one of those T-Shirts in Tar Heel Blue.
Paul
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 1:01 pm:
Art,
I understand your point and the reasoning behind the anonymity. But as you can see there were some (and I would have been included in their number) who disregarded it because it was anonymous.
To me, it is better for others to think I have an axe to grind than to try to sneak my point in (that’s probably an unfortunate way to put it, so don’t read too much into that). I’m simply saying that, for me, that method, though I agree with the overall point being made, would have the opposite affect than what was intended.
Paul
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 1:05 pm:
By the way, Art, I appreciate your observations and your diligence. I remember the first comment of yours that I saw back months ago and figured you to be one who was about ready to check out on the SBC. Now you have become one of the leading voices for change. I appreciate that.
I’ll be honest. My hopes for substantive change have not increased greatly, but it is guys like you and Marty who are keeping me from totally checking out.
I’d made my hotel reservations for Greensboro months ago, but I didn’t make my flight arrangements until yesterday. I look forward to meeting you and others there.
steve w
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 1:26 pm:
Paul,
That’s what I’m talkin’ about! Yeah! Flight reservations.
To Greensboro we go,
To Greensboro we go,
Hi ho the dairy-oh,
To Greensboro we go
Kevin Bussey
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 1:34 pm:
Steve,
I added your slogan to a new add campaign.
art rogers
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 3:58 pm:
Wade,
Thanks for the kind words. We have never met, but I appreciate you and your stand.
Art
art rogers
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 4:00 pm:
Phillips Lynn,
Yes, I read it, and it was on point.
Art
Ron West
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 4:50 pm:
I am in favor of the freedom to dissent and speak out on issues. The purpose of my post was to say this paper is not correct on its perspective of history. There was more freedom to dissent and have different views represented on the trustee boards before 1979 than after. These boards are not any more conservatively theologically today than before 1979. If you doubt that, pull up an old SBC annual and look at the names. The only difference since 1979 is that you have to endorse the so called conservative resugence in order to be allowed to serve.
Phillips Lynn
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 6:39 pm:
Mr. West,
I think we can all agree that there has always been a “right or privilege” for dissent throughout the history of the SBC,
However, throughout the years (before and after 1979) dissenters have at times paid dearly for their expressions of dissent. If you do not believe this then you need to research the story of Cothan and Barnette at the BSSB. There are also numerous other stories that proves this to be true.
I believe the point that the writer of “The Perspective of History” was trying to make is that there would have never been a “conservative resurgence” had we not been able to express dissent.
The new policy of the IMB BoT limits or does away with any expression of dissent. My greatest fear is that if this policy is left unchallenged it will become adopted by trustees at our other agencies and institutions.
Alan Cross
on Mar 24th, 2006
@ 9:31 pm:
Baptist History is a history of dissent. We came from PROTESTants and were too radical for most of them. At times, we were even called dissenters. It has been said that you can disagree, just don’t be disagreeable. I AGREE 100%. Dissent needs to be principled. It needs to be over truth. It needs to happen when lives are on the line and darkness needs to be penetrated. I am all for keeping peace, showing love, and everyone getting along. I am a peacemaker by nature. I just think that we NEED to hear all sides. We need to be more involved and the process needs to be open. We need to see our trustees struggling over theological issues. Perhaps they will come to conclusions that we do not agree with. But, if we see them dealing with hard issues with intregrity and openness, none of us would criticize that. They are human and faced with a difficult, yet necessary task. Openness and welcomed dissent breeds trust and creates esprit de corps. Silencing dissent has the opposite effect: it breeds mistrust and shuts everyone down. It causes us to NOT participate and to look elsewhere. We will not just send our money in blindly over the long haul without any ability to be involved (I’m just stating reality, not advocating any action).
Glyn Roberts
on Mar 25th, 2006
@ 10:34 pm:
Thanks for maintaining this blog. Incidentally, we color blind can’t read red on black and have to select text to read it. Can you change you color scheme?
I have had a private prayer language since 1963. I was baptized in a Brethren assembly in 1967. I’ve been a member of an SBC church since 1988 without these issues bothering anyone. I’ve subscribed to IMB’s “Today’s Prayer” and Prayerline since January 1995 (here’s my oldest issue:
FOREIGN MISSIONS PRAYERLINE – Friday, January 20, 1995
In Brazil this week, the Brazilian Baptist Convention has assembled for a week of meetings. The high point of this gathering is a city-wide evangelistic meeting to be held in the Castle Stadium in Sao Luis. Pastor Nelson Fanini, sometimes referred to as the Billy Graham of South America, will be preaching, and 75,000 people are expected to attend the service. The meeting will be held on Saturday evening, Jan. 21. … ).
In addition I helped prepare the “World Christian Handbook” and have been praying for and supporting foreign missions (baptist and others) since 1958. Needless to say, I’m not “young SBC”!
Anyway, I’m opposed to both the new policies, and have been following these blogs since Wade’s blog was linked in Baptist Press on January 11.
I see the solution to the present impasse as follows.
1. Pray and publicize. Tell the people. Trustees can’t be removed without the SBC’s approval, whatever policy changes or “suspensions” they vote.
2. The present trustees may reverse the two appointment policies and the blue book replacement, as opposition mounts and resolutions of opposition are voted in the SBC. But resolutions were ignored by the old boards.
3. We need to start now on the same process that we used before in replacing the old boards that tolerated liberalism. We need to elect a string of SBC presidents that will use the appointment and nomination procedures to stop the hijacking of the SBC by a group with a narrow agenda, a control mentality, and an apparent desire to replace Jerry Rankin and other sitting presidents.
Just my opinion!