The following is a history of my communication with IMB Trustee Jerry Corbaley following the reception of my Open Letter. Jerry’s words will be in italics and my words will be in bold.
March 2, 2006
Hi Art,
I found your blog, scanned it, and will read it more carefully.
Blogging is communication. It is morally neutral.
At any given time the IMB Trustees are considering 50+ issues that are in process. They are reasonable people, just like you.
It is absurd to conclude that the IMB Trustees will prohibit communication. God has a lot to say about “how” and “what” we communicate.
Consider this email to be open to anyone on the planet who bothers to read it.
Your brother in Christ,
Jerry Corbaley
corbaley.blogspot.com
March 2, 2006
Hi back, Jerry,
Thanks so much for the open communication. I appreciate your statement and your time.
I just had found your blog when I received your email. I look forward to hearing from your heart on it.
By His mercy,
Art Rogers
FBC Russellville
March 2, 2006
Hi Art,
I am in McKinleyville, Ca, just north of Eureka on the Pacific coast. Where is Russellville?
Jerry
——————————————————–
I think I emailed you back at this point, telling you that I was in Kentucky, but I can’t find that email.
——————————————————–
March 24, 2006
Dear Jerry,
I emailed you in February with my concerns about the potential of the Board of Trustees enacting a policy which would limit the ability of Trustees to dissent.
I am attaching a “Word” document that is a transcript of our communication for your convenience – just to remind you of what we both said.
You indicated that public dissent was not the problem. In fact, you said that my concern was “absurd.” Did you not know of any move at that time? If you knew of this move at any time prior to its being presented to the Board, and since you knew of my concerns about such a move, not only through this letter but through my numerous blogs on the subject, I would like to think that you would have contacted me again to correct the impression with which you left me. The only other option is that you overtly lied to me. I hope that this is not the case.
You can imagine my frustration when I learned that the policy I feared was coming was actually installed after assurances by several Trustees, you as strongly as anyone, that it was not a concern.
In light of your statements about open communication, could you explain why you supported a policy that, in any way, limits the dissent of Trustees?
Since I am asking you to support your vote, and it is the majority decision of the Board, any comments you can give me in this area would not be in violation of the new policy.
You should also know that I have floated the idea of webcasting the plenary sessions of the board on my blog yesterday. In light of your statements about openness, I recommended that you be the person to take this idea to the board. The newly adopted policy would allow this at the discretion of the Chair. The Executive Committee could arrange it and have it in place for your meeting in Albuquerque. The financial cost would be minimal and would not require staffing by the IMB. It would certainly not override the cost of loss of trust that is running rampant as a result of the adoption of the recent policy concerning Trustee communication.
As always, I am grateful for your service and for your time.
By His mercy,
Art Rogers
FBC, Russellville
Again, although I emailed Jerry, and although he has openly espoused open communication, he has not returned my communication.
I would like to highlight this line of Jerry’s first email: “It is absurd to conclude that the IMB Trustees will prohibit communication. God has a lot to say about “how” and “what” we communicate.”
This tells me two things. First, the “how” and “what” we communicate reference indicates that the issue is Wade – that this policy is not coincidental in its timing.
The second thing is that the use of the word “absurd” tells me that Trustee Corbaley did not take me or the issue seriously at the time. It could be that it was me that he didn’t take seriously. It could be that just the issue that he didn’t take seriously. Maybe he was clueless about the workings of the BOT concerning re-writing the Blue Book.
I suspect, rather, and I assert again, that the policies were being revisited over a two year span. The words governing Trustee Communication, however, I do not think were a part of the original plan of renovation, but were added as a response to Wade Burleson’s issues.
This leads us to that pair of infamous Questions:
“What did he know?”
&
“When did he know it?”
I have asked. I have not been answered.
[update - 4-3-06]
The following is the email exchange that I received after Jerry Corbaley returned from travels after the Tampa meetings.
I will let them speak for themselves and comment at the end.
March 31, 2006
Dear Art,
Thanks for your willingness to engage in improving the faithfulness and cooperation of Southern Baptists as a whole, and the IMB in particular.
I assume you will be posting this email in chronological order along with our other correspondence. This is one of the advantages of blogging.
As I said in my email to you, “Blogging is communication. It is morally neutral”. And later, “It is absurd to conclude that the IMB Trustees will prohibit communication. God has a lot to say about “how” and “what” we communicate”.
A lot is being said about “principled dissent”. Certainly the passage of Ephesians 4:29 (NIV) applies: “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen”. Southern Baptists may be in a period of doubt regarding what the “needs” are. While that is being sorted out, there is still divine direction forbidding “unwholesome talk”. I do not see perfect people anywhere in this controversy. The last 35 years has demonstrated a crying need for wholesome communication that addresses the issues, holds one another accountable, and presents viable alternatives instead of raw criticism. I have no confidence in methods that rely on “tearing others down”.
The Trustee Responsibilities adopted in March of 2006 actually defines “principled dissent” for the Trustees. It should be noted that there is virtually no prohibition regarding public dissent of issues under current consideration except that no one is to “disparage” another. This is a needed solution that was adopted by the Board. Once the Board officially moves a deliberation of an issue to an “action” it is time for the Trustees to cease public dissent. Note that Trustees who still disagree can work within IMB procedures to reverse an action or propose a better action. Once the Board officially reopens an issue the Trustees are again free to publicly dissent. This allows for the _expression of opinions by all Southern Baptists.
As time goes on I will address why I support policy that limits dissent but I will do so on my own blog, Corbaley.blogspot.com, where I have more effective means for interaction with those who comment.
The newly adopted Trustee Responsibilities were in process for at least six months prior to the March meeting, and were initially delegated to the Trustee Orientation Committee. I did not know of this until the Tampa meeting. Had I known, my response to you would have been the same. If you wish to conclude that anything less than absolute freedom to dissent is crooked, then that is your right. While the Trustees have adopted a policy on principled dissent, I have yet to see the blogging community attempt to do so. It seems to me that the time is ripe for such an effort. Trust needs to be built on both “sides”.
Concerning your idea of webcasting the plenary sessions: Great idea. I am sympathetic to the idea; believe it would be better for Southern Baptists as a whole, but do not have the time to research the issues and implications, nor to assume responsibility for bringing it to pass. Such a change would require trust on behalf of the IMB Administration and Trustees toward whoever was in control of what is disseminated. Such a “simple” change will require a hundred hours (or so) of effort on the part of whoever initiates the process. It is a complex and daunting task to change or adjust the momentum of such a massive entity as the IMB.
I join you in loathing backroom politics. Christians must acknowledge that walking in the light is normal for disciples. We are in God’s hands and he takes care of our present and our future. I have heard rumors from prominent members of the blogging community of testimony of secret witnesses and secret documents. I have asked for names and copies and have been denied. If this is the convention that “is” or “was” or “is to come” then I want no part of it. The sooner I am ousted, the better for me. For my part, truth is more important than employment. Further, loathsome backroom politics is detestable no matter what “side” is practicing it.
The age of instant and international information is upon us. Good. Let us acknowledge that those who make policy must be accountable, transparent and Christian in every way. The same must go for opinion-makers. Accountability, transparency and Christian behavior applies to everyone.
I am not your enemy. Perhaps we are not, yet, friends. I am willing to be a bridge, to get walked on and detoured around. Such is life. I will not be a puppet for the established SBC entities, nor for the blogging community.
May God bless us all with the ability to treat each other lovingly, as Christ commanded.
Jerry Corbaley
March 31, 2006
Dear Jerry,
Thank you for responding. I was glad to get your email. Wes told me you had been out of town, which I did not know or I would have probably waited for a response before posting your communication.
I will, of course, post your email exactly as I received it, as promised on my blog.
You seem to imply someone is violating Ephesians 4:29. Can I ask you to clarify this statement? Is there someone being unwholesome with their words? Who was it and what have they said? I assure you, if it was me, I will repent publicly, but I think such an implication, if that’s what it is, should be validated. Otherwise, I think as a subtle implication alone, it falls under conviction of Ephesians 4:29 itself.
Of course, I agree with the “disparaging remarks” language and I don’t think anyone has found fault with this stipulation.
The problem is that the limiting of publicly shared viewpoints provides opportunities for “backroom politics.” Take the policy at issue, for example. It was announced and voted in as policy within 24 hours – and that was with major changes of the language. When was a Trustee to vocalize principled dissent? This type of rule will allow for controversial issues to be presented and passed and silence those who oppose from explaining their views to the SBC afterward. This is simply an untenable situation and smacks of poor planning and poor judgment. Frankly, for a group who frequently points to the history of Baptists for guidance, it is very non-Baptist in nature.
I would go further and say that there is no home for such a provision in Scripture.
I also think you make a straw man out of my position when you say: “If you wish to conclude that anything less than absolute freedom to dissent is crooked, then that is your right.” I never said it was “crooked.” I said it was short sided and makes allowances for controversial things to be enacted without full accountability to the SBC. This is based on the premise that I hold that the Trustees of all of our institutions are accountable to us, and not themselves.
I am glad to know that you did not know about the policy before Tampa. I believed that about you, that you wouldn’t intentionally mislead me. I am happy to have that confirmed.
As to webcasting the plenary sessions, I never intended for you to oversee the implication of such. I merely recommend that you advocate it to the Executive Committee. They can delegate it easily and I assure you that it would not take more than a few hours to set up. In fact, you could go now to the store, buy a webcam and be webcasting in your home in less than a couple of hours from the time you walk out the door. Whoever suggested it would be a hundred hours is grossly mistaken and does not understand the availability or functionality of modern technology.
Perhaps you were referring to the time it would take to walk approval through the BOT. I would think that this decision could be made by the Executive Committee, but if not, they and you could advocate it to the Board at the next meeting. It could be easily set up for the meeting after next. The SBC webcasts its sessions, so we do have denominational servants who know exactly what to do and how to do it. I assure you that it would be easy and cheap. Again, though, research could be delegated. Or the Board might just contact a couple of us “Young Leaders” and we could get it done overnight.
As to the allegations that there are “secret documents,” you and I are not talking to the same people. I have never heard of such. As a matter of fact, it has been the habit of the blogging community, I perceive, to post any relevant documents they might have.
I don’t know how you might expect the blogging community to enact a policy that might govern our accountability, since we are not an organization. For myself, I am accountable to God, my local church and the body of believers. I am frequently challenged in my statements, and that is fine. I have only removed two comments by people posted on my blog, and they were both anonymous and attacked the credibility of Chairman Hatley. I would think this would show my desire to be fair and accountable. Since you are now a part of the blogging community, maybe this could be the subject of some of your posts.
I do not see you as my enemy. I see you as a brother with whom I disagree. I also see you as a Trustee who is supposed to be representing me, among many others, so my disagreements with you over this issue are important.
Again, I thank you for your communication and look forward to the answers of my questions here.
By His Mercy
Art Rogers
March 31, 2006
Dear Art,
Concerning the Ephesians 4:29 statement: I do not say that you are in violation. However, you also stated that you removed a couple of comments because they attacked someone’s credibility. This is, itself, what I am referring to. The blogging community has an identity to non-bloggers. Not everyone shows your moral calibre. Whether it is intentional in its trends and corporate agreements or not is secondary in the minds of non-bloggers. “Perception is reality” in the blogging world. It tends to be true in every group. When the BoT is slow to respond to false or exagerrated information it contributes to misunderstanding. Perception, even when based on partial information, assumes a momentum of its own. Even though I know that the majority of the blogging community is communicating independently, I have trouble separating the individuals from the whole. This should be taken seriously, because I am one of the few “enlightened” trustees (That should be good for some comments). If you apply Ephesians 4:29 to the issue of “trust toward the BoT” then you can easily conclude how the BoT feels about the current outcry. The BoT still stings from the blogging communities assertions from as far back as September of 2005. The BoT actually thinks it is maligned. I do too.
Again, the inability of the BoT to respond to the spontaneous generation of rumor makes the problem of deteriorating trust worse. It doesn’t make the accusations right.
Now, we have a good conversation going here, and I assure you that I have some good ones going amongst the BoT. But I want to remind you that I need to move this conversation to my blog. An ongoing dialog regarding the IMB is most important. I simply cannot answer every question many separate times. I want to speak to the issues as much as I can make time for, and it is better if I do so in one location. I can cover more ground in the same amount of time.
I am the one who says it would take a hundred hours to bring a webcast to reality. The logistics are indeed simple. I couldn’t do it, but I know many could. The time would be consumed by attempting to convince those on staff and on the BoT to give it a try. Both groups are involved in many other items of business. The nature of a live webcast would have to be debated. The need for a time delay would be recognized; if confidential information were to be released, or someone made a disparaging comment, it would have to be edited. Dry runs would have to be conducted. Those who present reports, some of whom only come a couple of times a year, would have to be consulted. Guidelines for what information could be spoken would have to be developed. Once this is underway, such proposed proceedures would be called “stalling” and “attempts to hide”. The trustworthiness of those in the blogging community who were attempting to work closely with the BoT to bring about the webcast would be called into question. All of this is just off the top of my head. I’m sure there would be many more concerns raised. It remains a good idea. It is not simple to effect. I have little confidence that it could be enacted by the meeting after next, unless the Chairman of the Board or President Rankin made it a personal high priority. By the way, after the next meeting, there will be a new Chairman and most likely a significant change in the Executive Committee of the BoT. This happens virtually every year.
Some changes in proceedure are needed. The deliberative processes of every SBC entity are obsolete in regards to responding to the rapid spread of information on the blogs.
Also, you point out that since I am a part of the blogging community, I might be able to point out some ways to assess blogging behavior. I know that is not an exact quote, but I think you remember what you said. That is the main, and long-term, purpose of my blog. I have already begun.
God Bless you Art,
Jerry
March 31, 2006
Jerry,
You have asked that I allow you to move this conversation to your blog and I will. I feel it is a reasonable request and since you have been forthright enough to have a blog and to attempt to interact with the blogoshpere, you should be able to answer each question once.
Thank you for your communication.
In the end, I still disagree with the policy. I am glad that you clarified not knowing about it until it was presented in Tampa. That settles many issues concerning our prior communication.
I will wait until the weekend is over to post these emails so that they can get a fair readership.
Again, I thank you for your time and your service.
May God bless you as well,
Art Rogers
Let me clarify my statement to Jerry that I allow him to move this conversation to his blog. I think that with as many people asking him questions as he has, it is only fair to give the guy the opportunity to do his answering in one place.
That will not prevent me from addressing this, and every other issue that is relevant, on my blog. Nor will it keep me from asking any or all of the Trustees the pointed questions that I feel are pertinent.
Look for more. There is plenty.
[/update - 4-3-06]
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Kevin Bussey
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 10:09 am:
coincidence? I don’t think so. :)
Wes Kenney
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 10:34 am:
Art,
I appreciate you putting this together, but I think you bring your distrust of the Board to bear on Corbaley’s statement, and draw a conclusion different than his intended inference.
It is absurd to conclude that the IMB Trustees will prohibit communication. God has a lot to say about “how” and “what” we communicate.
Taken together, these two statements strike me as entirely consistent with the new policy the board has adopted. They allow for vigorous debate within and without until a policy is established by a majority vote. After that, public dissent by board members is inappropriate.
I know you have taken issue with my use of a local church analogy for this situation, but I feel compelled to use it again here. When the church I serve called me as their pastor, I asked them for two things: Public support and private criticism. I told them then, and continue to remind them, that my door is always open for them to sit down with me and lovingly share their concerns and criticisms, but that criticisms of me or this church is out of place at the local coffee shop where skeptical unbelievers might be turned off to the gospel by such behavior. I think the same principle applies to trustees who are working together with the goal of taking the gospel to the ends of the earth.
I love you for your passion on this; keep it coming.
By the way, I got an email from Corbaley this morning; he has not been home since the Tampa meeting, and he told me he intends to get caught up on blogging and correspondence soon.
art rogers
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 10:57 am:
Wes,
The statement you quoted was sent to me 20 days before the policy was adopted, not after it. It was in response, to my concern that they adopt any policy that would inhibit any communication.
I think that his words speak for themselves. When taken in context, it is impossible for me to interpret them in any other way than an assurance that the policy that passed would not happen. You are welcome to interpret them as you see fit. Look also for the other Trustee statements coming. You will see some similar things.
As to your analogy, we are not in the coffee shop. You know as well as I do that this is in house. The people looking at our blogs are Southern Baptists. The world just doesn’t care enough to spend 5 seconds on these posts.
And as for private criticism, I hope you don’t mean that you expect that criticism can only come to you alone from one of your members. To deny them the ability to go to others in the church and then the church as a whole is to be in clear violation of Matt. 18.
We are in the Matt. 18 process and what I am doing is going to “the church” – the SBC – to which we are all accountable.
I am glad to hear the Jerry Corbaley will be answering his correspondance soon. Anything he sends me through verified email – so I know it is him – I will be glad to post as an update to my post.
Kevin Bussey
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 11:20 am:
Art,
Keep it up.
Wes,
I think you are more trusting than I am with the trustees. Some of them keep using double speak. I am very cautious of my trust. At SWBTS the trustees said Dr. Dilday was safe and within an hour he was fired. Actions speak louder than words.
Wes Kenney
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 11:22 am:
The trustees have not prohibited communication. They have prohibited criticizing board decisions in a public forum. That is consistent with what Corbaley told you 20 days ahead of the new policy.
The specific concern you raised in your open letter was as follows: Speaking for myself, I am concerned that there may be a move to silence all dissent from the majority in public arenas.
This is exactly what the board did in Tampa, and I have privately accused you of clairvoyance for this prediction. ;-) But as I read it, Corbaley’s communication as quoted by you offers no assurance that there might not be a guideline prohibiting public criticism; in fact, his “how and what” statement strikes me as almost predicting it. In any case, I don’t think it warrants suggesting the possibility that he lied. As you know, communication and dissent are very different things, and clearly, communication has not been prohibited.
My emphasis in the analogy from my church was on the inappropriateness of church members running down their church or their pastor in public settings. Of course I consider myself subject to the process of Matthew 18, a process that should begin with myself and a member behind closed doors. Sorry for that confusion.
As to whether our blogs are “in house” or not, they are certainly available to anyone and everyone, although you have a point about the world not likely being interested enough to read very far. But when a trustee dissents publicly, the secular press will take notice, and they have. Again, we’re talking about trustees dissenting publicly here; you and I and everyone else certainly should be able to debate freely in this forum. I know it has been beneficial for me, as I have been challenged in my thinking and have grown in my appreciation for you and others who participate vigorously because they care deeply about our convention.
Kevin Bussey
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 11:34 am:
Wes,
What if the guidelines are wrong? What if they are not Biblical? What if they will harm the SBC or even our missionaries? Do trustees keep silent? I have a problem with this.
In your church analogy, what if the Church Council or Deacons make a motion and everyone says not dissent but the policy is wrong. Does this mean a person who knows it is wrong keeps quiet?
Not in any Baptist Biz meeting I have been to. This new policy is just wrong.
art rogers
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 11:40 am:
Ok, Wes, here it is: Yes, the Trustees did prohibit communication – certain types. Censorship at any level is censorship.
If Jerry Corbaley was insinuating to me that there would be a limited control of communication, as you say, then he deliberately misled me, since, as you quote, my concern was that communication should not be limited in any way and he called that conclusion “absurd.”
As to that, and the assertation that I accuse him of lying, let me clarify.
I assume he did not know that the policy was coming when he wrote me. If he did, then he misled me or lied to me, in my opinion. I don’t think of him that way.
If, as I assume, he did not know it was forthcoming – then my assertion is that the language concerning communication was newly added, and therefore not coincidental to Wade’s situation, but a response to it.
This is exactly what I think happened and the communication listed is evidence of it, in my opinion. There is more to come, also.
Moreover, I think you are about to break your back bending over to make Jerry Corbaley’s words say what you would like them to say. I think his letter speaks for itself and so does his silence. I think you may be the only one reading this blog that could interpret his words this way. You are certainly the only one willing to put their name to this kind of interpretation.
art rogers
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 11:49 am:
Here are some other relevant quotes from my open letter:
“My concern is that public dissent from the majority will be “outlawed” by the adoption of a policy that restricts dissent in any arena, blogs or otherwise.”
“I would like to openly oppose any move in this direction. Frankly, I think it is my right, as a Southern Baptist, to know all of the hearts of the Trustees of our entities on any given issue.”
In response, Jerry Corbaley wrote this:
“Blogging is communication. It is morally neutral.”
“It is absurd to conclude that the IMB Trustees will prohibit communication.”
It take this any other way than a denial of my concerns takes some pretty selective and creative interpretation.
Phillips Lynn
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 12:03 pm:
Pastor Art,
Again I agree with your assessment of the situation and appreciate the time and trouble you are going to in order to provide us with information.
Pastor Kenney,
I would have to agree with Pastor Art your “church analogy” is not an appropriate analogy for this situation. If you were to use a church analogy in this situation then you would need to say that it compares to a committee in your church who decides to change policy for the church without believing that it is necessary to inform the the church or allow any debate or opinion other than those of the committee. I do not think that would go over well in most Baptist churches.
art rogers
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 12:06 pm:
Phillips Lynn,
Excellent analysis of the analogy. I couldn’t have put it better.
Anonymous
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 12:13 pm:
Wes-If your goal is to play the devil’s advocate you are not that good at it.
Wes Kenney
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 12:33 pm:
I guess I don’t see the differentiation between prohibiting communication and prohibiting trustee criticism of board action as being that creative.
Blogging is communication, as Corbaley said, and it is still allowed. The content is regulated by the new policies, which is is as it should be. He also said that “God has a lot to say about ‘how’ and ‘what’ we communicate.” This is a clear reference to the fact that some regulation of the content of trustees’ public speech is perfectly acceptable. We may not agree about the appropriate extent of those regulations, but surely we could all think of an extreme which should be prohibited, so the real debate is about what the limits should be, and not whether there should be limits.
I do not consider my church analogy to be perfect, but the point is that dissent belongs within the body, not in the public arena. I didn’t understand the question entirely in Kevin’s 3rd comment, but he asks if someone who thinks what a church has done is wrong should just be quiet. My answer would be that if they have exhausted every avenue of dissent within the body and are left with a majority following a course that violates their conscience, then they should absolutely be quiet, outside that body. They should remove themselves to a place of fellowship that is more in line with their conscience, but in no case should they publicly criticize the church they are leaving.
Kevin
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 12:41 pm:
Art
I wonder if the new policy covers the kind off thing Wes is talking about? For instance if I call or e-mail Wade or Rick (since both are located in Oklahoma) and asked them to give me their honest thoughts on the meetings and the trustees would they still be free to answer my questions and what if someone got a hold of the e-mail and published it any where on line would they still be “called on the carpet”. I fill they would not even in a private conversation go there because the policy is so vague.
I have seen in the local church do just what Phillips Lynn said would not go over very well most if not all had to do with vacating the Pulpit. I am sure others have seen this happen to. So I do understand were Wes is going with his logic. You really want to think that the majority of the trustees are doing what in their opinion is best for the IMB how ever wrong it may be. I hope and pray they are not just going along with the leadership because “they know best”.
Hope to see all at Greensboro.
Kevin
art rogers
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 1:00 pm:
Wes,
It seems to me you keep putting 2 & 2 together and coming up with 5. Are you familiar with the hypothesis called “Occam’s Razor?” (or Ockham’s Razor)
Wikipedia gives a detailed definition for those who want more, and you can access it here.
Simply put, you should not make any more assumptions than are necessary when observing a phenomenon.
More simply put, all things being equal, things are what they appear to be.
Jerry Corbaley’s email to me appears to clearly deny that there will be no limiting of communication. Your hermenutical gymnastics to make it say otherwise do not satisfy.
As to dissent from the governing body not being in the public arena, I am glad Peter and John did not agree with you when told to be silent concerning their interpretation of Jesus being Lord by the Sanhedrin.
Acts 4:19-20 says:
But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
I know, it is not a perfect analogy either, since the Sanhedrin was not the church, but remember, at this point, Christians considered themselves still Jews, worshiping in the Temple and in synagoges. I could give more evidence here – Paul before the high priest, his vow and shaved head, etc., but you get my point.
Kevin,
It is my understanding that Trustees may not privately criticize the majority action, either. Their words could be published and they would then be in violation of the policy. A prudent trustee would not do so, anyway.
Anonymous,
I assure you, Wes believes what he is saying. That is what troubles me about it – though I love him. Maybe because I love him, it troubles me.
art rogers
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 1:05 pm:
Sorry, I should have said, “Jerry Corbaley’s email to me appears to clearly deny that there will be limiting of communication.”
Wes Kenney
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 1:10 pm:
Art,
Thanks for the correction. My careless reading allowed me to understand your intent perfectly. ;-)
If your open letter had said you were concerned that communication would be prohibited, Corbaley’s response would have been misleading. Your concern was specifically about dissent being outlawed, and the paragraph I quoted in my first comment appears to me to validate that concern. He clearly rules out a ban on all communication, and there has been none. He clearly says that the “how” and “what” are subject to regulation, and now we have some. These are not gymnastics (I’m not coordinated enough).
art rogers
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 1:17 pm:
Nothing more to say, but that I disagree with your reading of the communication.
Specifically, I am still waiting on Jerry to clarify it for me as I asked. He has not, which is telling of itself.
You said he has been out of town, an I take that for what it is worth and give him the benefit of the doubt. I usually try to access my email and answer important issues while I am out of town. Maybe this is not, or I am not, important enough for him to do this.
Nevertheless, I am waiting for him to clarify his own words. To date, he has not.
Paul
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 2:34 pm:
Wes,
You wrote: “My answer would be that if they have exhausted every avenue of dissent within the body and are left with a majority following a course that violates their conscience, then they should absolutely be quiet, outside that body. They should remove themselves to a place of fellowship that is more in line with their conscience, but in no case should they publicly criticize the church they are leaving.”
As I noted on your blog, I am somewhat sympathetic with your take on this. However, I wonder how your advice would have affected Luther’s reformation? Keep in mind that he would have never left the RCC church without being kicked out first – which is how it happened.
I just think the “pack up your things and go somewhere else” option can’t be substantiated biblically and I wonder about the spiritual maturity of it (not your spiritual maturity, by the way).
Villa Rica
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 3:27 pm:
Brother Art,
At times my favorite thing to say is: It is good to watch a professional work. This is one of those times. It truly is a pleasure to watch you work.
Good job. Well done.
Villa Rica
Wes Kenney
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 3:39 pm:
Paul,
I’m not an expert on the Reformation, but wasn’t it Luther’s goal to reform the RCC rather than to split from it, which was the eventual result? The 95 theses were public, but at the time the public and the church were virtually indistinguishable, so I don’t know how to apply what I am saying to that situation.
As to spiritual maturity, it seems that to violate one’s conscience by staying in a situation is not a tenable situation, and it would require some level of maturity to leave without criticizing. And if one is convinced in their heart that an action of their group is unbiblical, then separation strikes me as entirely biblical.
This is clearly a complex situation, and every analogy I can think of fails at some point or other. Thanks for making me think.
Kevin Bussey
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 3:55 pm:
I still have not had an answer to how you disagree when a policy is wrong!
Tim Sweatman
on Mar 30th, 2006
@ 9:02 pm:
Like Art, I took Jerry’s comment to mean that there wouldn’t be an effort to prohibit any type of communication, including public dissent. In context, this seems to be the most reasonable interpretation. The concern that Art expressed in his Open Letter was that public dissent would be prohibited. Art didn’t say that he was concerned that communication itself would be prohibited. So when Jerry said, “It is absurd to conclude that the IMB Trustees will prohibit communication,” the natural way to take his statement is as a response to what Art actually said.
It seems that there are four possible ways to explain Jerry’s statement:
1) Jerry simply misunderstood Art’s concern and thought that Art was afraid that all communication would be prohibited. However, it seems that anyone reading Art’s Open Letter should be able to see his main point, especially if the reader is a person who interprets and expounds on various texts as part of their job. (I know Jerry is a DOM now, but I’m assuming he was a pastor beforehand.)
2) Jerry simply ignored what Art said. This is plausible, but if Jerry were simply ignoring Art then why respond at all?
3) Jerry knew what was going to happen and chose his language carefully so that what he said would be technically true while misleading Art to believe that there would be no move to prohibit the “what” of comminication known as principled dissent. Because I believe Jerry is a man of integrity, I do not believe this was the case.
4) The prohibition of public dissent was a last-minute addition to the new revision of the policy manual in response to Wade’s (and a few other trustees’) effective public disagreement with the November policies.
Number 4 is the most likely option, as Art suggests. Indeed, as bad as this response is, I pray that this is what happened. If it is one of the other options, then the board is in even worse shape because that would mean that it has a problem with either incompetence (#1), arrogance (#2), or dishonesty (#3).
Jeff Richard Young
on Mar 31st, 2006
@ 12:20 am:
Dear Art,
I agree that Dr. Corbaley was either not aware of or not honest about the KGB policy that was coming.
BUT, as Wes is pointing out, Dr. Corbaley’s language in that e-mail leaves him a good bit of wiggle room. He said communication would not be prohibited, which it was not, but that the content was a different matter. I don’t agree with what they’ve done, including Dr. Corbaley’s consent to it, and possible conspiracy to it, but your interpretation of Dr. Corbaley’s e-mail is not dry enough ground to camp on.
I’m absolutely loving your work, Art, and I’m thankful that you’re doing it. Any criticism from me is intended to make your product stronger for the accomplishment of your good purpose.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Phillips Lynn
on Mar 31st, 2006
@ 12:33 am:
Pastor Art,
I think your ground is pretty dry. I could pitch my tent there and do.
art rogers
on Mar 31st, 2006
@ 6:13 am:
Jeff,
The problem with your theory is that means Jerry Corbaley intentionally misled me. I don’t think he did. I think he meant it as it stood.
If he misunderstood the words of my Open Letter, then note this:
He said that he had found my blog and would be giving it some reading.
Have you found this issue addressed in my blog other than the Open Letter?
Of course. Anyone who reads my blog can see this has taken a high priority for me up to a month before it happened. That doesn’t include the other blogs that I know he reads where I posted similar thoughts. After reading all of that, if he misunderstood me at first, I would think he would email me back and let me know he misunderstood me.
I don’t think this is the issue. I think I interpreted him accurately the first time and he meant what he said.
I also believe the policy was reactionary and any implication to the contrary is what is misleading.
Wes Kenney
on Mar 31st, 2006
@ 7:48 am:
Art,
Just curious – have you been able to have any communication with Mike Smith or any of the other members of his committee? As they were the ones who recommended the policy, it seems they would be best-suited to address your concern about what was added at the last minute.
Have a great weekend.
art rogers
on Mar 31st, 2006
@ 8:27 am:
I addressed the Open Letter to all Trustees and sent one directly to the email account that I had for Mike Smith. I sent it to all the members of the committee as well, since they were all part of the Trustee body. You recall, I sent the original email to each Trustee email address that I had.
Mike did not contact me back, nor did anyone other than those I have disclosed (keep in mind I also had one who expressed a desire for confidentiality, and I have honored his wishes).
I will be contacting Mike Smith again to clarify this situation, but I do not think that what he says would put this in a different light.
If he says that the specific issue in question was being worked on for two years, then the other Trustees were oblivious, didn’t read what I wrote or deliberatley misled me.
The best thing that can be said would be that the issue was reactionary. That is much more palatable to me, and I suspect most others, than the alternatives.
Jeff Richard Young
on Mar 31st, 2006
@ 10:44 am:
Dear Art,
I really hate being wrong. You might have convinced me with that last comment, but I hate admitting it. Are you sure we can’t just all be right? Each of us could have his own truth, and we could all just hug and sing Kum-Ba-Yah.
Thanks for the work you are doing. I’m learning alot from you.
Love in Christ,
Jeff