Author: art rogers
2 years? - Part 4
Friday, March 31st, 2006 @ 5:53 am
My final post concerning the IMB Trustees and their responses to my Open Letter is upon us. This time the author is Trustee Skeet Workman. If you are not familiar with her, she is mentioned in the letter you can find in my post, The Perspective of History.
Once again, Trustee Workman indicates that the issue is not dissent. In fact, she says that my concerns are “invalid.” This is a pretty curt dismissal of me and my concerns, especially when I have been warning of this issue for more than a month prior to it actually happening just as I predicted. This indicates that, as Tim Sweatman has aptly pointed out in a comment section, she either 1) did not understand me, 2) she ignored me, 3) she misled me, or 4) the Policy of Conformity was a last minute addition.
Obviously, I believe the last to be the issue.
Trustee Workman’s words are in italics and mine are in bold.
Mar 2, 2006
Dear Art,
You need to know that I am one of those people who speaks out on issues and have done so in the Southern Baptist Convention since l978. I have been in many Resolutions Committee meetings and debated on the floor of the convention and served on other committees and boards and spoken out then. I have never been shunned and forced out. BUT I have spoken out within the proper channels at the proper time to the right decision-making people. I never went to the press and to non-Baptists to debate my concerns. I found that it is better to “catch bees with honey” than to be obnoxious and rude and treat those I am trying to reach with embarrassment and intrusion. After all, I want the people I am addressing to hear and response rightly to the issues of my concern. Turning them off is not the way to win hearts.
So my issue to you is that I have found if done properly, there are many ways to have yourself heard in the SBC and otherwise. I have spoken out in the IMB meetings and not everyone agreed with me and some spoke out against me, but I have found the trustees are fair and listen. With time and respect, some agree with me even on issues they first do not agree on.
I think your concerns are not valid. Thanks for writing.
Best wishes,
Skeet Workman
Trustee from Texas
March 2, 2006
Skeet,
Thank you for the reply to my email. I appreciate the time you took to write me and address my concern.
By His mercy,
Art Rogers
FBC Russellville
——————————
While there are no missing emails to report here, everyone should note that there is a line in my response that is a mistake, but I am posting exactly what was sent. The line, “You graciously replied to my email and invited me to communicate with you after i knew more,” was a cut & paste from my email to Bill Hudgins. What I said in that line applied to Bill, but clearly does not apply to Skeet.
——————————
March 24, 2006
Dear Skeet,
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. You graciously replied to my email and invited me to communicate with you after I knew more.
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.
In your response, you seemed to indicate that dissent was not the problem, but the comportment of Wade Burleson was the problem.
I noted that the vote to rescind the move to remove Wade was unanimous, so I assume you were there and were a part of that vote.
Have you changed your mind concerning the move to remove Wade or did I misunderstand you before?
Moreover, you seemed to indicate that since the problem was with Wade, public dissent was not the problem. Specifically, you told me that my concerns were “not valid.”
You can imagine my frustration when I learned that the policy I feared was coming was actually installed after your personal statement to dismissing my concern. Were you surprised by this motion and had no idea that it was in the works? I would have no other way of reconciling your statement to me, unless you were overtly lying to me. I would like to think that you would not do that.
If the problem really was Wade, then 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.
As always, I am grateful for your service and for your time.
By His mercy,
Art Rogers
FBC, Russellville
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
March 31st, 2006 at 9:04 am
Why has there not been an apology to Wade either?
March 31st, 2006 at 9:09 am
Dear Art,
After reading Dr. B’s blog for these weeks, I cannot imagine him saying anything that I would consider rude and obnoxious. But what did he say that some other trustees such as this one took that way?
Love in Christ,
Jeff
March 31st, 2006 at 9:16 am
Jeff,
Kevin’s comment actually bears on yours. There has never been any evidence presented publicly to validate accusations of rude behavior by Wade Burleson. There are only accusations. This is dispite Wade’s constant and sonsistant calls for any and all evidence of wrong doing to be made public. If such evidence exists, there is no reason to hide it.
My personal contact with him, which is extremely limited, and the public statements he has made lead me to believe that he has not behaved as accused.
What I tell the people of my church, my family, and sometimes myself, is that what people say about you tells everyone more about themselves than it does about you.
I have often read and have actually heard Wade say kind things about those who assault him verbally. I have not seen the same grace from them. I think that tells me quite a bit.
March 31st, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Art,
Sounds like she was trying to put you in your place.
I would like for someone, preferably one of the trustees, to explain why it is not “proper” to discuss and debate matters that affect the work of the SBC within the larger SBC body.
April 2nd, 2006 at 2:27 pm
It seems to me Tim that the problem comes from the fact that certain - and influential IMB trustees - are out of step with the larger SBC and fear that bringing more people to the table would further stifle their own agendas and views.
This is just my opinion after attending one meeting and discussing these matters with several other people.
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:11 am
Rick,
Is it possible that we’re the ones out of step with the larger SBC?
That’s not to say that I think those of us in disagreement with the trustees are in the wrong… just me wondering if the SBC as a whole is either out of touch with this issue or is in support of the trustees (not to equate the two, just to be clear).
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:33 pm
John,
That’s the key question. Greensboro should go a long way toward answering that question. The answer will have major ramifications for the future of the SBC.