I want to call your attention to my exchange with IMB Trustee Jerry Corbaley. Dr. Corbaley was out of town when I emailed him following the Tampa meetings. After he returned, and presumably waded through the many things that were clamoring for his attention, he and I resumed our email exchange. You can read the updates at 2 Years? – Part 2.
The summary of the several exchanges I have had is this: I believe that the Trustee emails, so far as they go, reflect that the language governing Trustee Communication in the new policy is reactionary to Wade Burleson’s issues with the Board.
I have emailed Trustee Mike Smith, chairman of the Orientation subcommittee who presented the four page document, and asked him pointedly when the language originated, and if it was impacted by Wade Burleson’s relationship with the Board. To date, Trustee Smith has not answered.
I want to be gracious and give Trustee Smith the chance to do so. I emailed him on Thursday of last week, and I know that there are many other things on his mind. I look for an answer soon. I will update you on this in a “Conclusion” post later.
I do not believe that Smith lied about the two years that the Blue Book was under review. I do think it would be a misunderstanding for us to interpret the statement to that effect as saying that the specific language governing communication was not considered, or at least not re-considered, after Wade Burleson ran afoul of the Trustee leadership.
Some may wonder about his further statement to the effect that the timing of the policy was coincidental to the resolution of Wade’s issue. I believe that statement to be true, as well. The entire policy was not reactionary to Wade’s issues. However, Smith never said that Wade’s issues had no impact over the specific section in question.
Why is it important if the “Policy of Conformity” was reactionary? Because, it calls into question the motivation behind the limiting of public dissent.
To the point: The Trustees did not seem to mind dissent until Wade Burleson did it. Why Wade? Because he was effective.
I want you to reread the various emails by the Trustees. Each of them affirms dissent. Each of them, in their own way, point to Wade as the issue.
To be reactionary, by definition, is to be short sighted. A reaction focuses on the action that was its antecedent. I think it is short sighted to institute policy that so restricts the accountability of the Board to itself and its leadership. I don’t want to hear any more about how public dissent is possible before a vote, either. We all know that any issue that certain people want to keep from the public forum will be voted on immediately upon its presentation. This denies the ability of anyone to hold the Board accountable who is not on the Board, but is just a Southern Baptist.
In fact, now they HAVE to move business forward immediately. If it is not, the Trustees on both sides of any issue will have to quickly, and with great exuberance, take their case to the SBC for support, as they are sure to have no other chance to do so.
In other words, extreme public debate is guaranteed for any issue that is left on the table, if it has any level of controversy at all.
Short sighted, knee jerk and reactionary.
Now the BOT will be forced to vote its business through immediately if it doesn’t want Trustees on both sides ratcheting up the public interest on every issue. I have never known them to be interested in allowing the larger SBC body dictate to them how to run their business. I am sure that they have no intention of it happening now.
Their trust level will plummet even further and they throw themselves into the hands of the awaiting convention in Greensboro.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Jenni
on Apr 3rd, 2006
@ 6:55 pm:
Art,
Many of you guys make mention of a plan for Greensboro. Is there a plan to organize prior? With the powerbrokers holding the mike, will you guys even be allowed to speak? What’s the plan?
thanks,
j
art rogers
on Apr 3rd, 2006
@ 7:18 pm:
Jenni,
There are several people with specific ideas that they are promoting. There are motions that must be made concerning the business at the Convention and they will be made by the powers that already exist. Motions like the one to accept the report of the Trustees of the IMB. Voting against this motion will put the Trustees on notice.
Specifically, though, there is NO counter power structure that has a new group of “kingmakers.” We loath that stuff.
I think the attendance at the young leaders shindig will also be a powerful statement of interest from our generation.
We don’t have to split the SBC to get them to listen to us. We are really not all on different sides.
Which brings me to my final thought. There is a presumption that the leadership of the convention is on the same side as the leadership of the Trustees.
I don’t believe that. Regardless of that, however, the only chance any of us have, or ever will have, is at the convention.
Greensboro stands to be vital. If we are to make any difference at all, it must be made there.
Alan Cross
on Apr 3rd, 2006
@ 8:20 pm:
I’m going to Greensboro, but I have no idea what is going to happen there – I am with Jenni. What difference will it make if the whole process is controlled by the powers that be? No one wants to be a faction, but at the same time, standing there with our hands in our pockets, shrugging our shoulders, while stuff goes through that is negative is not appealing. It would be great to just know how to participate, on this issue or any other that comes up.
art rogers
on Apr 3rd, 2006
@ 8:47 pm:
Once again, have faith. I promise that there will be things that you will need to vote on. Your presence is important.
Think of it this way: If there is something that is going to happen, it will happen in Greensboro. If you stay home, nothing will happen and all we are is talkers.
I will also repeat myself with this statement: If you want the older generation to take us seriously, then we have to take seriously what they value: the convention.
Our generation is RIGHTLY criticized for not being committed to things. We are impatient and move on too quickly.
If we want to lead… If we want to make a difference… We will all be in Greensboro. We will be there early and we will stay through the entire convention.
By the way, if we show up and they don’t let us speak to the issues, then we will react. Don’t anticipate that you will have no voice. If the conservatives had done that, the SBC wouldn’t be what it is now.
We can and must do it, too.
Rick
on Apr 3rd, 2006
@ 8:52 pm:
Art –
Thank you for your tireless efforts at keeping us up to date on your correspondences. We should all be so diligent.
You remain in our prayers.
art rogers
on Apr 3rd, 2006
@ 8:56 pm:
Rick,
Thanks. Since you are so kind, I’ll give you a heads up:
I just got a return email from Mike Smith. I’ll post it later tonight.
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 3rd, 2006
@ 9:10 pm:
I nominate Art for President!
art rogers
on Apr 3rd, 2006
@ 9:23 pm:
Let’s not get carried away, now.
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 3rd, 2006
@ 9:36 pm:
Hey,
At least I have a plan :)
Dorcas
on Apr 3rd, 2006
@ 9:38 pm:
Okay … then I nominate Art for 1st Vice President!
Dorcas
on Apr 3rd, 2006
@ 9:40 pm:
Kevin … we better get on the same page … was that Wade, Art, Marty, or Art, Marty, Wade … I keep forgetting the order we chose. :)
steve w
on Apr 3rd, 2006
@ 11:03 pm:
I wanted to post this under part 6, but blogger.com rejected me there. Anyway, Jerry Corbaley keeps saying policies can be amended at future trustee meetings. Maybe if we keep voicing our disagreement to the board, they will amend the new “Trustee Responsibilities” policy. All three blogging trustees have said good things about the new policy. Let’s be involved in calling for an amendment. It has been suggested that the policy should say no action can be voted on in the same meeting in which it is introduced. That provides at least two months for thought, prayer and discussion. I say we beat that drum for a while.
Anonymous
on Apr 4th, 2006
@ 3:20 pm:
Seems like the cyber discussion related to the IMB BOT actions has changed somewhat. It seems to me that the BOT were attempting to put the work of the Holy Spirit in an American SB Church box. Let us remember the rules on private prayer language and baptism that started all this discussion. And remember that not only will it restrict people like me from joining the IMB, it will surely eventually be required by existing IMB missionaries.
Tim Sweatman
on Apr 4th, 2006
@ 5:57 pm:
Steve,
I just read a comment from Jerry on his blog that basically denied that there is any need for the sort of policy I suggested (not introducing and voting on matters at the same meeting). I just posted a rather lengthy comment in response, but it’s not up as of yet.
Anonymous,
We haven’t forgotten what’s at the center of this storm. The blog world tends to focus on the latest issues, but we’re fully committed to getting the baptism and prayer language/tongues policies overturned ASAP. We all know where this is going if the policies are not reversed.