At the recommendation of my (friend and sometimes advisory) Wes Kenney, I emailed Mike Smith and asked about the comment that the policies recently passed were in the works for the last two years. My contention was that Wade Burleson’s situation influenced the section that governs Trustee communication, which makes that section reactionary. As I said in my last post, reaction is short sighted, by definition. A reaction is focused on the action that is its antecedent.
Mike returned my email today, for which I am grateful. I post these emails and my conclusion. Once again, the Trustee’s words are in italics, and mine are in bold.
March 31, 2006
Dear Mike,
In January I emailed you an Open Letter addressed to all of the IMB Trustees. I am attaching it to this email to refresh your memory of it.
At that time, I did not receive any response back from you, which is fine. I know that you are busy, and I appreciate the work you are doing concerning the IMB and as a minister.
My concern then, and now, is the governing of Trustee Communication by the IMB. I want you to know that I deeply appreciate the wording concerning disparaging remarks and that it protects the Staff and President of the IMB, as well as the Trustees.
As to the limiting of principled dissent, I am still opposed to it in any form.
Nevertheless, my email today concerns statements reported by the Baptist Press and others quoting you as saying that the revision of the policies governing Trustee behavior has been a two year work. I have no doubt that your committee was working on the revision for two years, and take that for what it is.
I suspect, though, that the specific wording governing Trustee Communication took on changes specifically relating to Wade Burleson and his situation. In other words, I think that if Wade had never been elected to the Board, I doubt whether the wording would have been what it was when it was first presented to the Trustees in Tampa.
I would like to ask you, what role did Wade Burleson’s situation play in the structuring of the relevant section of your committee’s document? When did you start working on that particular section? If you were working on that section prior to December of ’05, did it change in subsequent meetings? If it did change, how did it change?
Please understand that I consider this a public matter and I am asking for answers that I can pass on to others. I say this only to make sure you understand that I am not asking for confidential information and I do not want you to mistake my email as a “private communication” that would have the expectation of confidentiality.
Thank you again for your service.
Art Rogers
FBC Russellville, KY
April 3, 2006
Dear Art,
The Orientation Committee has been working on the referred to document for nearly 2 years. It did not come about as a result of any one trustee. The removal power has always resided with the sitting chairman. The committee’s task was to develop a Matthew 18 format when conflict exists. The recent situation only encouraged us to speed up our task and present it to the full board.
Thanks for all you do.
Mike Smith
April 3, 2006
Dear Mike,
Thanks for clarifying the situation.
I appreciate your reply and I appreciate your service.
Art Rogers
————
There you have it folks. They were working on the document for 2 years, but Wade’s situation “encouraged [them] to speed up [their] task and present it to the full board.”
Once again, I repeat that reaction, by definition, is short sighted.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
art rogers
on Apr 3rd, 2006
@ 11:09 pm:
Steve W tried to post this,but couldn’t. I have copied it for him.
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.
Mon Apr 03, 11:03:29 PM 2006
art rogers
on Apr 3rd, 2006
@ 11:12 pm:
Now I will reply by saying that this policy is best removed, not altered.
Imposing a two month window still forces Trustees to do radical publicity for the issues, knowing they will have no other chance to appeal to the convention if they are on the losing side of the impending vote.
I think their reaction will be just the opposite. I quote myself in part 5:
“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.”
Villa Rica
on Apr 4th, 2006
@ 12:50 am:
Brother Art,
Again, thanks for your work and the diplomacy by which you conduct yourself. Our Lord has made you a very capable man.
Villa Rica
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 4th, 2006
@ 7:58 am:
Amen, Amen, Amen!!!!!
Remove the policy!
steve w
on Apr 4th, 2006
@ 9:39 am:
OK, if amending the policy for two months of discussion is not enough, come up with a better amendment (two meetings later, or three, or whatever). I for one do not want to give up the ban on attacking Dr. Rankin and the IMB staff. I do not want to take the gloves off and let them return to the days of the bloody brawls (figuratively speaking). If other amendments need to be made, then work on making them.
Remember, I’m the one that said they’ll have to pry dissent from my cold, dead hands. I’m all for promoting (allowing?) principled dissent. I think the policy needs to allow for dissent — both among the board and in communication with the SBC at large.
But the policy did bring a much needed change to trustee deportment. That I would like to see remain.
steve w
on Apr 4th, 2006
@ 9:49 am:
I think if the trustees could blog openly about any proposed board action (except blogging that would endanger M’s lives or our work in hostile or restricted areas) — I think that would be healthy and helpful. Then trustees would be informing the SBC that elected them and receiving input from the SBC. The SBC masses would not be micromanaging, but the trustees would be keeping in touch with the SBC masses.
steve w
on Apr 4th, 2006
@ 9:55 am:
Maybe it’s not even just blogging about proposed actions. But I wonder if they have to keep revisiting everything every person in the SBC screams about, would they ever get anything done?
Three successive comments…obviously I’m thinking out loud, or perhaps digitally. :) Everybody relax, I gotta sign off for now.
art rogers
on Apr 4th, 2006
@ 11:01 am:
Steve,
Don’t you think it odd that we need a rule outlawing Christian leaders from disparaging anybody anywhere?
Nevertheless, you are right that we need that.
Still, the section about criticizing majority votes should be removed and the rest should stay.
Wes Kenney
on Apr 4th, 2006
@ 11:30 am:
I for one would like to see the current post altered or amended to remove the possibility of any reader thinking that I am the personal property of Art Rogers…(read the first sentence; I think you were thinking faster than you were typing!;-)
Taken at face value, Smith seems to acknowledge that their work was speeded up in response to the current situation, but not altered. At least that’s how I read it. Would it need to have been altered for you to see it as reactionary, or is the speeding up enought to classify it as such? Just wondering…
art rogers
on Apr 4th, 2006
@ 11:38 am:
Wes,
Fixed as requested and you are right, I was thinking faster than I was typing.
In answer to your post, I obviously think that the words were altered as well as the speed of the presentation.
Both are reactionary, either taken individually or corporately.
Wes Kenney
on Apr 4th, 2006
@ 11:52 am:
Thanks for the correction; I’m glad I never make mistakes…
Yeah, anyway -
Allow me to gently take issue with your assertion that seems to say that anything done in a reactionary fashion is necessarily negative. I would agree that it certainly can be the case, but it does not have to be so. Allow me an illustration:
A couple of months ago, I returned to my office after lunch to find an inch of water in the hall. A pipe in a men’s bathroom had broken, and we had water from the sanctuary to the nursery. It cost over $4000 to clean up and repair the damage. When I saw this situation, I immediately sought out the source of the leak and turned off the water.
Reactionary? Certainly. Necessary and helpful? Ask our insurance company.
It seems that the action with which you take issue was certainly reactionary. Whether it was short-sighted and harmful, or necessary and helpful, seems to me to be a matter of interpretation that is based largely on where one’s sympathies lie.
Thanks, as always, for taking the time to present all this information. The communication and compilation are certainly time-consuming and sometimes tedious, and I appreciate your efforts.
art rogers
on Apr 4th, 2006
@ 12:01 pm:
The discrepency between us lies in the source of the action to which we react.
You, and some of the Trustees, seem to compare Wade to a disaster of sorts. Of course, if that is how you view him and what he did, fixing the problem quickly is appropriate.
My claim is that Wade was not a broken pipe, but a highly effective irrigation system, watering fields that certain trustees would rather not grow.
Anyway, analogies aside…
Wade was doing the same thing that they all had done at various times, and it was always OK with them before. The difference was that Wade was effective.
Now they have cut off dissent which they used to enjoy themselves and forced all Trustees to make a big deal out of any potential issue, if they want to be heard publicly.
This is a short sighted move.
BTW, the broken pipe analogy breaks down when water (dissent) has always run and everyone agreed with it. This was not a catastrophic change in situation.
steve w
on Apr 5th, 2006
@ 9:56 am:
Art,
You said, “Don’t you think it odd that we need a rule outlawing Christian leaders from disparaging anybody anywhere?”
Odd is not one of the words that came to my mind before you said it. Sad is one. Revealing is one. There were others.
But anger can lead to some bad things. So God has to tell me to keep it in check (Jas 1:19-20 for example). Brothers and sisters have had to remind me at times about attitudes, words, and behavior that I already know are not going to help anything. We need reminders, correction, encouragement, etc. at times. I don’t mind being a voice of correction or encouragement to others, and I admit I need that from others too.
Jesus got angry, but he didn’t allow it to lead him down the path of sin. Wish I could say the same for myself, but it’s just not true.
steve w
on Apr 5th, 2006
@ 10:02 am:
Also, my bloody brawls comment above was not a reference to the current board. I don’t know if it is applicable now or not. But I’m not the one who coined that label for days gone by.
CJ Costello
on Apr 5th, 2006
@ 10:19 am:
Art,
I’m not sure that Mike Smith really answered your question. He has been careful in all of his public statements to say that the policy revisions have been under discussion for two years. He has never specifically addressed the timeline of adding the limit on public dissent. Did that exist a year ago in the draft of the new trustee manual? We don’t know. Given the available evidence, the possibility still exists that the limit on public dissent was added recently in response to the situation with Wade Burleson.
art rogers
on Apr 5th, 2006
@ 3:06 pm:
CJ,
Mike did not answer several of my questions. Go back and re-read the very specific paragraph full of questions asking about a detailed timeline of what happened and when.
However, I also told him in no uncertain terms that this was for public consumption. He may even know who I am by now. I think the BOT has become aware of the blogosphere and I seem to irritate certain ones as much as anybody.
In light of this, I took his statement as all he wished to say on the matter. His silence was more than enough for me to make the conclusion I made – otherwise he would just say “No, it had absolutely nothing to do with Wade Burleson and it would be what it is if he were never on the Board.”
If anyone rereads my email to him, you will see me inviting him to do this.
Good thoughts, CJ. Very observant, mi amigo.