Early on in the Wade Burleson controversy with the Board of Trustees of the IMB, I was a frequent poster on Wade’s blog: Grace and Truth to You. As time has worn on, I have progressively posted most of my ideas here at 12 Witnesses. Maybe I am bitter for losing out to Dorcas Hawker for the autographed copy of Wade’s book in the contest he ran seeking advice concerning his actions. Nah. It just seemed like a natural progression as my blog began to grow in readership. I still read every post Wade writes and most of the comments. Occasionally, I still post a comment or two on his site about various things.
In the midst of the heated debate, one of the ideas floated was that Wade should run for President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Not one to keep my opinion to myself, and also not fearing the tide of others’ sentiments, I posted my thoughts on the subject on Wade’s blog. My comments were in response to the comments of others. My opinion was that Wade should not run.
I advised that to allow himself to be put forward would look like a grab for power. I was afraid that it would appear opportunistic and would hurt his credibility in dealing with the IMB BOT at a point when his character was being called into question. Much has changed since that time.
The IMB BOT has vindicated Wade by completely failing to produce any evidence of any of the various charges laid against him. This was expressed by their action in Tampa to rescind the motion to remove Wade. I encourage you to read my words at the time the idea of withdrawing the motion was first made public by reading my article, A Clumsy Retreat.
Wade has, since that time, humbly discouraged people from nominating him to the Presidency. Nevertheless, they have continued to ask him to serve. The aforementioned Dorcas Hawker recently wrote a piece on her blog entitled, “To the Hesitant Candidate” where she playfully teased me, Tim Sweatman and Wade Burleson for all declining nominations to the presidency. Yet, in the end, she said something quite poignant:
So to whomever may be a potential candidate out there, that may be hesitating out of true humility to accept such a nomination, I exhort you to step forth and accept the challenge of leadership to which God is calling you. Meekness is strength bridled … be strong in the Lord, while continually humble in spirit … this is the type of leader we need.
Stand. This is the hour. Someone has to be “It”. Is it you?
Perhaps such a call was part of what Wade considered when he decided to remove himself from the slate of speakers at the Young Leaders Summit II.
The obstacles I once saw to Wade’s candidacy for President of the SBC are now gone. His credibility is affirmed by BOT’s action to withdraw its previous motion – voted for unanimously. Still, not surprising to any regular reader of this blog, I have more to say.
Not only is this my own recension, of advice to stay away from the office of President, but I now offer these thoughts as to why Wade would make an excellent candidate, and why he has my full support.
There has never been a candidate who has more clearly shared his mind and heart with the entire convention than Wade Burleson has through his blog. He has expressed his ideals, motives and passions. Moreover, he has shown a scholars mind in thouroughly supporting his arguments through excellent exegesis of the Word, the marking of history and the judicious application of contemporary theological writings.
There has never been a candidate who more clearly showed a sterling character under pressure than Wade Burleson has since January of this year. He has been gracious to those who oppose him. He has hosted comments of disagreement on his own blog. This action did not just allow for dissent not afforded him on several occasions, but he actually provided the opportunity for the dissent of others on his own website. Still, he has never wavered in expressing his love for those with whom he disagrees.
In fact, Wade has not only expressed a desire to work with those who are of different minds on non-essentials, his desire to work within the system is further testimony to his character and ability to practice what he says he believes. He has never complained that he has been removed from practical service within the IMB BOT by not allowing him to serve on the committees to which he was previously assigned. He merely accepted the Board’s decision to keep him and the decision of its chairman, Tom Hatley, to restrict him.
God often uses the fire of controversy and the testing of our character to both refine character and reveal character. I sense that He has done that for the Southern Baptist Convention at this time.
I have written that the IMB BOT, by rescinding its motion to remove Wade from its midst, has robbed many of the rally point to which they were most drawn, as it relates to attending the Convention in Greensboro. Brothers and Sisters, you have a new rally point.
In the end, I suppose, it is the IMB BOT who has given us this rally point, after all. They did so by proving to us what a man Wade Burleson is. I suppose we should say, “Thanks.”
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
steve w
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 10:13 am:
Well said!! I know how I’m voting if given the opportunity. May the will of the Lord prevail!
Greensboro becomes more exciting and intriguing by the day. Do you suppose the Lord is being gracious and merciful, and answering prayers that he prompted in ways only he could?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again — there are signs pointing to a bright future for the SBC. Let’s see what happens in Greensboro.
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 10:57 am:
Well said!
I think Wade is God’s man for the job.
one of the good guys
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 11:02 am:
I do not think Wade will be able to garner the votes to beat Ronnie Floyd (or whoever we finally decide on). Most of his support seems to come from young bloggers and missionaries who will not be here to vote. You guys may want to consider someone less divisive (not deliberately divisive, but by virtue of his situation) than Wade. By nominating Wade, you guys give the appearance of being angry young Turks.
Agent Tim
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 11:04 am:
All I can say is “thanks for the prep” and “very interesting.” I’ve just gotten caught up on Wade and the BOT issues. Hopefully I’ll be able to get the full story…it’s confusing at this point.
Looking forward to Greensboro and meeting some bloggers :-D,
Tim Sweetman (not Sweatman)
http://www.agenttimonline.com
Jason Sampler
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 11:27 am:
OOTGG,
Your anonymity cracks me up. You may rage against the machine of the Younger Leaders, seeing us/them as foolish and naive, but at least we/they have the guts to post our/their names. Credibility requires transparency. After reading your posts and visiting your blog, so far you have neither.
Let me admonish you to make yourself known. You will find that you will only gain respect from those of us who blog. We may disagree with you (and some may occasionally take shots at you), but you will not be castigated or unwelcomed. In fact, those who disagree with the bloggers of the SBC have been given preferencial treatment to have their cases heard. Just my thoughts; take them for what they are worth.
Respectfully,
Jason Sampler
art rogers
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 11:36 am:
“Good Guy”
Wade may or may not be elected to anything. That will not stop me from supporting a leader who has shown character in the way no other Baptist leader has been forced to do.
I have read your comments in other places. I think your words here and elswhere reveal a certain predisposition on your part against bloggers in general and young ones in particular.
I do know some who are angry, but to lump us all in that straw man’s body says more about one who might do it than it does about us. So does posting anonymously, calling yourself a “good guy” while deriding young Southern Baptists.
As such, your advice is taken with a grain of salt. (Or maybe a salt block.)
Let me speak for myself, and any who wish may add their comments later. I am not angry. I am motivated and determined.
Besides, I am of the belief that you are quite wrong about the number of votes Wade will garner, should he run. We will have to wait until Greensboro to see, though.
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 11:45 am:
Good Guy,
I don’t have a problem with Ronnie Floyd so if he is elected I will support him.
Most of us aren’t angry, we just got kicks in the pants. We got tired of seeing good men pushed out of office. We got tired of seeing our SBC become legalistic. We just want a voice. We may may lose, but at least, Art, Jason, and myself are willing to put our names out there and support our views.
Phillips Lynn
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 1:23 pm:
Pastor Art,
I agree with you 100 percent. Pastor Wade has conducted himself in a godly manner. He has truly exhibited “sterling character” in handling the situation with the IMB BoTs. I would not have any problem giving him my vote and support or encouraging others to do so.
Again, thank you for your time in posting the SBC primer as an aide for our young men and women of the SBC.
Prayerfully waiting to see great things happen in Greensboro,
P L
Tim Sweatman
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 2:07 pm:
Art,
Like you, I initially had some reservations about nominating Wade for president. I believe he is exactly what the SBC needs, but I thought that politically speaking 2006 would be a bad time. I still have some concerns about whether or not this is the right time, but isn’t doing what we think is right regardless of politics part of being YSBC? Indeed, shouldn’t that be a defining characteristic of the SBC itself? Should Wade agree to be nominated, I will be one of his most vocal supporters. Besides, he would be a much better candidate than that joker you were pushing for!
art rogers
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 2:34 pm:
Or better than the one Dorcas Hawker put forth umpteen times.
;)
steve w
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 3:14 pm:
Hey Good Guy,
You could nominate Wade, and then we wouldn’t look angry. :) And if you’re unwilling to nominate him, will it help if we smile a lot? (just kidding around…Good Guy, I don’t know you, but I’m assuming we’ll be spending eternity together…love ya, bro)
Seems to me that anyone aware of the situation would see that Wade has proven what kind of person he is in a difficult situation, and what his rally cry would be. I would think SoBap’s, that want a theological conservative who would rally the SBC around the GC, would want a guy like that to be pres. I especially think that in light of the fact that some people seem to believe we may be on the verge of splintering.
Dorcas
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 3:46 pm:
Art -
Wade can’t fill all three top spots. Don’t relax yet.
Dorcas
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 4:28 pm:
Art -
Oops. Sorry, I forgot about the truce. I hereby and herewith do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not nominate Art Rogers for anything at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Is that sufficient? :)
Jason Sampler
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 4:39 pm:
. . . but that doesn’t keep Dorcas from bribing others (with Starbucks gift cards, for instance) to nomimate Art for a post. I hear Kevin Bussey will do anything for Starbucks coffee :)
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 5:32 pm:
Jason,
Everyone has a price. I will bring my Aroma Grande and my Coffee Grinder if someone will bring Sumatra!
Jason Sampler
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 5:49 pm:
Kevin,
I was thinking about French Roast. We’re going to need something serious to keep the juices flowing through some of the preaching and the reports. I don’t think Sumatra has enough kick! Ah, coffee, the nector of the gods :)
Ron West
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 7:59 pm:
Good Guy you say Wade can not beat Ronnie Floyd or however WE decide to nominate. Who is WE? That is the problem with the SBC today. There is a group called WE who think they should be able to make all decisions concerning the SBC and it leadership and anyone who challenges them or dares suggest someone not of their chosing must have their motives and integrity attacked.
Do you really think WE will nominated Ronnie Floyd when his church has a worse record on cooperative program giving than Johnny Hunts. With reciepts of over $10 million dollars, they only give about $30,000 to the CP through their state convention. They will give less than $200,000 directly to the SBC. That is still less than 2% of undesginate funds. The average SBC church give 4 times that much. Look where his money goes and you will see where his heart is.
If you really believe in what you are saying why not give your name?
art rogers
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 8:18 pm:
Ron,
You know I appreciate your heart, and I agree, but don’t give this self proclaimed “good guy” get you riled.
A simple reading of his words reveals more about him than he intends, and he is not part of THAT inner circle.
Remember that our words say more about us than they do about others and his are especially revealing.
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 8:58 pm:
Jason,
French Roast is fine. We just have to have “leaded” no decaf!
Wes Kenney
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 9:01 pm:
Amen to that. After David Letterman had bypass surgery, he had Paul Shaffer write a jingle to be sung every time he took a sip of coffee: “Decaffienated coffee: It’s useless warm brown water!”
JUSTAMOE
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 9:11 pm:
Lengthy–but try to see the point (and application to Wade’s situation; from http://www.baptiststandard.com/1998/11_18/pages/sesqui.html):
“First convention couldn’t find a preacher (By Alan Lefever, Director, Texas Baptist Historical Collection, Dallas)
“In 1848 the first Baptist church on Texas soil was only 14 years old. Union Association, the first in the state, had been in existence for eight years. Baylor was still in its infancy. And organized statewide Baptist work had not yet begun. However, in response to an invitation by a committee from Union Association on Sep. 8, 1848, Baptist ministers and laymen from around Texas gathered in the town of Anderson to form a state convention.
“The gathering was small, only twenty-three churches were represented. Many of those assembled were meeting each other for the first time. As was customary at such meetings, an introductory sermon was expected. The committee which organized the meeting appointed Henry L. Graves, president of Baylor University and a committee member, to preach the sermon and Noah Hill to serve as alternate. The gathering was excited by the prospect of hearing Graves preach. He had developed a good reputation as a speaker, although few had ever heard him preach.
“When Graves was informed of his appointment, he astonished those gathered by declining to speak without giving a plausible excuse. Z. N. Morrell, a participant in the meeting, believed the gathering to be ‘the most learned body of men that had ever been assembled in Texas’ up to that time. Morrell believed Graves declined the committee’s appointrnent because if he preached poorly before this group, his reputation would be damaged. Noah Hill also declined the committee’s request, apparently for the same reason.
“Many other ministers were asked to deliver the opening sermon, each refused. In recalling the scene Morrell remarked, ‘they were the most tender-footed set of Baptist preachers ever assembled.’
“The beginning of the meeting was delayed for half an hour as the ministers searched for one among them with the courage to preach before the assembly. Finally, Morrell, an old pioneer preacher, agreed to bring the sermon, stating he ‘had no reputation to lose.’
“The meeting ended with the formation oi the Baptist State Convention of Texas. Henry Graves, his reputation apparently preserved, was elected to serve as the convention’s first president. The assembly was historic not only because it created the first state convention, but because it marked the only time in Texas Baptist history when a minister declined an opportunity to speak!”
It’s time again. Step up.
JUSTAMOE
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 9:14 pm:
. . . And from http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/BB/fbu44.html :
Rufus Burleson “became pastor of the First Baptist Church in Houston in 1848″.
Good company.
Villa Rica
on Apr 21st, 2006
@ 9:34 pm:
Brother Art,
You are right. Brother Good Guy is not, never has been, and never will be in that inner circle.
I am sure he would do anything to get in but he is the type that never gets invited.
To use the lingo of a famous Wise Guy:
He will never be a made man cause he ain’t got what it takes to make his bones and won’t never have.
——-Bugsy Segal————-
I truly am not angry at you Good Guy. I do have a little pity for you,though. In all truth I hope and pray you never have what it takes to be in that circle.
Do not waste your time there. Life is too short and the Lord has great things for you if you do not get entangled vanity and idol worship. Take it from a vet. I am giving you wise counsel.
Villa Rica
Jeff Richard Young
on Apr 22nd, 2006
@ 12:57 am:
Dear Friends
Aha! It’s been tough garnering enough clues to figure out who Villa Rica really is. He finally let slip in that last post that he’s a veterinarian.
So, I guess it’s Dr. Rica.
Anyone catch any other clues?
Love in Christ,
Jeff
steve w
on Apr 22nd, 2006
@ 8:38 am:
Jeff,
Good try, but I think you missed it. After looking at the maps on Marty’s blog [click here], I confess I am at a distinct advantage here in east L.A.
Villa is a Veterano [click here].
Thanks for your counsel, Villa! Hope to meet you in Greensboro.
CJ Costello
on Apr 22nd, 2006
@ 10:21 am:
Why is OOTGG catching such grief for being anonymous when there are several others who regularly use pseudonyms on the blogs of young SBCers? Is it because he is a voice of dissent?
To OOTGG:
By not allowing comments on your blog, you do not appear interested in discussion. Your first post seems to confirm this.
art rogers
on Apr 22nd, 2006
@ 10:43 am:
CJ,
If you have read my stuff long, you know that I don’t think much of people who won’t stand by their own words. It is easy to say irresponsible things or hurtful things if you know you don’t have to answer for your words.
I generally take issue with people who post anonymously AND say things that are argumentative. I do this with those who disagree with me and those who agree with me.
If someone posts anonymously and is gentle, kind or encouraging with their words, I leave them.
“Good Guy” has caught grief from me because he says condescending and belittling things but doesn’t have to answer for his words.
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 22nd, 2006
@ 11:04 am:
I echo what Art says. He has been up front about putting your name behind what you say. I had a nick name, but my profile had my real name. But my wife reminded me I was no longer a “next-gen” pastor so I put my real name as my screen name.
The problem with using fake names or hiding behind a anonymous title is you can say anything and there is no accountability. Have some guts and put your name to your words.
CJ Costello
on Apr 22nd, 2006
@ 12:36 pm:
I am just asking the question. I have seen OOTGG get more responses based on his anonymity than others who seem to agree with the general concerns expressed on many blogs. Arkansas Razorbaptist, SBC Dissenter, Pastor Joe, Villa Rica – I rarely see anyone challenge them on posting with pseudonyms. I have seen Art do so at least once – maybe his blog was not the best place to post my comment.
I certainly agree that OOTGG has been argumentative in some of his comments and certainly on his blog. Other times he has raised good points. His comment on this entry appears to be a valid concern.
art rogers
on Apr 22nd, 2006
@ 1:00 pm:
CJ,
You have a point. I have seen anonymously posted harsh words go by without a comment because they express the view of the general population of the blog readership.
However, and I thank you for pointing this out, I do take issue with people from both sides.
You can find me calling SBC dissenter on this issue at The Once Proud Flagship [link] in the comment section.
I also took issue with Arkansas Razorbaptist on SBC Outpost a couple of days ago, though I don’t recall if I mentioned his anonymity in what I wrote, it was an issue for me. He said something without proof about Jerry Rankin. I told him he should delete that post, but he didn’t.
To post such a thing without proof is bad. To do so anonymously is beyond ungodly, in my opinion.
art rogers
on Apr 22nd, 2006
@ 1:02 pm:
I will add that Pastor Joe and Villa Rica don’t usually deride others, but have a tone of conciliation when they post – even when they disagree.
Pastor Joe
on Apr 22nd, 2006
@ 4:52 pm:
Goodness, I had no idea that this old coot would attract so much attention. I am Pastor Joe, I am not really anonymous, and my e-mail is on my blog. If I have misspoken or offended anyone, feel free to e-mail me and I will try to rectify any wrong.
As best I remember, and that is none too well at my age, I entered this with a comment on Villa Rica’s blog. At first I just put in my name Pastor Joe.
Eventually, thinking more highly of myself than I ought, I convinced myself that I might have a perspective from my age and background, and after some urging created a blog. I originally thought I would talk about some of the mechanics of the meeting, how things worked, etc. However, others, mainly Art, have covered that better than I. Also, it seems that absolutely no one was interested in my first, last, and to date, only post. That is not surprising; I was never that interesting, and by now I my only value is as a research subject in geriatrics. Remembering a strong admonition from one blog that most of us ought NOT blog, I have not posted anything else on Pastor-Joe.
I am at a distinct disadvantage being from another era and group. It may well be that you all know each other. However, to me C. J. Costello is as anonymous as Villa Rica. That is only an observation, not a criticism. I have no idea who either is.
I have tried only post about things about which, I in my self-delusion, thought that I had some knowledge or something to contribute from the vantage point of antiquity. That was the spirit of my post on a motion for a division of the assembly. I felt that as a former state convention parliamentarian I could add something. I did not mean to denigrate anyone. I did notice that Anonymous (interestingly enough) responded to me and it seemed to have a tone of annoyance with me. But as I studied Anonymous’ comment, I could not find any differene between what I had said and what he anonymous had said. I dismissed it as being overly sensitive. Doubtless, I was offensive without realizing it. I probably should refrain from interjecting myself in a discussion of people closer to my grandchildren’s ages than my childrens’.
Again, if I have offended, that was not my intent. Feel free to e-mail me.
art rogers
on Apr 22nd, 2006
@ 5:02 pm:
Joe,
I don’t think anyone is offended by what you write. You are correct that we are all somewhat anonymous.
Feel free to interject all you want. If you say something that is a problem for another, they can respond appropriately.
Thank you for pointing out your email and how to get there.
CJ Costello
on Apr 22nd, 2006
@ 6:20 pm:
Pastor Joe,
I second what Art said. I was not attempting to imply anything about comments that you have made on blogs.
Wes Kenney made similar observations to yours on his blog – that even with a name and a picture, it’s not the same as meeting a person.
Villa Rica
on Apr 22nd, 2006
@ 9:19 pm:
Brothers All,
You should all be glad you are not dealing with my brother: PANCHO VILLA. He wanted to get in on this but he is AoG and speaks with more tongues than any of our missionaries so I told him he was disqualified to speak to IMB issues specificly or SBC issues in general.
Just funnin you guys. Seriously, Pancho is doing five years in a Utah state pen for placing Gideon Bibles in Marriott Hotels.
He is not allowed to blog on a Baptist blog site. He is beaten daily with boards from a Crate that was used to deliver THE BOOK OF MORMON to Joseph Smith. He will never recant. He is too tough. Our brother LEFTY is planning to break him out.( you know Pancho and Lefty?) Lefty wants me to help but, I gave up that life years ago.
Later, you Band of Brothers!!
—-Brother of those famous bandits: Pancho and Lefty—-
Villa Rica
That is all you need to know about me except I do love you one and all in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Kevin Bussey
on Apr 22nd, 2006
@ 9:42 pm:
Villa Rica,
We love having you around!