Author: art rogers
Again?
Friday, April 28th, 2006 @ 10:35 am
Wade Burleson revealed today, in an article entitled The “Good Ol’ Boy System” of Control, Exposed and Condemned by Judge Paul Pressler, that a “very reliable source” tells him that there will be another move to censure him at the upcoming IMB Trustee meeting in New Mexico.
Again? Why would they do such a thing, now? I have read every post on Wade’s blog since January and he has been extremely scrupulous in an effort to abide with every policy whether or not he, or anybody else, agrees with it.
I see a couple of possible thoughts.
First, the meeting is in New Mexico, removed from the South where many Southern Baptists can easily attend. Perhaps they feel that the discerning eyes that were in Tampa will not be in New Mexico.
Secondly, it comes on the heels of a public calling for Wade to be nominated as President of the SBC. Perhaps they think they can further besmirch Wade’s character a month prior to the voters’ arrival in Greensboro. This may be the standard practice; an attempt to smear the opposition to prevent them from gaining political momentum and then power. Tried and true - thus far.
I say, in response to this idea, that they will need evidence this time, though they never produced any last time. If they thought the reaction was bad from January’s meeting, let them do it again, and do it so poorly. I think they would most likely move to executive session again, so as not to have to produce any for the media at hand - be they bloggers or the ABP. (We all know the BP would not be critical of the Trustee move.)
If they level this accusation against Wade, it will be a double motivation fro YSBC to get to Greensboro. Some who think that the issue is resolved because of the rescinding of the previous motion, will see this as the call to action.
Tim Sweatman commented that he knew of several Younger Leaders who were inclined to leave the SBC if the “Good Ole Boy” network continued to run things as they do now. I think some of the “Good Ole Boy” network see this as a positive thing. Get rid of the dissenters and move on with a controlled convention.
Again, they are short sighted who believe this. If the Younger Leaders leave, they will take their churches and Cooperative Program giving with them. Right now there are several discussions among Younger Leaders in how to move past the CP and network together, excluding the politics of the convention from controlling their money. You can find such a discussion at one of Steve McCoy’s blogs, Missional Baptist Blog.
This discussion is from people who want to STAY in the convention.
What must the people who are more inclined to go be saying? If they all decide to leave, the SBC is done. The “Good Ole Boys” will be left in control - of a declining, ineffective denomination who has alienated it’s legacy and has nowhere to go.
Is it more important to be in charge or to be effective in spreading the Gospel?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
April 28th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
“Is it more important to be in charge or to be effective in spreading the Gospel?”
Art,
I know you are just making a point. Spreading the Gospel should be our only concern! I don’t care where it comes from. If it is from the SBC great. But somewhere else, then that is where I want to be. Like Henry Blackaby says, “look where God is at work and join Him.”
April 28th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
It disturbs me every time someone threatens to leave and take their CP money with them. I get the underlying points being made, but somehow it just feels like they are pouting and saying “I’m going to take my ball and go home.” I am trying to keep an open mind to it all, but just wanted to plead with everyone … be involved, work to effectuate change, stay and make the SBC excellent again!
April 28th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Dorcas,
I’m not saying I am leaving. It is obvious the mega-churches know something. There is waste in the SBC. This has to grieve God!
April 28th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Dorcas,
I don’t view it as a matter of pouting. At some point it is a matter of stewardship. If people can fund a good old boy’s network in good conscience then more power to them. Some of us question whether or not it is good stewardship of our people’s money. And I say that as one who’s church gives nearly twice as much to the CP as the average SBC president over the last 27 years.
Where the convention is now, it is my opinion that the burden is on those in leadership to demonstrate why we should continue to stay and give.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Paul is right! I owe it to my church to make sure the $ is going for missions, education, training and ministry. Not for cars, mansions and vacations!
April 28th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
I agree we need to be good stewards. Anyone reading my blog can be confident about my viewpoint on that matter. I just believe that we can correct any problems with wasting money within the SBC without having to pull out entirely. I am not condoning mansions and fancy cars and the good ‘ol boy system. I’m just saying the convention is all of us together. I believe we can get rid of the good ‘ol boy mentality and restore the convention to doing God’s work as He leads.
April 28th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
As Wade mentioned on his blog…
To recreate the CP and the IMB, a new denomination would take a century. We already have it.
As I said in response, it is incumbant upon leadership to not “run off” people who can contribute to the system we have.
They need to be open, and cooperative.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Not directed at anyone in particular…
Over the years the SBC has put out systems for our use. Some of those systems are probably very broken and worthless. Some are fixable with much time and effort. Some are fixable but we shouldn’t want to fix them, but rather replace them. Some are probably fine, though I can’t think of any of those.
The SBC as a whole is just a set of systems that we may find helpful for ministry and mission, or outdated and needing to be fixed, or unacceptable and needing to ditch. Why can’t some SBC’rs be in different camps on this and do what they feel they need to do for their faithfulness in the mission? The SBC is, after all, just one way to link up with other Christians/churches.
Personally, I’m sick of people telling me that we have to keep feeding the gluttonous CP dragon the same amount no matter what. It’s fat and lazy and sick. Why shouldn’t we put it on a diet, cut funds a bit so we can support more localized ministry or local church directed mission work? We are smart enough to realize what cutting funds would do, measure the consequences and make wise decisions.
This isn’t about taking our ball and going home, it’s about getting our ball back into the game!
April 28th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
If I meet Steve at the Convention I have a feeling we are in for quite a memorable debate.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
To Steve, in particular,
I agree that the CP needs an overhaul. I am for doing that or replacing it altogether, if somebody can show me a better plan. There is personal waste of tithes and offerings given to the Lord going on within the CP. Not good, it must stop.
As for another plan, I am all ears. I am not hearing one, though. I hear alternative networks, and I have no problem with those. I hear more individual ministries and I have no problem with those. The church should be doing these things anyway.
They are not a replacement of the CP, though. We need something we can all do to reach those we cannot reach by ourselves. I believe they are our responsibility - and I am sure you do as well.
Without the CP, each entity goes back to raising its support by itself.
Is that better or worse than the waste we have now?
I think the solution is a more transparent accounting system and the diliberate seeking of cooperation - outside of the power structure that is replicating itself.
April 28th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Brother and Sister Folks,
It would be wrong of me to say how much money I have put in the SBC over the years in various ways.
I believe in the over all vision and ministry of the SBC.
I know she is a sick ole hound right now. Ticks and fleas have really been sucking the blood out of her of late.
When the Network ran over me in a MACK truck I got up, regrouped by the grace of God, and sent Sister Lottie Moon another check.
The only way I would leave the SBC ( ticks, fleas, Power Network,Lap dogs, and all) would be if God wrote it on the wall for me to go.
The SBC is worth saving and you people are the ones that the Lord will use if you let Him.
The odds are against you. The odds will always be against you this side of heaven. God always lets the odds be against His people so that when He brings victory He will get the CREDIT.
That is one major problem in the SBC. Some people actually think they built it and not God. God will not bless that. A walk through the stories of the various kings listed in the Old Testament will prove that.
Villa Rica
April 29th, 2006 at 12:32 am
As I said over at Wade’s blog, a lot of the people talking about leaving don’t really want to leave the SBC, but they feel like the present leadership doesn’t want them to stay unless they agree to do things the way the leaders want them to. Both groups are trying to get to the same destination, but they are trying to get there in different ways. Until we decide to focus on the destination rather than on the means of arriving there, we will continue to have great contention within the SBC.
Regarding the potential move to censure Wade, such a move would only serve to heighten the sense of divisiveness that is becoming prevalent within the SBC. If those in leadership would engage in dialogue instead of trying to intimidate people, they would find that we’re all on the same side even though we may have different methods of doing the work of the Kingdom. People have accused the SBC blogging community (there is a difference between the bloggers and the Younger Leaders group) of being divisive, but remember that we’re not the ones trying to exclude people.
April 29th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Give to Lottie Moon. Give to the NAMB. Until there is an overhaul of the CP you can still give to missions work….and bypass most of the junk along the way.
April 29th, 2006 at 9:56 am
imb m, good point, and often people don’t think of this. Our church in KY used to bypass the CP in order to give a higher %age to the IMB directly.
Over the past 10 years I have seen time and again where churches have local things they could/should fund that would be better for the SBC in the long run and would be better for the Kingdom. But they didn’t, or barely did anything because their CP umbilical cord was already sucking the financial life out of them.
I’m not telling anyone to stop using the CP. My church uses it and we will continue to do so. It’s broken and problematic, but there isn’t an alternative and we are still funding a lot of good stuff too. But I’m thinking hard about recommending that we pull back from how much we fund through it and start funding new works that we want to start locally. I think we all should consider that.
April 29th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Posted today at kerussocharis.blogspot.com:
It’s good to see conservative Baptists previously referred to as moderates, and even liberals, being called “conservatives” again. That takes guts beyond the average in today’s SBC, in my opinion.
NO ONE (and I do mean NO ONE) truly understands “leadership” if he doesn’t understand “team” and “teamwork”.
It may not be a term we use often to refer to it, but the SBC is–or, is supposed to be, for the sake of the earth’s population–a high-performance team. Teams ALWAYS are made up of VOLUNTEERS who share a similar position/passion, who have chosen to gather around a common vision, and who are willing to COOPERATE in order to accomplish a stated mission. Functioning in this way yields results which go ‘way beyond only the typical to the status of “exceptional”. (See the link: http://www.teamresources.com/team.html ; this is info promoted by NAMB, folks.)
It is not a characteristic of high-performance teams for the teams’ supposed “leaders” to tell their fellow-members to shut up and keep working–rather, that’s a way to quickly end cooperation, lose the volunteers, and cease seeing exceptional results. If it ever could be said, “That SBC–boy, it’s a high-performance team!” the truth of the statement, in my view, ended essentially in 1979 when the SBC’s leaders either initiated or agreed to the convention’s take-over. The statistical evidence seems to back-up that idea.
Can the SBC be a team again? Yes–but not by trying to re-write what it means to be “a team”. The SBC isn’t an island, and it isn’t a “team” merely because its “leaders” say that it is. The SBC will be a high-performance team seeing exceptional results when it adopts the characteristics true of all such teams. In the meantime, it will get what it’s getting and lose what it’s losing; otherwise cooperative–and conservative–Baptists CAN walk away from the SBC and its purported “leaders” and should if the convention will not function like a high-performance team in today’s world. Eternity is too near, life is too short, resources are too precious, etc., to waste time being “commanded” to go counter to understood principles of teams and teamwork by people who are not leaders at all. God lets 3000 American churches die annually for the same reason. Is anyone listening?
Some will take exception to the terms I’ve used above. Suggest your own vocabulary to explain the same circumstances if you desire–but, primarily, get on somehow with the business of the kingdom!
April 29th, 2006 at 10:57 am
I am a different IMB M than the one posting above.
It is kinda scary hearing all the talk about pulling out of the CP. Steve asks, “Why shouldn’t we put it [CP]on a diet, cut funds a bit so we can support more localized ministry or local church directed mission work?”
We are already on a diet and have been on one for many years. Just talk to any of your missionaries serving around the world!
50% of CP monies are designated for the IMB and are the lifeline of a worldwide missions network like no other. Cutting back now would be disastrous. Never before have there been so many open opportunties for the advancement of the Gospel around the world. Many of us feel we are in a final harvest time before Christ’s Second Coming. Now is not the time for cutting back and diets!
Might I suggest Stateside churches put themselves on a diet and send the extra that would have been spent on themselves overseas through the CP and LMCO?
Every time we go back to the States I am struck by the huge amount of unneccesary spending by local Baptist churches. Seems everything people can dream up passes for “outreach ministries” and “missions.” (ski trips, retreats, a piano in every SS room, state of the art media, buildings, maintenance of buildings, remodelling, etc.) All this stuff somehow gets classified as “missions” and gets deducted from CP and LMCO giving.
Our last furlough the first Wednesday we were back home, our hosting church held a regular business meeting where, without any discussion, voted to spend more on new windows in the west wing, elevator repairs, and a building addition than the entire annual ministry budget of the country where we serve! Please don’t talk about M needing to be on diets until some of the excess “missions” spending is redefined back home!
April 29th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
IMB M,
I used to work in the states as a “missionary” to international students. At the same time our family was preparing for international missionary work with the IMB.
The IMB ditched international student work and gave it to NAMB. Fair enough. But NAMB was sitting on their arse not doing crap when they promised they would. I sat in meetings with staff who could have pushed for NAMB to keep their word, they didn’t. I actually discussed being a national coordinator for this sort of work. Nada. I know the former international student guy with the IMB, and he was disheartened by NAMB and wanted the IMB to do something about it. They haven’t. So my wife and kids and I lived off of whatever we could convince our churches to do to support our ministry to international students. Guess how well those churches supported this work? It wasn’t pretty.
Don’t think I’m ignorant about international missions, mission support, the CP, NAMB missions, etc. I understand it quite well. But I also understand there are other mission works not being supported by the CP/IMB/NAMB that should be supported. And I’m saying we need to decide what God wants us to support and support it. The CP should be a piece of our church’s mission pie, not the pie.
As to bloated churches, you have me as an ally. I talked with church after church trying to raise support who had multi-million dollar building plans for double-wide gyms and raquetball courts but couldn’t seem to spare a few bucks for the missionary. I completely agree with you there. But there are actually very mission-minded churches out here who aren’t spending everything on us and who aren’t able to see good mission work happen because we only have CP glasses.
April 29th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Steve,
I appreciate your responding back. I understand much better where you are coming from now.
I couldn’t agree with you more about the importance of reaching international students during their time in the USA. I admit I don’t know who exactly what SBC entity is charged with this most important ministry focus, but would be willing to go on an “extreme diet” overseas if I knew those monies were being diverted to Stateside International Student Ministries.
As many have already recognized, the nations are coming to the shores of America. What extreme measures are being taken to reach those who are flooding our college campuses? Those able to come to the USA for study are most likely to be the movers and shakers of their countries when they go back home.
April 30th, 2006 at 8:27 am
In regards to saving money,
we should encourage more accountants and auditors and lay people and businessmen to work for the IMB for believe it or not, the IMB is a business –to send people out and let God work– there is no reason to treat it otherwise. that would streamline the process if they were given a fair hearing by the SL’s and RL’s
Michael
April 30th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
How far in advance do they pick IMB trustee meeting sites?