I know that many Missionaries around the world are bewildered by the transition in topic on the blogosphere. The explosion of interest started with Wade Burleson and his objection to two certain IMB policies. This was followed by my very vocal objection to another policy implemented by the IMB that forbade Wade – or any other dissenting Trustee – the right to object publicly to any official policy.
Soon this morphed into general Convention politics and then the Memphis Declaration. At about the same time, the Presidential speculation began to heat up. All of this has left some Missionaries wondering, “What about the policies?”
Another critique of our current selection of topics is that we are a bunch of complainers. We pick on whatever happens to be the hot button of the day and whine about it.
I can see how both perspectives can exist. Let me add though, that there is a serious transition in topic, and it is for a reason.
The policies at the IMB were brought to light by Wade’s stand against exclusion. This touched a core nerve running throughout YSBC (Young SBC) – the frustration with exclusivity among fellow conservatives.
Whereas policies are the fruit, exclusivity is the root. It is also the root of all these other topics. Here are a few other plums on the tree of exclusivity:
policy governing dissent at the IMB
recycling of leadership on committees and other leadership positions within the SBC
“kingmaker” appointments to the office of President of the SBC
assaults on the character and intent of a group who meets in Memphis and who denies all political goals for the group but produces a declaration of repentance
Lets see… what else?
Cut the root of exclusivity, the fruit will die.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Anonymous
on May 18th, 2006
@ 8:25 am:
Well, to me the core issue is the IMB BOT policy on PPL and baptism. This, as well as a narrowing of GCC partnerships in some regions is of major concern to me at least. What can we do to get those policies reversed?
David Rogers
on May 18th, 2006
@ 9:10 am:
I, for one, as an IMB missionary, follow the progression of events, and see their inter-connectedness. The policies are only symptoms of a deeper-rooted systemic problem. The bigger question, for me, though, is the one raised by Steve McCoy, and perhaps others, about whether these systemic problems can really be dealt with at the convention-wide political level, or if it will be necessary to attack the problem little by little at a local church level, changing basic values, first. Also, the reality that, in the meantime, many “younger leader” types are seriously questioning how long they will remain on board with the SBC and the CP. As stewards who will one day be held accountable for the resources commended to us, and considering the enormous Kingdom resources represented by the SBC, I believe we need to thing carefully and seriously about all these questions.
Kevin Bussey
on May 18th, 2006
@ 9:58 am:
You are right Art. Why are we always finding something to fight about. People don’t get the Memphis Dec. because it is so different from what has been going on recently.
Alan Cross
on May 18th, 2006
@ 2:56 pm:
Art,
The issue for me has been and is the IMB policies. I totally understand your point about the root, but I feel that we went to far in addressing all of it at once. If the focus had stayed on the IMB policies and exclusionary practices, instead of going after everything, it might have worked better. If those policies are not addressed, I will be very grieved. Perhaps that is just a symptom, but by addressing symptoms, you set precedent and can work from there. By going after the root, you just arouse others to war, as we are seeing now from the folks that have been sent to Marty’s blog to articulate the view of the leadership (my opinion of what is happening).
CW
on May 18th, 2006
@ 3:42 pm:
Alan,
You are right. The troops have been called to war. Elements of the convention are not talking the party line. Alles ist nicht im Ordnung and something must be done. At the very least, the ruling powers seem more concerned than usual by the dissenting voices. Their exclusive rule of the SBC is being highlighted and things are only going to get more interesting.
Phillips Lynn
on May 19th, 2006
@ 11:27 am:
David Rogers,
AMEN!!!