You may want to check out www.baptistblogger.blogspot.com.
I know, you are thinking that this is just what we need – another blog about SBC issues. What can this guy bring to the table that everyone else doesn’t?
Log on and find out.
Also, I would like to direct you to a post from Paul Littlton. Paul publishes an email that he sent Drs. Hatley and Floyd concerning the supposed breach of confidentiality by Wade Burleson. He reveals that JD Greear revealed all that Wade said and such was posted in a blog interview with Tim Rogers 2 days before Wade.
You can find the post, Criminal Defense, at his blog.
Finally, Wade Burleson has opened his door to your input concerning his options in response to Wednesday’s fiasco. In a lengthy but riveting recount of the actions and events leading up to Wednesday, Wade gives three possible responses that he is currently considering. You can read it at:
In the Counsel of Many There Is Great Wisdom
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Bryan Riley
on May 27th, 2006
@ 8:38 pm:
Wade is developing so much interest in the issues that his website is practically inaccessible! I think that alone is a powerful message.
JUSTAMOE
on May 28th, 2006
@ 5:47 am:
I read the “how many visitors” feature of Wade’s blogsite yesterday morning and this morning (bottom of the site’s homepage); there were over 2000 hits there in that 24-hour time span (I probably accounted for about 10 of them)–and about 1997 left comments about Wade’s options! As Bryan says, there is great interest in these matters.
Art, watch the mail this week, OK?
Anonymous
on May 28th, 2006
@ 8:16 am:
While I acknowledge gross mishandling early on by the Trustees, and a bit of pique by the outgoing chm…sorry, at this stage it has become all about Wade, his alleged mistreatment, his demands, his rejection of imb trustee offers, his ‘backbone of steel’.
I recommend he lay it out and, if still dissatisfied, do the honorable thing and resign. He is beginning to look like a kid who discovers he has a large megaphone.
Sorry, brethren. It takes two trains to make a train wreck.
Elizabeth
on May 28th, 2006
@ 9:15 am:
Anonymous,
Regretfully, you can’t understand our indignation concerning these matters. There are two sets of rules. All of them seem to apply to Wade; none to Tom Hatley or the caucus group members. The only megaphone any have right now is on the blogs.
(Remember, Wade didn’t even get to use a mic at the meeting.) People have been forced into silence for far too long. BTW, this is what much of this is about anyway. How many trustees do you think will disagree with anything after what has happened to Wade?
CB Scott
on May 28th, 2006
@ 2:33 pm:
Anony,
Actually history records that there have been more single train wrecks, due to poor engineering, (administration) than two train colliding with each other.
Just something to think about.
cb
John Fariss
on May 28th, 2006
@ 3:55 pm:
Well said CB! One of my pet peeves relates to our (the cultural “our,” not anyone’s personal “our”) focus on sound bites. A well-turned phrase that gets our attention and can be repeated in a few seconds can be used to close an argument, but the same phrase will not legidimately carry the argument.
Anony, I hope you take that in a positive spirit of conversation–not that you are being attacked, but that we are having honest give-and-take. And if you still disagree, that’s OK too. Let your voice be heard, and develop your line of reasoning more fully! Maybe others will agree, maybe even I will, who knows? And if not: well, good Christian men and women can honestly disagree and remain brothers and sisters in Christ. And right on, Elizabeth! One thing all the blogs on the subject are verifying is that there is a lot of discontent out here in the trenches–and yes, indignation. Those who are in positions of authority and leadership would do well to recognize and address that. It may well determine if their leadership is strictly a function of their title, or of their personality.
Anonymous
on May 28th, 2006
@ 5:19 pm:
I appreciate the kind responses, especially since I know that many of you are fully invested rationally and emotionally with Burleson in the matter. I am only one longtime SB pastor who loves missions.
A month ago, I was with you. Now I am not and the reason is because I see Burleson as a distraction, a crusader who seems less and less reasonable as time passes. He did not get his way. While, the trustees may tolerate other misbehavior and not his, a wrong that needs to be fixed, I don’t see WB a contributing any longer to the solution. It is now ‘lose/lose’.
When was the last time the issue of Landmarkism had the stage here and not the alleged mistreatment of Wade Burelson? It’s all about him now. If IMB policy needs to change then elect the people who will implement the changes. If the trustees believe it best to stifle public dissent within their number then elect the people who will implement a change. After the January trustee debacle, I thought such changes had a chance. No longer. I may be wrong but I believe WB has squandered the support of all but his blogging pals.
The chairman did not give him the floor at the most recent meeting and I’m not sure I blame Hatley for it. The way it was handled by TH was certainly inelegant, not the first time for such. So Burleson leaves the meeting, takes his megaphone and shouts to the SBC world. It has become all about him. His threats. His persecution. His accusations. His desires. His rejections. Is this the way to handle things? Not in my view.
OK, critique my metaphor but this is a train wreck partly because WB has fired up his locomotive. It’s full steam ahead. He is not without fault here. Let him resign and be the voice for policy change. I may support him. I would certainly support him on some policy changes but no longer where he is.
BTW, I’ve emailed my views to him and he thanked me. He is by all accounts an outstanding pastor and Christian. God bless him.
Anonymous
on May 28th, 2006
@ 5:27 pm:
BTW, WJF on Burleson’s blog has a lengthy treatment of the thing, much more eloquent than mine. I would sign on to his.
CB Scott
on May 28th, 2006
@ 6:22 pm:
John,
Now I guess I will be buying you two cups of High Test :-)
cb
70 year old Brother in CHRIST
on May 28th, 2006
@ 8:43 pm:
Mr. Anomymous,
This matter is not about WADE. Its about TRUTH and JESUS CHRIST, GOD’S WORD. Maybe a visit to this WEB SITE will help you.
http://www.thealabamabaptist.org/ip_template.asp?upid=10545&ctid=23
IN CHRIST NAME
Anonymous
on May 28th, 2006
@ 8:52 pm:
He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbour: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace.
A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter.
Proverbs 11.12-13
Rob Westbrook
on May 28th, 2006
@ 9:39 pm:
Anonymous,
At this point I don’t agree with you, but I’m listening. You recommend that Wade resign. OK. Let’s go with that. What do you suggest after Wade is gone?
Elizabeth
on May 28th, 2006
@ 9:55 pm:
Proverbs 20:10
The Lord despises double standards of every kind.
Anonymous
on May 29th, 2006
@ 6:44 am:
Brethren,
Thanks for the scripture quotes. I believe they would be helpful to all of us. I am disappointed in Wade Burleson and had hoped for better things. I believe WJF has it right on B’s blog when he uses the term ‘obsession.’
WGG
Dorcas
on May 29th, 2006
@ 9:06 am:
I consider all these people who say they are “disappointed in Wade.” It may not be the same people, but there was others disappointed with Wade for not running for SBC President. Thank goodness Wade is not about men’s approval or he would be schizophrenic by now.
What I see on Wade’s blog is a man who speaks the truth with grace and dignity.
Let’s consider the meeting in which Hatley cut off Wade’s microphone. I can’t imagine it being that large of a room. And we know Wade is a preacher. Lesser men would have turned up the volume and kept speaking to make their point, microphone or not. But Wade respected the rules of the meeting and politely took his seat.
I know God is a God of order, but when I consider all the Trustees who said nothing in Wade’s defense, I begin to wonder if Robert’s Rules of Order holds a higher place than the Bible and biblical conduct in these gatherings. But that is for another day.
What has Wade written recently on his blog? He has asked for wise counsel and listed three options. The responses ran the gamut of using all three options, and sometimes adding a fourth. The next post Wade even apologized that when he comes out with his answer, some may not like it. I think this may be for all those who keep saying “I am disappointed with Wade.” Well of course those who were supporting whichever option he doesn’t chose may not like it.
So I would just give a word of warning that we be careful to not look to one man as the “savior” of the SBC. Wade is out to serve God, not please man.
Phillips Lynn
on May 29th, 2006
@ 9:15 am:
Anonymous 5/28 05:19:20,
Your statement “When was the last time the issue of Landmarkism had the stage here and not the alleged mistreatment of Wade Burelson?”
The issue is still there, Pastor Wade has taken a stand against Landmarkism, private caucuses, backroom politics and hidden agendas. Those are still the issues. The goal of Hatley and others who favor Landmarkism, private caucuses, hidden agendas, etc have tried to silence Pastor Wade by:
1. Having him removed from the board. (Public outcry quickly “derailed” this attempt.)
2. Unsubstantiated accusations of slander and hints of other wrong doings that “was yet to come” but never did.
3. In house sanctions against Pastor Wade. (Removal from committees, etc.)
4. Hatley’s tantrum at his final meeting as chairman. (I guess one way to silence a person is to turn off his microphone.)
And it would appear that their tactics are working with some, who would have Pastor Wade to drop the whole thing and not inform the people about what has happened and is continuing to happen.
Elizabeth is correct in her statement “How many trustees do you think will disagree with anything after what has happened to Wade?” The message that will be sent to other trustees on ALL boards will be “don’t rock the boat” just keep silent and let the “good ole boys” retain control, no one in the SBC really cares anyway.”
Silence will always increase the power of the “powers that be.”
Throughout history silence has been seen as agreement.
Apathy among the people has always allowed atrocities to occur. Apathy is why we are seeing these problems in our convention today. That is proven by the number of messengers who have attended our convention in past 10 years.
These problems must be addressed and resolved before they become even greater.
The silent majority does not have a voice, because they are silent.
Anonymous
on May 29th, 2006
@ 11:47 am:
Were I your pastor, Dorcas, I would appreciate your steadfast support. I have been in not a few small meetings, committees, deacons, where one person felt that he/she should have the floor and was denied by the moderator. Unfair, perhaps, but none of us can say all we think every time we think we should.
PL, Landmarkism is ‘there’ alright but it has taken a back seat these recent days. It’s all about WB’s alleged mistreatment.
Burleson agreed with the trustees that he and others be silent. Rather than resign, he has tried, rather unsuccessfully seems to me from this distance, to tiptoe along that line. Maybe he is completely circumspect in all of his public statements, maybe not.
Enough is enough. Either the board goes on with its important work or we get treated to this sideshow every meeting. No thanks to the latter.
It does seem to this observer that if one chooses to abide by a no-public-dissent policy, they have either compromised their principles, don’t feel strongly enough about the issue to resign and stay public with criticism, or decided to attempt to work within the parameters and restrictions. Burleson chose the latter and it is not working well.
He had an excellent opportunity to get elected to the place where he can really influence policy. He romanced his supporters (myself included) for some weeks on that
and then backed out.
I have no quarrel with Burleson, a good and decent man. I just think that with his recent actions he has backed himself into a corner and has severely compromised his effectiveness.
I plan, incidentally, to be in Greensboro and will, absent some SBC earthquake, vote for the agent of change, Frank Page. Ronnie Floyd is status quo. No thanks.
Thanks again for the cordial manner in which this discussion has taken place.
WGG
Phillips Lynn
on May 29th, 2006
@ 1:27 pm:
Anonymous-WGG,
I am glad that you are still planning to go to Greensboro.
Obviously you feel that Pastor Wade failed in your goals for him.
Hopefully, Greensboro will be the beginning of change within our convention. But change will never happen until the masses are informed of the issues, which is what Pastor Wade is doing.
Hopefully, he will expose everything he knows about the board because too many good men have failed to do so in the past and the problem has grown larger and will continue to grow even larger until this is done.