I wonder to what degree those involved in the political struggle within the IMB and within the SBC are in it for the politics – and the fruit thereof. I know a good many who are in it for the missionaries. They believe that they are doing what is best, to the best of their abilities.
I know, also, that my views do not represent every missionary on the field. No one has contacted me personally to say that I don’t represent them, but by the law of averages, I know that I can’t possibly represent EVERYONE.
It is clear that some are not in it for our full set of current missionaries. They prove this by trying to exclude some who would serve now when others with similar criteria are on the field. Clearly these missionaries are set apart, because the BOT had to make the rule that the November stipulations would not be retroactive. I think they knew that a much harder fight would ensue if they were trying to pull missionaries off the field. Still, the evidence is there. They are not comfortable with them there.
I want to believe that everyone involved is trying to look out for the missionaries on the field and do what is best for them and for the Gospel. If that were true, though, then we would have a much more gracious exchange, I believe. Matthew 18:15-20 would not be violated repeatedly. People would be more willing to do business in the open. People would not be upset that bloggers were in the public meetings of the IMB – making public meetings of the IMB public to the rest of us.
The actions and attitudes of some tell us that not all motivations are governed by the well being of the missionaries.
I don’t want to claim high ground for anyone else, but I know that I am in it for them and for the SBC. I am in it so that we may be more effective in the spreading of the Gospel to the lost. I know that I do not need nor desire any position within the SBC. I am willing to work hard for the SBC. I am willing to serve it in any way that I can. I am willing to be a follower. My only requirement is that those who lead, do so well.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Paul
on May 30th, 2006
@ 9:50 am:
Art,
I don’t think anyone would couch their involvement in terms of “in it for the politics.” I think those who disagree with you (and me, by the way) don’t see themselves as in it for the politics so much as in it for the SBC. In other words, it is important to them that when we plant churches that we are not simply planting them for the kingdom of God, but specifically for the SBC. I’ve been personally told as much on several occasions by some we would consider to be on “the other side” of these issues.
And that, in my opinion, will be the biggest struggle going forward. What will we give and work to build: the kingdom of God or the kingdom of the SBC? Some don’t see much difference in the two. That could present a real impasse.
Kevin Bussey
on May 30th, 2006
@ 10:30 am:
Art,
I’m an optimist by nature. I believe most are in it for the right reasons–or at least they entered it for the right reasons. Some are seduced by power. It is intoxicating. This should be a lesson for us too.
Phillips Lynn
on May 30th, 2006
@ 2:09 pm:
Art,
AMEN!!!
Anonymous
on May 30th, 2006
@ 2:32 pm:
I have talked with, communicated with, and am personally acquainted with a number of current IMB trustees. While they are imperfect humanity, to an individual these people are sincere servants of the Lord, our IMB personnel, and SBC churches and members.
As for the debate on imb policy, the current trustees will have to thrash it out and decide on it. While I may not agree with all of his positions on the issues, imo, John Floyd is much better equipped to navigate those waters than his predecessor. He has my prayers and support.
After these months of following the blogging on the meetings, focused around the opinion and treatment of a single trustee, I do not believe that the debate can be advanced in this fashion. We generally have had access to just one side and one side only of the personal conflicts and the interested baptist public simply cannot fix such things from the distance of time and geography, blogging or no blogging. What can be done is to poison the waters against the imb in general and the imb trustees in particular, a matter that is unhealthy for all.
Southern Baptists like myself elect leaders, committees, and ultimately the policymaking trustees to do this important work. If their decisions are not what I would support, I will work to change it.
From where I see things, the exchanges in all this have been reasonably cordial and I’m grateful for that.
WGG, one IMB supporting pastor
CW
on May 30th, 2006
@ 3:00 pm:
I would not worry too much about claiming the high ground. Each side already believes they own it. My problem with the IMB policies is their disingenuous nature. Istead of appealing to the Bible and proof texting, why will they not simply say they want to safeguard the mission field from charismatics?
CB Scott
on May 30th, 2006
@ 3:10 pm:
Art,
When I first saw the title of your post I thought you were going to sing that Barbara Strisian song:
I WONDER, I WONDER.:-)
cb
GuyMuse
on May 30th, 2006
@ 3:40 pm:
I want to believe that everyone involved is trying to look out for the missionaries on the field and do what is best for them and for the Gospel…”
As a M, it is interesting to me that all the “controversy” has seemingly brought more attention to IMB-SBC missions than all the wonderful reports of the things God is doing around the world. This very thought was commented today on my own blog by a fellow M in Mexico who pointed out that just look at the number of comments that appear on the controversial posts by SBC bloggers, and compare that with the number of comments to reports of what God is doing overseas. Where does our interest truly lie? With politics or with God’s work around the world?
I confess I too am quite addicted to SBC politics, and read several SBC bloggers (including you, Art)–it’s all quite interesting reading and can be quite addicting!
Anyway, I throw this out for what it is worth, but do sincerely thank you and all those who are standing up for us field M’s. You are saying on our behalf what a lot of us would like to say!
I think a lot of these issues could be resolved without the Matt.18, just sitting down together with a cup of coffee and talking things out!
tim rogers
on May 30th, 2006
@ 4:07 pm:
Brother Art,
Guy Muse’s comment here is truly convicting.
GOD, HELP ME & FORGIVE ME!
tim rogers
Anonymous
on May 30th, 2006
@ 8:19 pm:
For the hbenefit of those not belonging to this group and seeking to understand what is being talked about here, are the matters underlying the complaints here and in the Memphis Declaration the same things that the liberals are complaining about at http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/mob4/missionary_terminations.htm
Or are they different?
So much of the discussion in these blots is abstract that I am left uncertain of exactly what the underlying facts are.
That said, is the goal of this Memphis movement unification with so-called liberals and moderates?
On the one hand, I don’t see much talk to that effect, but, on the other, if both groups are complaining about the same things, why not seek unification?
art rogers
on May 30th, 2006
@ 8:55 pm:
Anon,
No, these are not the same things, although they have certain similarities and maybe even some things in common.
Anonymous
on May 31st, 2006
@ 7:40 am:
Dear other Anonymous,
You said: “We generally have had access to just one side and one side only of the personal conflicts and the interested baptist public simply cannot fix such things from the distance of time and geography, blogging or no blogging. What can be done is to poison the waters against the imb in general and the imb trustees in particular, a matter that is unhealthy for all.”
I appreciate your view and to some degree that can be true. I guess I have a little different take on it. I think we can have an impact on the trustees and as I see it, this is healthy. This is surgery and surgery can be very healthy for the SBC.
Unfortunately I have been privy to way more eye witness information than I care to think about. The good part of having information is that this information has made me see that we do need some surgery among the trustees and more in our convention. Not ugly politics and positioning. Just truth, in love, and the hope of repentance and humility from all of us. I don’t see it as poison against the IMB or the trustees, I see it as healing something that needs healing before it is too late.
Anonymous
on Jun 1st, 2006
@ 2:33 am:
I guess one test would be what is their past record. Before they were appointed as a trustee were they supporting the cooperative program though their church and our missionaries? Did they invite missionaries NAMB and IMB to speak in their church and take part in mission projects? Do they have a WMU or WOM or what ever name they wish to use? Do they have missions programs for their kids where they learn about SBC missions? Those are not inclusive or exclusive but some questions I would ask to know if they were in it for the politics.
Tim Sweatman
on Jun 1st, 2006
@ 12:50 pm:
Anonymous (June 1, 2:33 AM),
Excellent point. After reading what you’ve said, I’m amazed that no one has brought that up before. I definitely believe that anyone who is appointed as a trustee for one of our missions boards should have a history of actively supporting and promoting missions in their own churches.