This month the IMB BOT will meet in Richmond to begin wading through several issues. Three major issues are on the agenda with more looming.
The first issue was already circulating and is still processing. Paul Chitwood, current president of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, leads a committee that is re-researching the PPL policy and the Baptism guideline (they are not both at policy level, but are both a thorn in the flesh of the IMB). For those wondering what has become of these issues, you may take rest in the knowledge that they are still being dealt with at the IMB. For those who criticized Wade Burleson for speaking out, the fact that these issues are being revisited in such a way reveals much merit to the course of action undertaken by the oft embattled Trustee.
The second issue will be dealing with Wade Burleson himself. Dr. Hatley left a mess by ending the last meeting with more charges against Burleson (violation of Executive Session material) that were later proven invalid at worst and petty at best. He then denied Dr. Burleson’s desire to clarify and answer the charges. I find it interesting how such charges are applied selectivly to Dr. Burleson, when similar charges could have been applied to others, who are more in line with Dr. Hatley’s views, with more frequent and easily documented instances.
The issue with Dr. Burleson seems to be exacerbated by Dr. Floyd’s appointment of committee chairs, with a slight few exceptions, who have all been verbally outspoken against Wade Burleson. Moreover, the illegal recommendation that Burleson be excluded from Executive Committee sessions, made by Hatley when he made inaccurate charges against Burleson, are being challenged. That alone should be very interesting.
Also, the IMB now has the task of dealing with its own house as the SBC referred to it the motion for investigation made by Dr. Burleson during the recent annual meeting in Greensboro. There must be a report specifically addressing each and every issue and it must come to the messengers present in San Antonio. If the Report is unacceptable, the issue is still alive and can be sent to the Executive Committee at that point.
Which brings us to the Executive Committee. No entity did more to deal with the issues raised within the SBC over the last 100 years than the Executive Committee did this last year. There was at least one thing rejected that will now be on the agenda – the occupation of a Trustee post, particularly a leadership post, by a former employee of the same entity. Specifically, the post of Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the IMB, Dr. John Floyd. I am quite convinced this issue is not dead, but will be reworded and revisited in San Antonio.
Interestingly, the Executive Committee has the prerogative of taking up the motion Dr. Burleson intended for them, but the SBC referred to the IMB BOT. They do not need a directive from the SBC to deal with these issues, but may choose to take the initiative. I have no knowledge of plans to do so, but I suspect that there will be such things as this on the agenda.
They gather together in Nashville come September.
With these thoughts in mind, I have constructed a new poll. Look for it on the right hand side, under the MD buttons. Please post the reasoning behind your vote under this post.
[update]
Wade has stated that he will not be attending executive sessions or forums as per the wishes of the past and current chairs.
You can read it on his blog
I will be posting on this next. You can probably guess what I am thinking about this.
[/update]
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Gregory
on Jul 9th, 2006
@ 12:48 pm:
I would be surprised if the Executive Committee did take up the issue of looking into the IMB BoT. I would think they would be glad to have their hands washed of the situation by allowing the referral to run its course. I happen to believe still that the far better option would have been to allow the referral to the Executive Committee, as Dr. Burleson requested. I’m having trouble understanding why allowing a body to investigate itself for wrong doing is a good idea, especially given its lack of willingness to do so in the past. But that’s not what happened and I would guess the Executive Committee heaved a collective, “Whew!”
art rogers
on Jul 9th, 2006
@ 2:48 pm:
Gregory,
You may be right, but judging from what they took on – and won – and given the mood of the convention during Greensboro, I think they might take up the challenge.
Not everything as listed, mind you. Just some of the things of their choosing. In fact, since it was referred to the IMB BOT, they can pick and choose or even come up with even more.
I, too, think that the decision to refer the motion to the IMB was myopic. I know that Dr. Welch (it was his leadership that governed the decision) was trying to be fair and was well intentioned. At some point, though, you have lead in a way that not everyone will like. This was a place for that.
Nevertheless, I do believe that this situation may prove to be an open door to the Exec. Comm., which is the one with the actual ability to effect change.
Kevin Bussey
on Jul 9th, 2006
@ 2:55 pm:
I guess your move went well. I’ll be praying for the transition.
A 10-40 Window Missionary
on Jul 9th, 2006
@ 5:23 pm:
Art,
Welcome to Green Country…I trust the move and your move into the new ministry were/will be all you could ask.
You say that the exclusion of Dr. Burleson from executive sessions is being challenged. To that, I am happy. I have asked in several blogs, but was never answered, “Where are the trustees who agree with Wade Burleson? Why the silence?”
I would hope that Wade is not alone, but have not seen indications outside the blogosphere that he has other trustee support.
Also, what has the IMB lawyer said, if anything, concerning the exclusion of Wade?
TheMDude
on Jul 9th, 2006
@ 10:45 pm:
Art
I wrote elsewhere that it would be interesting to know what churches the new IMB committe chairs come from and how many times and years they have served as committee chairs and/or IMB board members. Are you up to it Art?
art rogers
on Jul 10th, 2006
@ 9:14 pm:
An IMB Missionary asked me to anonymously post this:
The missionary from the 10-40 window asked a couple of questions closely related to my thoughts.
1. Are the BOT meetings that Wade is allowed to attend only the plenary sessions that are opened to anyone? If so this is not really being a trustee at all since he can attend only what any non-BOT member may also attend, except that I assume he still has his expenses paid for and the non-trustees that attend would not. Does he still have voting rights?
2. Dr. Floyd made a comment in Greensboro when asked about the “closed meetings” that at the last BOT meeting they didn’t have any closed sessions. Is he trying to say that under his leadership BOT meetings will be as open as the last meeting was? (I am hoping, but have my doubts.)
3. Lastly, would it be a good idea to write to both Dr. Floyd and Dr. Rankin about our concerns? Years ago the president of the IMB seemed to be the leader of the IMB, now it seems that the BOT have more power than the president. The president seems to have had his powers stripped away somewhat, Wade has had his powers of acting as a trustee stripped away, and as far as I know we as missionaries on the field (I don’t think it is just our region or country) no longer have any voting powers on our fields either. This is way too much power in too few. Are these points accurate? More comments from around the world might help find the answer.
An IMB M”
art rogers
on Jul 10th, 2006
@ 9:30 pm:
10-40:
Wade is not alone, but the voices of the other trustees are not always quoted in the “standard publications.”
I have not heard from the IMB lawyer, but Wade said that his lawyer said it could not be done. Knowing Wade, that will be enough.
MDude:
Good questions, and I will ask. Fair warning, though, I have just started in the new office and am having our stuff delivered (late!) so no promises.
IMB M (anon),
1. Wade and his lawyer say that he is allowed to attend all meetings and vote. They are not able to prohibit him from serving as a Trustee – only the SBC can do that, and that ship has sailed.
He is, however, not serving on any committees within the BOT, which does limit him in a lot of ways.
2. Dr. Floyd did not just fall off of the turnip truck. He did make a statement, but did not directly answer the question. There were no executive sessions last meeting, but the question was about the meetings leading up to the SBC. There were more than there ever should have been, for reasons Executive Sessions were never created to cover.
3. Feel free to write whomever you wish. If you are an IMB Missionary, though, realize this may have a detrimental effect on your service. I wish it wasn’t that way, but I am afraid it is. I don’t think that a letter to Dr. Rankin will hurt you, though, if you are addressing what you have listed here.
Tim Sweatman
on Jul 11th, 2006
@ 5:50 pm:
Art,
On his most recent post, Wade said that he now intends to attend any forums and executive sessions. I believe that is the right move.