I interrupt the series of posts on Pastoral blogging to bring you the response of the IMB to the Wade Burleson motion referred to them by the Convention in Greensboro. Interesting commentary and Baptism and PPL update to follow. ;)
The unanimous response of the IMB, without discussion, adopted in Plenary session.
In response to the motion that “the Executive Committee appoint an ad hoc committee to determine sources of the controversies in the International Mission Board, and make findings and recommendations regarding these controversies, so that trustees of the IMB might effect recomciliation and effectively discharge their responsibilities to God and fellow Southern Baptists by cooperating together to accomplish evangelism and missions to the Glory of God,” the International Mission Board meeting in session on January 30, 2007, respectfully submits the following response:
The Board of Trustees of the IMB, which consists of 89 trustees elected by the Southern Baptist Convention, is convinced that it has, and will continue, to discharge its responsibilities and fiduciary accountability to the SBC in cooperation to accomplish the board’s ministry assignments of evangelism and missions. The diversity of personalities, backgrounds and churches represented invariably is reflected in different opinions in giving oversight to the work of the IMB. This diversity is necessary in arriving at consensus and determining the leadership of God in making decisions within the board’s assigned responsibilities. We contend that any controversies have been dealt with according to appropriate Biblical guidelines and in line with democratic processes and approved board polity.
With the counsel and concurrence of the International Mission Board executive staff, the board of trustees responds to the five concerns expressed in the motion as follows:
(1) The manipulation of the nominating process of the Southern Baptist Convention during the appointment of trustees for the IMB.
The International Mission Board has no authority to speak to the work of the nominating committee elected by the Southern Baptist Convention or to investigate the process by which it does its work.
(2) Attempts to influence and/or coerce the IMB trustees, staff, and administration to take a particular course of action by one or more Southern Baptist agency heads other than the president of the IMB.
It is assumed that any and all heads of SBC entities are concerned about the effectiveness of all entities in order for the SBC to fulfill its kingdom task in the world. While the IMB may exercise authority over its own president and elected staff, we are not in a position to question or investigate the actions and motives of heads of other entities.
(3) The appropriate and/or inappropriate use of forums and executive sessions of the IMB as compared to conducting business in full view of the Southern Baptist Convention and the corresponding propriety and/or impropriety of the chairman of the IMB excluding any individual trustee, without Southern Baptist Convention approval, from participating in meetings where the full IMB is convened.
The IMB does not allow formal business to be transacted in its closed Trustee Forums, but uses this time for prayer, personal testimonies and preliminary questions and discussions regarding issues of mutual concern between senior staff and trustees. Official executive sessions are limited to matters dealing with sensitive personnel actions related to staff, missionaries and/or trustees or those in which public exposure would result in detrimental consequences for personnel serving in sensitive and restricted locations around the world.
Any actions that may be taken to exclude any trustee from participating in closed board sessions by the chairman will have been made with support of the board as a last resort and in order to avoid disruption and distractions to the board fulfilling its assigned tasks with unity and appropriate decorum.
(4) The legislation of new doctrinal requisites for eligibility to serve as employees or missionaries of the IMB beyond the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.
While the Baptist Faith and Message represents a general confession of Southern Baptist beliefs related to Biblical teachings on primary doctrinal and social issues, the IMB retains the prerogative and responsibility of further defining the parameters of doctrinal beliefs and practices of its missionaries who serve Southern Baptists with accountability to this board.
(5) The suppression of dissent by trustees in the minority through various means by those in the majority, and the propriety of any agency forbidding a trustee, by policy, from publicly criticizing a board approved action.
All board approved actions result from a process of committee, and sometimes multiple committees, consideration before they are brought to a plenary session for adoption. All trustees have opportunity in the committee process and plenary session to express and advocate minority opinions. As in any democratic body, once the majority has determined the action to be taken, the board feels that the action should receive the unified public support of all trustees for the sake of effectively moving forward to fulfill our mission task.
The end of this is simply that the BOT of the IMB does not think the SBC as a whole should be telling them what to do and how to do it. This should surprise no one. We already knew that the BOT felt that they had a better grasp on their agency than the general population of the SBC, and especially better than the blogger informed crowd that seemed to support this motion. Frankly, this should be the case. Whether or not it is the case is part of the debate.
As far as my expectations go, this is pretty much what I was ready to receive. When you ask an agency to police itself against accusations that it is failing to police itself, then you can’t expect much else. Also, let me be quick to add that I am sure many on the BOT find the accusations unfathomable and for good reason. I am confident that a great many on the BOT have had nothing but the utmost integrity and forthrightness while serving and have not seen much of the substance of these inquiries. Of course they wouldn’t respond otherwise. IF (note the emphasis) there are those who are guilty of any actions reflected in these inquiries, then they are not likely to respond otherwise, either.
I think that what happens with this report, upon its presentation in San Antonio, is dependent on the Baptism & PPL issues.
Oh, yes. This report does not address those issues. It is my understanding that the ad hoc committees are going to do some intensive work to wrap up their charge and present a final proposal to the IMB BOT at the next session.
Where is the next session of the IMB BOT, where these issues will be decided before the convention?
Why, in MEMPHIS, of course. Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor?
To finish my aforementioned thought, this motion will probably be forgotten if the IMB reverses positions on the Baptism and PPL issues. They are the heart and soul of everyone’s interest with the IMB right now, no matter which side you are on.
On the other hand, if the ad hoc committees recommend no change, or little change, it would seem that there might be something significant on which to vote at this year’s convention. That could be interesting, noting that there is now an attempt by some to start rallying the troops. (Check the comment section of that link for more along those lines.) *In the interest of fairness, I am not sure that the “rallying” actually “started” here, but the term “full slate of messengers” popped up unexpectedly and got my attention.
Up until now, there had been no speculation whatsoever about anything that might be coming up. That’s why I found the link above so puzzling. This was in the context of the Dr.Klouda/SWBTS/Paige Patterson issue, but none of that is eligible for a decision from the SBC. Any attempt to force the SWBTS Trustees to do one thing or the other would be ruled out of order or referred to the Trustees. As long as the Trustees are who they are and there is no significant dissent from within, the point is moot.
That’s why a call to bring full slates of messengers confused me. The only vote we knew would happen… that is… the only vote of MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE that we KNEW would happen, is the one for the office of President. Frankly, I wondered if maybe this wasn’t an attempt to dislodge Frank Page.
I’ll give them all the benefit of the doubt, though. Unless something changes my mind, I’ll just assume that they are expecting to defend at least one of these restrictions and maybe the referral of this motion back to the Executive Committee.
In the end, they may be right. There may be a whole lot to vote on in San Antonio – besides the office of President. We will see.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
