12 Witnesses

Well, believe it or not, I don’t read all the comment threads of many posts any more, so you might be surprised to know that I had no idea that Dr. Hershael York had described my actions and motivations on Wade’s comment thread on this post: The Transcript of the 2007 SBC Debate Over the Motion to Adopt the Executive Committee’s Statement on the Baptist Faith and Message

Wade:

I don’t want to sound like I’m feasting on sour grapes, but I would like to know what “rule” mean. Could you locate the “rule” for me that says that when the President recognized the person at mike 5 to speak against the motion that the other messenger didn’t have to let me speak? If that is so, why do the microphones register a “For” and an “Against” at the same time? If your “rule” were really a rule, there would be only one button pushed at a time. But that is not the case. Because the president alternates for and against, he has the right to call on each mike individually and the person at that mike who is there to speak for or against as he recognizes. Imagine, if you will, that I had been the only person in the room against it. All the other mikes have only people for the motion. I am second in line at my mike, but I am the only one against it. By your “rule” no one would ever get to speak against it.

Wade responded later with this:

Hershael,

You are giving me way to much credit.

I was told that the pages and microphone monitors were instructed that the people at the microphones first were to stay at the microphone until they were able to speak — except for point of orders. In other words, an ‘against’ could not jump in front of a ‘for’ just because he wanted to.

However, I freely admit I may be wrong on the rule given to the microphone monitors. I am just relaying what I was told.

In His Grace,

Wade

P.S. By the way, I think you know by now I have no qualms telling it like I believe it to be.

Apparently, Dr. York doesn’t read my blog, and I can’t blame him. He’s a busy man and has recently posted about his being too busy to post on his own blog, much less read mine.

For everyone that needs to know, I don’t receive instructions from anyone. You can feel free to ask Ben if he tells me what to do. Wade as well. Ask.

The truth about the situation is this:

When the motion first came up, I went to mic 9, where I found Dr. Boyd Luter. It was he who made the motion last year, in Greensboro, to which the EC was responding in the first place.

When I arrived, we greeted one another. Dr. Luter was in his own room the night before, so far as I know. The teller at mic 9 said that if we legitimately wanted to both speak to the motion, one of us should find an open mic. Boyd offered to find one, but he was there first, so I told him to stay and I would find a new mic.

I went forward and found a microphone that was completely empty and I told the teller that I wanted to speak for the motion. I was handed the clipboard and began to fill out the required information. After a while, I noticed someone behind me and who told the teller that they wanted to speak against the motion.

Later, I noticed Dr. Richard Land walking up to the same mic. I turned and introduced myself and he warmly greeted me. Only then did I notice Dr. York’s name tag.

When the chair came to mic 5, Dr. Page asked, “Microphone 5, are you there to speak against the motion?” I responded, “No, sir. I am here to speak for the motion.”

You know by now that he moved on from there, never to return.

When Dr. Page asked for a vote to extend time, I voted, along with Drs. York and Land, to extend the time for debate. I wanted to speak to this issue that has been a burden to me for the last 18 months. I wanted discussion to continue, not cease.

I was told to go ahead and leave by the teller at that mic on at least three occasions, but I stood at the mic until the vote was called for by ballot and I knew I would not have a chance to speak.

A few points of clarification for Dr. York and anyone else who needs to know:

I was in the room the night before, but not to receive instructions. In fact, no one received any instructions in that room. Only information. The situation concerning the motion and the ramifications of our convention’s directions were explained to those interested. And we prayed.

I was at that mic first because it was empty. Drs. York and Land could have gone to any mic, they chose the one where I was already standing, not the other way around.

I voted to extend time in order to speak to the motion.

It was my understanding that I was first in line at that mic, and that the order was to be honored. When the teller pressed the “against” button, upon Dr. York’s arrival, I objected. He told me that the “mob box” would keep everything in order. When they came to mic 5 for the “against” statement, Dr. York objected to him that he should have gotten to speak. The teller told him that I was in line first and that I had the right to the mic.

At no time did I conspire with people to keep others from speaking against the motion. No one tried to flood the mics. Nothing dirty or inappropriate was intended or attempted.

I freely admit that I was unwilling to surrender my position at the mic since both I and the teller were under the understanding that I had the right to it.

If I and the teller were mistaken, then for my part, I can say it was an honest mistake.

I would, however add, that Dr. York did receive instruction from Paul Chitwood, chairman of the ad hoc committee at the IMB on the “guidelines” who came over and gave Dr. York some guidance on how to speak to the issue.

Now, I like Paul. He gave me some time last year to privately discuss the issues at the IMB, and I have always respected him. I saw him earlier in the day, and he introduced me to his wife and told me all that was going on in his life. He asked how things were going for me in Tulsa and wished me well.

I merely point out, that of the two of us, Dr. York was the one receiving instructions about how to handle himself at the mic.

Of course, I don’t begrudge him that, either. He’s a brilliant man, and didn’t need instruction. As I recall, he told Paul, “I know, I have a whole list of things.”

I write this as a simple word of clarification for those who don’t yet understand it. I act on my own. No one gives me instructions. I stayed at the microphone because I thought I had a right to it.

Besides, I wanted people beyond the blogosphere to hear what I have to say about the narrowing of parameters within our convention.

But, I’m almost done. Wednesday marks the shift away from Convention politics. I have another post due to drop at 10:00 am Monday. Tuesday will be my last on this subject, unless it crosses the path of my ministry.

So that you know, I have been entreated by many in leadership and laity alike in the SBC not to quit the political analysis. I can only say that I will do what I must for my wife, children and church. I can’t say that I won’t ever again deal with political issues, but I can say that I really don’t see it happening without a move of God in my life. By the way, I have always believed that God was calling me to address these issues - that it was His plan, and not my own.

A little over a year ago, I struggled with Steve McCoy. On the one hand, I found him insightful and challenging as I was growing in my understanding of being Missional and leading in a Missional way. On the other hand, he had begun to decry some of the political discussions in which I was beginning to invest myself. I would only later find out that I had come late to the party and Steve, Joe Thorn and Marty Duren were among the first to begin to blog about the SBC and its struggles. Someone recently called them the original “Big 3.”

I mentioned that I was struggling with Steve. Really it was more of the concept he was putting forth. The concept with which I struggled was that political engagement would not significantly move the SBC where we all thought it needed to go.

At this point, Steve was on his way out of blogging the SBC and I was full of vim and vigor - just starting. Obviously our takes on the subject were heading in very different directions. His leading SBC blog, Missional Baptist, is now gone from the net. So, we were passing one another in the blogosphere, heading in different directions. I didn’t, at the time, realize that he had been one of the first voices for reform in the SBC in the blogosphere.

This all matters because Steve said a few times, and in various places, that real Missional reform in the SBC is not going to be accomplished by the making of political moves within the SBC. There can’t be anything such as a Missional Resurgence, in other words (mine, not his), because being Missional is about specifically breaking from traditional/political structures and being a more organic source of light in a very dark culture. Steve was saying that the long lasting impact will be from Missional minded pastors and other leaders getting out front and leading by example in engaging our lost culture. Politics would be a short run and ineffective fix.

Well, I went on my journey over the last year and then some, helping to write (I added a couple of words - so that counts ) and host the Memphis Declaration. Of course, I blogged regularly about the IMB policies and then posted what one of my friends called the “definitive tome” on how to do business within the convention in a series called, “The SBC Primer.”

The convention was big. Frank Page was the first President elected not backed by either Patterson or Pressler since the Resurgence began, oh those many years ago [edit] with the obvious exception of Jim Henry. Bobby Welch wasn’t their first choice, but they didn’t try to thwart him either.[/edit] Debate on the floor over resolutions was unprecedented. The nominations from Bobby Welch’s committees were excellent with only one or two personal objections. The Executive Committee took reform into its hands and dealt with several by-law issues that were of paramount importance to many of us.

Looking back, I can definitely say that the convention is different because of some of the things I have said and done over the last year. “Politics” has had some positive impact. But how much and for how long?

At the Baptist Identity Conference held at Union University, I sought out Steve McCoy to tell him I had come to some conclusions about his earlier statement. I had come to the realization that he was right. The best effect we are going to have in making the SBC into a convention for the future is leading by example - politics will not ultimately get us where we need to be. He asked what led me to say that. I responded that it was what I had failed to see thus far. After a year of pouring my life into dealing publicly with Convention issues, I have realized that we are not much closer to the overall change that we need to have in the SBC.

Since that time, we have now had the convention adopt the report from the Executive Committee that calls for agencies and institutions to keep from going beyond the BFM in areas of doctrine. Nevertheless, we have also heard from seminary presidents (and at least one professor) who have told us that we didn’t know what we were doing, and that they would do as they saw fit. The issue is still not resolved, though I have done all I could.

Openness towards conservatives who disagree on tertiary (or what SHOULD be tertiary) issues is still a far way away from us now. Are we closer? Sure. But not much.

Instead, I have observed the IMB BOT change its restrictions on missionary candidates just enough to say that they actually changed them, but not enough to make one shred of actual, practical difference in the way they are interpreted or enforced.

It was at this point that I finally realized the End Game.

I have repeatedly said that I could fight for ten years over the authority of the Bible. Who gets to steer the SBC ship is not that big a concern for me. Yet it is now clear that for the institutions that have placed tertiary restrictions on Southern Baptists who wish to serve through their ministries, loud complaints on blogs just won’t cut it. Backroom meetings might cut it, but then you just replace one group with another, and I need no part of that.

Ultimately, lasting change will come from two things that are available to me: As Steve once said, it will come from young leaders living out Missional Leadership as an example for others to follow and it will come from the election of a succession of presidents that are more interested in cooperation than controlling the minutiae of every SBC entity’s theology.

In other words, the Trustees of those organizations will not change their minds nor their actions because they alienate conservative Southern Baptists. They were choosing to do that last year and nothing has changed on that front. The IMB, in particular, has made it clear that they are listening to their own counsel and the rest of us must simply deal with it.

No, to reverse the policies, the trustees at the two mission boards and the one seminary are going to have to be replaced with people who will choose not to alienate their fellow Southern Baptists. To do that, the SBC will have to elect Presidents that mandate that action through the appointment process over the next eight years. It could take less for the mission boards, but it is my evaluation that it will take a complete overhaul of the SWBTS trustees to make the difference there. This is assuming that the BFM report, now adopted by the convention, has little or no effect. I pray I am wrong, but I will wait and see.

Yes, my voice for inclusion has just called for the exclusion of some who currently serve in leadership. I am saying that those who would exclude fellow conservatives must, themselves, be excluded from leadership for the well being of the Southern Baptist Convention.

I say again, I just don’t think I care to do what I’ve done over the last year and a half for another nine years.

Along with others, I have sounded the alarm and raised the issues. It is time for those leaders who are able to rise up and press the issue of cooperation at the national convention level. I have repeatedly said that I wasn’t seeking national appointment. I realize that I have said some things that may exclude me from service that I might otherwise been privileged to enjoy. Among many, because of my vocalization, I have wounded my own reputation, and I deeply regret that. Not that I think it was wrong to speak, but that I dislike being a person of division, especially when my cry has been for unity.

Ultimately, the more cooperative natured among us, especially those already in leadership, are going to have to step up to the plate and move the convention in the direction that portends a healthy future - given my understanding of what a healthy future is. If not, I am afraid that the politics of exclusion, because it is so ingrained in some of our leaders, will lead us to a future of irrelevance and ineffectiveness.

The SBC is a good thing. I think we may have a bright future, but it is dependant on cooperative minded people showing up at the convention and making sure that their willingness to cooperate with their fellow conservatives is the majority view when we do business.

Instead, I see many of pastors and churches beginning to cooperate around the convention. They are building bridges with other churches and forming networks of their own through which they do missions without the exclusionary politics that they despise.

It’s easier to form new networks than to try and secure the future of the one we have.

I brought a couple of church members with me to the convention. They are former church planters who have a heart for engaging the lost and are doing great things in that area with the Sunday School class they now teach. They are coming because the future of the convention matters. I can honestly say, though, that the thought of worrying about voting and being at all the business meetings just isn’t appealing to them.

So here’s the deal. If those who think that restrictive mindsets don’t belong in leadership don’t start being leaders themselves, showing up at the convention to make a difference in the business of the convention and leading out as an example, then we might as well stop talking and look for another way to do missions, because the talking isn’t doing anything of extended value.

If you would ask me now about the BFM motion now adopted, rest assured, I think blogging contributed a small number of votes to the total. Rather, that vote was won on the floor and Dwight McKissic did more for that than anyone else.

As for me, I am tired of haggling over every detail of convention controversy. Close observers of my blog will be able to note that I have cut back on convention business severely up until the convention arrived this week. It used to be that I wrote daily and the convention was my daily source of opinion - even when I was no where near the SBC. It has been a long time since that happened.

I am continuing down that road, as well. I am going to attend the SBC and I will try to bring messengers for several more years. I will continue to blog here at this website. The substance of my blogging though, will be less and less political in favor of being more and more inspirational (I hope) in my desire to be an example of Missional engagement. I will continue to deal with this convention for another couple of weeks, and then will only blog about the SBC when it directly affects my ministry.

As I make that move, I expect readership to drop. There is nothing like watching a train wreck. Political infighting has made my blog one of the most well read sources in our SBC Blogosphere. That is something that I have no problem giving away.

I expect that my Phriday fotos will get better. I expect that my church will become prominently listed on my blog and that my blog will be prominently listed at my church. They have been separated now out of deference to those in my church who may not feel that I represent them in the political arena of SBC life. I expect that the details of our church’s journey to Missional engagement will be chronicled with more regularity. I expect my picture, along with the pictures of my family will be posted here more often. I expect that I would begin to mend fences with some that are on “other sides” from me within my own convention. I expect we will still vote differently, so long as we are both still in the same convention - which I hope is a very long time.

Sorry for the “Wade Burleson length” post. Expect me to be talking more about other things. If that is not what you’re after, then I am not all that sad to see you go, though I am sad that that’s all your after.

1-4-3!

Ed’s sermon was devastating. I was personally crushed in my spirit being convicted of my distraction from the message of hope to the lost.

Ed also devastated the convention, addressing the BFM, division on tertiary issues and putting the misson first.

The video is a must.

Again, this is another leader among us who has stepped to the plate and called us to unity and mission.

My favorite line (among sooooo many):

Wasn’t the promise of the Conservative Resurgence that we could all agree on the same basic things so that we could all go together to win the lost?

(or some approximation of that)

Danny Akin, just endorsed the motion adopting the BFM, separating himself from Mohler, Patterson and Kelley.

He also said that no issue would be adopted by SEBTS that would keep people from going to share the Gospel. Clearly, in context,
this is a statement that they would not go beyond the BFM with doctrinal issues.

When asked by Marty whether or not he was a cessationist or continualist, Danny said he was a continualist.

When asked by Ben whether or not the Abstract of Principles differed from the BFM, he replied that though there may be nuances, they are not significant. He has specifically separated himself from Al Mohler’s presentation distinctly.

This is an answer to my personal prayers for leaders to step out and deal with these issues.

Let me say first that this will not be a long nor detailed article. I did not stay for the Southern Seminary report. My messengers were leaving to get home so that they could go to work tomorrow, and I wanted to spend a little time with them before they left. I have not seen them much this week and they deserved some time. Not to mention that I enjoy their company.

For the next two paragraphs, all that I am saying has been relayed to me by others. I have not yet read other blogs, but I am also told that they reacted pretty strongly.

I understand that Dr. Mohler used his time during the Southern Seminary report to “disagree” with the convention’s adoption of the EC report.

The impression I received from others (obviously biased against his position) is that he told the SBC that they didn’t understand what they had done, people took those resolutions very seriously, but he and Southern would be doing as they saw fit.

I wasn’t there and the video is yet to be available, so I will withhold personal opinion.

I do understand that Southern and Southeastern have the Abstract of Principles as their faith documents and this motion puts them in opposition to the report now adopted. However, if Dr. Mohler had asked for special permission for the SBC to vote to affirm the Abstract for Southern, I can’t imagine a vote against. I would have spoken for it. Southeastern’s report is tonight and Dr. Akin could have done the same thing.

And, for all you parliamentarians out there, the convention can suspend its rules for governing business with a 2/3 vote. If the leadership would have brought this jointly to the SBC, it would not have been an issue.

Seeking unity under the Convention’s expressed will is not what is being done, here. We now have both Chuck Kelley and Al Mohler explaining to the convention that we don’t know what we are doing.

It smacks of elitism. I have more to say to the issue of elitism, but I am praying about it and am disinclined to pass on to you some personal experiences with it yesterday, but only pass on that I had some.

There is not a lot here, but there are some things in which you may be interested, so I’ll tell you what I think/know.

Almost every resolution published on the internet was either folded into another resolution or declined. This is true for all sides of discussion within the SBC Blogosphere.

CB Scott’s resolution on rescuing victimized children was merged with what he thought were at least two other resolutions. He was very happy with it and it passed, I believe, unanimously. This is not always the case as most resolutions will receive a smattering of votes against for some reason or another. There was some vocal response and some clapping for it.

All BFM/PPL resolutions were declined. The committee did not care to take a specific stand on this issue, but the motion handled it anyway. I thought, perhaps, that someone might try and call one of these motions out of committee to attempt to moderate the adoption of the EC report last night.

Tom Ascol’s resolution on integrity in church membership did not make it out of committee, yet again. This really surprised me. Several people wanted to speak for it, and those that spoke against were Malcolm Yarnell, who thought it wasn’t strong enough, and another pastor who thought it infringed on autonomy. Where was this guy when the Disney Boycott came out? Good grief. The vote looked to be a 50/50 split to bring it out of committee, but a 2/3 majority is needed to override the committee.

It amazed me to see so many Southern Baptists voting against a public stance on integrity.

As you may know, my church dealt with our inflated roll last year, taking our membership roll from just under 1,700 to 255. This had the effect of putting us over our actual membership in attendance on most Sundays now and giving us actual statistical data that is helpful in locating our weaknesses as a congregation.

This topic has gained steam across the Convention with so many, I predict it will continue to do so until it is passed. It may well be that next year’s resolution will be called out of committee, if not brought out by the committee.

I am interrupting my live blogging for a time of much needed sleep.

When I wake up from my nap, I am going to blog about the resolutions from this morning, the “report” from Dr. Mohler, and the overall landscape.

Stetzer speaks tonight and you can expect highly readable material regarding that and other things from me tonight and tomorrow morning. I have several essays that I consider foundational that I will release.

I hate spin. Honesty is so much more refreshing. I try my best to be honest without spin, but am sometimes found having fallen to the temptation.

Morris Chapman’s address yesterday seems to be spin central in the blogosphere.

If you are reading this, you probably know that I believe he made it clear that he and the EC report sided against the additional doctrinal parameters.

Rather than debate this further, I think Morris Chapman can best speak for himself:

Leading by Example! can be found at morrischapman.com or by clicking the link.

An excerpt:

Only a very few years ago it seemed sufficient for all missionaries and Convention leaders to sign the Baptist Faith and Message as a statement of loyalty to Christ and the Convention. Now other doctrines are beginning to be required aside from our adopted confession. It causes one to ask, “Where does it end?” Let me propose two suggestions for future consideration:

(1) Any practice instituted by an entity in the Southern Baptist Convention that has the force of doctrine should be in accord with the Baptist Faith and Message and not exceed its boundaries unless and until it has been approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and secondly,

(2) If an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention adopts a confession of faith separate and distinct from the Baptist Faith and Message and it includes a doctrine unsupported by our confessional statement, the entity should request approval from the Convention prior to including the doctrine in its confession.

Can you spin that to say he hasn’t come out against additional parameters?

First let me say that all other motions, I believe, have either been referred or ruled out of order, so Resolutions tomorrow and Ed Stetzer’s sermon tomorrow night will be the highlights, in my view.

I believe the BFM motion passed at about a 60/40 split. David Troublefield cited some numbers in a comment section earlier, though I am unsure where he got them. Here are a few thoughts.

It is a majority, but not a “slam dunk.” Nevertheless, the Convention has spoken definitively on the issue of narrowing our parameters beyond the BFM. We should be very precise, from this point forward.

Several people had lists of items not covered by the BFM that agencies and institutions had rules about, which they now felt were contrary to the report and the motion, such as divorce, homosexuality and others. I was asked, after the vote, if a similar situation were covered in the BFM. I said, “yes.” The BFM, in Article I, affirms the Bible as authoritative and, therefore, to those things clearly defined in Scripture, the BFM does cover doctrinal statements not listed in other articles. On those things that are not clearly addressed, our agencies and institutions should not establish doctrinal qualifiers on which the convention has no consensus. It is dismissive and arrogant to say there are tons of other things that these institutions adopt as policies that aren’t in the BFM. Behavior restrictions aren’t doctrines. Clearly defined Biblical doctrines are a part of the BFM and are covered. It is only the things around which we have not all gathered upon which our institutions should remain silent. Insert Morris Chapman’s quote from Boyce here, or his own blog article Leading by Example!, or read this applicable article: Boyce answers the bloggers of his day - 3 tests for Doctrinal Unity.

On a practical note, while I don’t want places like SWBTS to have an extra Biblical, extra BFM doctrine as adopted policy, I don’t think it inappropriate for cessationist professors to teach the Bible as they understand it. This statement from the convention does not limit that.

Another practicality is that this motion has the weight of a resolution. The Boards of Trustees can not be instructed by the convention to do a thing. The Boards will continue to vote their conscience before God. If their conscience is bound to represent the convention’s action on this, they will do so. If they feel so firmly that the convention is wrong, they will not change and it will be up to the convention to remove them if they see fit, change its mind on the issue, or live with that of which they say they do not approve.

In other words, this is not over. Those on the Boards who feel that the extra Biblical, extra BFM parameters are not appropriate will point to this motion as leverage to attempt to move their Board back to the place where the restrictions are absent. Success is yet to be determined.

Finally, it is time for the leaders who have indicated that they are in agreement with these sentiments to come out and lead. It is incumbent on leaders to take heat and to address issues that are uncomfortable. Leadership is a responsibility, not a door to privilege. Morris Chapman did this without hesitation today, and Frank Page did so as well, in the introduction of his sermon this morning. Everyone else, to the line, please. Several of our statesmen addressed these issues at the Baptist Identity Conference this year. We need them to make their way to the mic. When I am the one at the mic to defend these issues while men of far greater leadership and academic prowess are absent, the future of our denomination is in jeopardy.

Leaders, you must pick up the issue and be the ones to make of the situation we have revealed something that will be a positive future for all Southern Baptists. You can not continue to allow bloggers or those opposed to our ideas be the ones setting the agenda on these issues.

I’ll post more tonight, but I think the motion passed, and did so decisively.

In depth analysis after I get back from supper with the Alabama contingent.