Spin Doctors........
My head is spinning. I have no idea what to believe about what happened in Tampa, FL this week during the IMB Board of Trustees meeting. I hear reports from people I know and respect that Dr. Rankin was treated with disrespect. Then we hear that the motion to remove Wade Burleson as a trustee was removed. Later a motion was made to not allow vocal dissent by trustees after a motion has been passed. Then we hear that Wade is not allowed to serve on any committee within the BOT's which makes him a lame duck.
Then on some sites we hear that it was a great meeting. (read here). I am glad that we have 40+ missionaries being commissioned. 
But I can't help but think that there is some major "SPIN" going on! All of this love-fest doesn't hide the fact that there are two new policies for prospective missionaries that don't represent most of the Southern Baptist Convention. I want to be happy about this meeting but unless the new policies are rescinded I will remain concerned.
posted by Kevin Bussey at 3/23/2006 07:21:00 PM
10 Comments:
Kevin,
No one can tell you who to believe in all of this. I would just put forth these ideas.
First of all, we know that the Trustees themselves can now only give partial truths because no negative statements can be made. So, to the extent they speak on the positive things ... they may be telling the truth. I would hate to think otherwise, but they can give only half of the story at best.
Secondly, I feel it is very important to notice the order of the meeting. Jerry Rankin gave his report, and was severely lambasted. Then the policy is put in place that no one can speak negatively (after they get their words in against Rankin). After the policy is in place, they deal with Wade. So no one can speak out against their treatment of Rankin (it is now a taboo subject) or the fact that no apology was made to Wade (because again ... that is negative press).
Lastly, consider there are those who are young in ministry and very much want to trust the "father figure" mentors they look up to. They will grab onto any shred of evidence that everything was sunshine and roses and turn it into a full-on Garden of Eden. There are others who know too well that sometimes those we hope would be fathers/mentors do not really have these young men's true interests in mind, but rather are looking for someone new to control.
There are four different perspectives I see: The ones in control and power who are after control and power, the young ministers who don't want to believe there are power brokers so who are easily controlled, those who know there are power brokers but figure it is ungodly to fight about it and that the work of God can go on even if the "big dogs" are left in earthly control so just ignore it, and finally those of us who feel real change is needed and are willing to take a stand.
These are days when we all must decide where we stand. I believe if you want an accurate report, then look to Benjamin Cole to give you the truth straight up with no spin. But you will have to decide that for yourself, of course.
Dorcas,
Dr. Rankin was, in your words, "severely lambasted." I have no quarrel with your choice of words. I was not present when it occurred, but I was grieved to hear that it happened. However, I don't know how many trustees spoke against Dr. Rankin and the IMB. Was it 10? 20? 30? Ten is far too many in my mind, but 30 is still a minority. Trustees rotate off boards, and we have a lot of people getting involved now that will very soon be influencing who is nominated to be new trustees. Perhaps a decision will be made to attempt a more radical change in the membership of the board. Regardless, I don't think a majority of the trustees attacked Dr. Rankin and the IMB staff in Tampa, did they? How many bad apples are there? I don't know. Our goal is not unreachable. (I don't mean to imply you think it is. I'm concurring with you -- real change is needed, and we have the soldiers willing to take a stand...maybe more than before Tampa.)
Kevin,
You mention the two policies, which I'm taking to mean the tongues and baptism policies. I didn't expect the trustees to reverse them at this meeting. There is a limit to what they can accomplish in three days. I've seen statements over the last 4 months or so about decisions and policies being in the works for 2 years. It seems like this is a very Baptist board...sounds like they have more committees than you can shake a stick at. Their process is slow. I think some of the trustees are sincerely trying to change the slowness of their communication, or somehow try to get in step with the reality of blogs. How the new "Trustee Responsibilities" will affect the desire of some trustees to adjust to the reality of blogs is yet to be seen. But Greensboro will not be for naught. We will have influence there. Perhaps we will be able to make these two policies an issue there. If not, we can all relentlessly express our concerns and disagreements with the trustees. At one point, I thought maybe they were unwilling to listen. I don't think that now. I'd hate to have to be like that constant dripping Proverbs talks about, but a few hundred or a thousand constant drippers might cause some boards to reconsider some things. There are ways to effect change. Our Constitution and Bylaws provide some ways, and the sheer determination of a relentless army also provides some ways.
Listen to what Wade and Rick are saying...really listen. Their optimism is not feigned. Their commitment is not a sham. For all the bad that we might think happened in Tampa, there really were some very, very good things that occurred. For months, we've been focused on Greensboro. Tampa didn't change that. We weren't looking to Tampa for the change we seek. We've been looking to Greensboro. Not everything we hope for will happen in Greensboro. But some very significant things can happen.
And if we'll stay involved beyond Greensboro, we can continue to effect change.
I have to point something out here, and I really mean no disrespect. You are decrying what you see as spin, and I would probably agree that there is a good bit of that going on. But then you say, "there are two new policies for prospective missionaries that don't represent most of the Southern Baptist Convention." I see this statement itself as spin.
While you may not agree with the policies, and you may be well justified in that position, I would suggest that the policies probably do represent most Southern Baptists, especially if you define "most" as fifty percent plus one. Certainly I would have a hard time finding anyone within half a day's drive that would have a quarrel with the prayer language policy. The baptism policy is more complicated, but most folks in the pew, when they read it, don't see the big problem.
I'm not saying there aren't problems with the policies, and the purpose of this comment isn't to argue the policies, but just to point out that to say that most Southern Baptists disagree with them is probably spin.
Anyway, keep doing what you're doing, praising God all the while that He is in control.
Wes,
I will give you the PPL. But not the Baptism. I have never been in any SBC church that would agree with that new policy.
Alright, as I said, I'm not necessarily interested in arguing the policies; I'm still working through my thoughts on the baptism one.
But I will see your anecdotal experience and raise you my own: I've never been in a SBC church that wouldn't agree with it, including the one at which I currently serve. The overriding sentiment here is that if a church doesn't teach eternal security (freewill, AOG, etc.), we can't accept their members without rebaptism.
Again, not arguing the merits, just sharing an anecdote.
I'm glad you're out there. I may need someone to point to if I come out of this process agreeing with you on this one...
Kevin, you served in one for 2 years.
They were ready and willing to re-baptize me for being immersed as a Methodist when I was 11. It was only when I clarified that I had a second date which I considered my date of salvation and was very adamant that I was being baptized "for the first time as a true believer" that they said so during it. Until I met with Andy, it was understood that they were doing it "just in case."
I'm not ok with that. My parents also chose to attend a Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Hattiesburg because the Baptist church they visited was going to make them get rebaptized, even though both had been immersed "as believers" in the Christian church. Granted, my case was 2003 and their case was 1975 or 1976.
Point being- yeah, plenty of Baptists would be fine with that policy. It's common practice in the local church. It's just that we know better because we don't have our heads stuck up our butts. (Not that I'm accusing anybody in particular of such a thing.)
I guess I have been sheltered. I have never been heard any Baptist church make someone who had been baptised by immersion to be re-baptised.
Joe,
Andy never said that stuff to me. I'm sorry for your experience. That church has it's own issues.
I was brought up in an SBC church, but I was also the son of Para-church ministers. My Dad was with YFC for 30 + years and now my parents work for Campus Crusade. I guess I have seen God do a lot thru Methodists, Pres, AoG, non-denom's, Anglicans, Baptists, etc....
Last I remember, Jesus wasn't a Baptist, He was a Jew!
[TONGUE FIRMLY IN CHEEK]
Yeah, until John the BAPTIST got a hold of him; then He started preachin'.
Hey Kevin, it's ok. You had only been there a few weeks. Maybe a month at the most. And disclosure was an issue all around- either too much or too little. I just thought you should know that's how it was there.
Dear Joe,
I don't think it's acceptable in polite society to use such a crass phrase, especially in discussions about the church.
Your parents did right---I admire them. No church should require someone who has already been immersed after conversion to be immersed again for church membership. If a person is requested to be so immersed, he should find another church with which to fellowship.
Dear Kevin,
This second dunking for no good reason requirement is found in many SBC churches. I think it was more strict in past decades than it is now, like everything else.
Dear Wes,
I am within less than a half day's drive of you, and I oppose both new policies for lack of convincing biblical support.
Dear Steve,
If all but three trustees voted for the new KGB no-dissent policy, and a majority voted for the tongues and baptism policies, it indicates that a willingness to play along with the powers-that-be has been part of the vetting process for getting on the board. A handful of people like Dr. B and Dr. McWhite evidently slipped through the cracks. Therefore we do need to TRY to vacate the entire board.
Dear Dorcas,
I was, until recently, one of those who looks up to the father figures in the SBC, and did not want to think they were capable of the manuevres they have pulled lately. (No more!)
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Post a Comment
<< Home