I was surfing around the SBC blog world tonight when I came across a comment that raises some issues I want to address. The blog where the comment was made was Standing for Truth, published by the ubiquitous and pseudonymous (big words, huh?) Villa Rica.
The specific comment was on a post that was really a message from Villa Rica to Kevin Lancaster of YPSBC fame. The commentor identifies himself as “Pastor Joe.” His comment, after establishing his credentials as an active participant in the SBC’s conservative resurgence, is a rather long dissertation describing his coming to a position of opposition to the recent actions of the Board of Trustees of the International Mission Board, and his journey to this destination raises questions for me. I would have liked to address these questions to Pastor Joe, but he does not have an email address on his profile, and confesses to being uncomfortable with technology. Also, and with all due respect to Gene Bridges, I wanted to go deeper than I felt I could in a reasonable comment length.
Here is the relevant paragraph from Pastor Joe’s comment:
I assumed that the trustees were good and Godly men and women and figured that they must have had very strong reasons for this action and that Wade Burleson must had done something very evil or have fallen into some serious doctrinal error, and that in Christian charity they were not giving the details. Indeed, to seek to remove a trustee for anything less would itself be evil, a naked power grab to eliminate the opposition. The BP story listed Dr. Burleson’s blog name, so I went to it. I read it carefully. I did not agree with his position entirely. I probably would vote for the private prayer language policy if I were a trustee – well I wouldn’t, but only because I think the intention was to embarrass Dr. Rankin. However, as I read through Brother Burleson’s blog twice, I was struck by his irenic, kind, fair and balanced words and tone. He acknowledged that others could disagree, but told why he thought it was unnecessary. Immediately I knew that something was seriously wrong. If this very soft-spoken explanation of one’s views by a trustee could get him removed, the SBC had a real problem.
The question raised in my mind is simply this: Why conclude that the board has acted inappropriately based on reading this one blog? He acknowledges that he regularly reads others, but the above paragraph seems to describe the determining of his position. As I said in my post Truth II, two people can be saying different things and both be correct if they are not addressing the same thing in the same way. I have yet to see anywhere a quote from anyone in the leadership of the trustees saying that the vote to remove Burleson was related to his blog or his opposition to the policies. Why is the widespread assumption that this is the case? Why is Pastor Joe’s first assumption in the paragraph I have quoted not equally valid? Could it contain the reason we have not seen specific charges aired publicly?
on Mar 30th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
Nor will you see a quote from them directly blaiming the blog, because it is a groundless accusation and it puts them in a bad light. However, and I know you buy the party line that it was never about the blog, they never denied it was about the blog until they started getting called on it.
Unfortunately, Wes, outside of the leadership itself, not many besides you believe that it was anything other than the blog. Wade clearly states on his blog several times that it was always about the blog. Either he or the leadership are lying. I believe him.
Reply
on Mar 31st, 2006 at 12:20 am
Didn’t one of Hatley’s most recent comments (maybe in an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette) say that the issue wasn’t a trustee having a blog but what was in the blog?
If I am remembering that correctly then isn’t that splitting hairs?
Reply
on Mar 31st, 2006 at 12:51 am
Dear Wes,
Here’s why I believe Dr. B:
He’s told the story at length, explained his reasons at length, and done it all without being ugly to his fellows. I haven’t seen any proof, or really even any attempt at giving proof, that anything he did was wrong.
Here’s why I don’t believe the leaders of the IMB BOT:
They’ve refused to tell the whole story. They’ve accused Dr. B without ever giving any evidence of wrongdoing. They’ve changed their story several times.
It seems clear to me.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Reply
on Mar 31st, 2006 at 12:52 am
p.s.
When Dr. Corbaley started his blog, I was ready to give him a chance. He never did tell his side of the story. When another trustee offers to tell the real story of what happend with Dr. B, I’ll listen with an open mind.
Reply
on Mar 31st, 2006 at 2:11 am
Wes -
If “the Trustees ‘out of Christian charity were not giving details’” is the assumption you wish to believe … ok. But once Wade asked to be given details of what the accusations against him were, I see that was him opening the door for them to provide the details without hindering their own consciences (if following your beginning assumption). Therefore, there was no logical reason to not provide the information later, even if initially you give them an excuse for not providing it.
Reply
on Mar 31st, 2006 at 7:19 am
I appreciate you all taking the time to comment. As I have not kept up (a guy’s gotta sleep), I can’t really hope to fairly address all of your comments, but here are some thoughts.
Art -
You and I should definitely talk less about the IMB and more about beef BBQ. There is one essential on which we agree.
Paul -
The quote I found from Hatley talked about sharing inappropriately in a “public forum.” He is said to have acknowledged in that post-Tampa interview that the blog is one such forum, which indicates to me that there were others, and doesn’t rule out that these others might have predated the blog.
Jeff & Dorcas -
What if their own conscience is not the hinderance to providing specifics, but the possibility of damage to the work of the board. In my conversation with the former trustee, it was intimated that there are some things related to IMB business that are just not talked about publicly, ever. Perhaps the board leadership is in the uncomfortable position of being literally unable to air their side publicly.
Again, thanks to all of you for caring enough to comment. I continue to pray for all involved, as I know you do as well.
(BTW Jeff – we should have lunch soon…)
Reply
on Mar 31st, 2006 at 9:37 am
Dear Wes,
I’m sorry about putting off lunch. I have a house full of sick kids, and my dear wife is sick with them. So my life in the outside world has been postponed until we’re all better!
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Reply
on Mar 31st, 2006 at 9:48 am
Jeff,
God bless you, sir.
I have two little ones, and when they are sick it’s all I can handle. Your family will be in my prayers.
Reply
on Mar 31st, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Wes,
I would certainly agree that there are issues outside of the blog that are likely relevant. But there is a difference between the statement, “I’t not about the blog,” and “It’s about the blog and other things as well.” Those two seem mutually exclusive at an important level and yet both have been maintained by Bro. Hatley.
And just to show my cynical side, I would say that the trustee who thinks airing these things would damage the board is worried about damaging the reputation of the board and not the functioning of the board. Bro. Corbaley has stated publicly that information would be forthcoming soon that would vindicate the board. I think his definition of “soon” and mine are a little different.
Reply
on Mar 31st, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Lynn,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I think you have plenty of company in your position.
In response to what you have said about Matthew 18, here are my observations: That process doesn’t require public airing of charges while they are in the process of being dealt with until it is determined there is no possibility of repentance. Only then should they be taken before the church. More than one trustee has said they have begun this process; perhaps it is still in progress.
Again, thanks for your contribution to the discussion.
Reply
on Apr 1st, 2006 at 5:49 am
‘Lynn’,
I have removed your comment.
If you would like to interact with what I or others have written in this string, feel free to do so.
If you want to make speeches and call people names, get your own blog (they’re free). Or, better yet, publish it on the one you already have. Clever.
Reply
on Apr 3rd, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Wes,
It seems to me that the quote from Hatley in this paragraph:
“Burleson began a blog — a sort of Internet journal — in December and wrote about the policies online. Hatley said the blog itself was not a problem, but some content on it was. Hatley said Burleson aired “information and criticism that is not proper for a trustee to engage in a public forum” and acknowledged that the blog is one such forum.” http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/149663/
is simply a way of defining a blog as a public forum (mostly for the paper readers who have no idea what a blog is). Chairman Hatley’s comment does not imply that Burleson has distributed improper information and criticism in another public context.
You are the only person (that I have read) who has raised the specter of other public occasions where Dr. Burleson has spoken out against the BOT’s decision. Could you please point me to your other sources for this claim that you make in your response to Paul’s post?
In Christ,
Taran
Reply
on Apr 3rd, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Taran,
Thanks for the question.
My only source is the quote itself. Hatley said one such forum, which I read to mean that there were others. You may see it differently, and if we get into singular vs. plural in his statement, you would be technically correct. But I’m not always so technically correct with my syntax, and I find I have plenty of company in this. That’s just the way I see the comment; I don’t deny that it could be seen differently.
I have been told by those in a position to know that the vote for removal was related to behavior that predated last November’s meeting, so perhaps that is why I lean to that interpretation of the quote.
Again, thanks for taking the time to comment.
Reply
on Apr 4th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Wes,
I enjoy your blog very much. I imagine that we will agree on much more than we disagree too, I will have to admit that your stand (though principled and reasonable) on the “Wade Burleson controversy” I must disagree, particularly (in my perception)what I see is a semi-complete vindication of the Trustees of the IMB.
Let me take the following quote of yours to comment upon and ask a few questions. Since you are not a member of the BoT, then you will not be violating any prohibition:
“I have been told by those in a position to know that the vote for removal was related to behavior that predated last November’s meeting, so perhaps that is why I lean to that interpretation of the quote.”
What exactly were you told? What specific behavior was mentioned? Did those who know tell you? And if they did tell you, then does that not violate Matthew 18:15, of which you noted talks about taking and confronting privately those found in sin? And if not, are these who discussed this sensitive issue with you engaging in gossip? Are you engaging in gossip when you repeat these general accusations based on heresay? (Please note that I am not accusing you here – just asking questions in a friendly manner – obviously you have been told more than the average Baptist in the pew, or even some of us Pastors of cooperating SBC churches).
I find it interesting that Wade denies any action which he interpreted to be in accordance with Matthew 18:15 (let alone any action in accordance with 1 Timothy 5:19). Now somebody is obviously not telling the complete unvarnished truth. I tend to believe those who reveal more information than those who do not. That may be human nature. It certainly would be respectful for the BoT at this juncture to come clean and reveal all. The cat is out of the bag. There is certainly no way (IMHO) that the Board or our work can be any less diminished in our eyes, or for that matter to the world. Give God the Glory, reveal the truth, and it will set us all free from this squabble. Wherever Truth lands, I will support her.
Rob Ayers, D.Min.
Pastor, Camp Branch Baptist Church
Sedalia, MO
Reply