Buy Xopenex No Prescription Oct 25, 2006
Medrol For Sale Oct 24, 2007
Where Can I Buy Allopurinol Dec 5, 2006
Well, I've made it to the middle of the Texas panhandle, and I'm not yet halfway home. I may not make it tonight.
So I'm in Amarillo, contemplating the Big Texan's offer of the free 72 ounce steak dinner, if you eat it within one hour. According to their website, if you can't eat it in one hour, you won't eat it in two, either. I think I can handle it...
I wanted to share my reflection of the back-and-forth between Tom Hatley, outgoing chairman of the IMB board of trustees, and Wade Burleson. Wade describes the incident on his blog, and my recollection differs slightly from the way it was described there. It is, in my mind, a minor point, but Rob Ayers asked a question about it in a comment on SBC Outpost, so I will share my recollection.
Hatley read what he described as a "special report" of the executive committee, composed of elected officers and standing committee chairpersons. He cited some of the language in Wade's Crusading Conservatives Vs. Cooperating Conservatives(following that link, it's about 2/3 of the way down the page) post from last December, as well as comments Wade allowed to be published on his blog, as examples of how Wade had, in their estimation, broken trust with some trustees. He stated that these and other unspecified actions on Wade's part had hurt personally some trustees who believed their motives were being attacked. He concluded the prepared report by stating his recommendation that Wade not be allowed to serve on any committees of the board in the coming year.
He then said that while that was to have been the extent of the recommendations, he had been very recently informed by IMB counsel* that Wade had broken the confidentiality of the trustee forum held on Monday by publishing details discussed there on his blog. Based on this breech of confidentiality, he was further recommending that Wade be barred from all closed sessions of the board (forums, executive sessions) for the following year.
Hatley was then planning to recognize Clyde Meador, who was bringing the annual personnel review, when Wade stepped to a microphone. Hatley recognized Wade, who stated that he was unsure how specifically he had broken confidentiality, but that if it were pointed out to him, he would repent "on the spot."
Hatley responded that while repentance would be appreciated, it would not change his recommendation concerning the ban from closed sessions, as Wade had demonstrated a pattern of breaking confidences (lack of accountability?). He stated that Wade would need to establish a contrary pattern of repentance in order for the recommendation to change. At this point, Wade again asked for specifics on the accusation, at which point, Hatley said, and this is a loose quote, "You'll need to close that mic, I need to recognize staff for their reports." Wade returned to his seat, and Clyde Meador stepped to the platform and gave his report.
This is, in my memory, how Hatley addressed Wade's offer of repentance. He did not say that it would not be accepted, only that it would not change his recommendation. I don't intend by this post to say that Wade's or anyone else's account of this event is wrong and mine is right. As any trial lawyer will tell you, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and this is simply my eyewitness account to the best of my recollection.
Perhaps when I have driven a few more hours, I'll post some more. Or maybe I'll just sleep...
*In a comment on this post, Wade Burleson said based on a conversation after these events with IMB counsel Matt Bristol that this recollection is faulty on my part. Hatley did mention "IMB counsel" but did not indicate that Mr. Bristol instigated the event as I described. I'm leaving the original wording above so the comments make sense, but I agree with Wade's characterization of Mr. Bristol's involvement.
Wes Kenney
Buy Xopenex No Prescription Oct 25, 2006
Medrol For Sale Oct 24, 2007
Where Can I Buy Allopurinol Dec 5, 2006
Connect with me on the following social networks:
chad May 24 2006 - 8:02 pm
Wes,
I fear I’m too late, but don’t try to eat the Big Texan. I went to law school in Lubbock at Texas Tech, there were always plenty of hotshots that thought they were man enough to eat the 72OZ steak, but honestly, the body is not designed by God to eat 4.5lbs of meat in one sitting. In addition, you have to eat a baked potato, a shrimp cocktail, and a salad.
Most guys would just wind up going up there and eating till they threw up. I did meet one guy who did it, but only one in my three years of living up there. He was a skinny red-headed guy. He told me that he worked out at Furr’s all you can eat buffet for about a month before he at the Big Texan.
Just go to the steak house and get you a nice sized steak, listen to the cowboy band, get some cobbler, buy some stuff for your wife in the gift shop.
Go look at the Cadillac Ranch tomorrow before you leave.
Fair enough report of the “main event” of the IMB meeting. His accusation was couched in terms of a report and he seemed to move his adgenda along in such a way that nobody could really do anything, not even the guy being attacked.
Strange stuff.
Reply
CB Scott May 24 2006 - 8:20 pm
Wes,
Thanks for being there.
cb
Reply
Wade Burleson May 24 2006 - 9:04 pm
This post has been removed by the author.
Reply
Wade Burleson May 24 2006 - 9:06 pm
This post has been removed by the author.
Reply
Wade Burleson May 24 2006 - 9:07 pm
Wes,
I think you may owe an apology to counsel Matt Bristol. He was not the initiator in informing the Chairman of anything. I have spoken to Matt and you have misrepesented this.
In addition, I am quoting from my recollection of what was said by the chairman. I have spoken to Pastor Cummings who sat by me and he recalls it the way I posted it.
Obviously, my words are only a paraphrase based upon memory. However, I will order the audio tape and will put the exact words of Dr. Hatley when I receive it.
I agree that the difference in our recollection is a minor point, but the actions today were reprehensible.
Reply
Wes Kenney May 24 2006 - 9:19 pm
As I said, this is just my recollection. I’m not clear on the order of how Hatley phrased his mention of Mr. Bristol’s involvement, so I’m happy to agree that he did not instigate. I had the pleasure of chatting briefly with Mr. Bristol on Tuesday, and his job is certainly difficult enough without him instigating anything.
It is entirely possible that Hatley went to Mr. Bristol with the information, and mentioned Mr. Bristol during the report to add the perception of legitimacy to his charge.
I hope that clears up your concern, Wade. I try to be a careful observer, but as Mrs. Kenney will testify, it is possible for things to be said in my presence of which I have unclear recollection…
Reply
Jeff Richard Young May 24 2006 - 9:38 pm
Fecik, jog his memory!
Reply
Wade Burleson May 24 2006 - 9:47 pm
Well done Wes.
Concerns completely cleared.
Blessings to you.
Wade
Reply
art rogers May 24 2006 - 11:09 pm
Wes,
Thanks for being there and thanks for the integrity. I have come to see this in you at every turn, whether or not we agree.
Tell me you didn’t try the Big Texan. I, myself, am a Big Texan, but would not try that thing. Plus, if you fail to eat it in the hour, you have to pay for it at like $70 or something. It may have gone up since I moved to Kentucky, though.
Jeff,
I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!
Fecik, you jog him too hard.
Reply
Rob Ayers May 24 2006 - 11:39 pm
Wes,
Thanks for going and giving your perspective. I have written to our Missouri Trustees in the hope of getting a few answers. If necessary, I will take it the MBC which may or may not be sympathetic to Missouri Trustees giving direct answers to direct questions.
I told you that I believed I did my very small part in bridging peace in our Denomination. I believe God has given you the same path in special unique pathways that I could never cross. Your “connections” make you such an ambassador.
Godspeed,
Rob Ayers
Reply
CW May 25 2006 - 12:28 am
Thanks for observing and giving your unbiased recollections. I and many others are glad you attended. I grew up less than two hours from Amarillo and saw the big texan calling me for years. I eventually accepted his challenge and failed miserably. Good luck. . .you’ll desperately need it.
Reply
Wes Kenney May 25 2006 - 2:13 am
I elected not to attempt the Big Texan’s offer. Perhaps it was pre-ordained, if you believe in that sort of thing…
Reply
Rob Ayers May 25 2006 - 7:37 am
I’m glad that you did not attempt it Wes (although I do not know why they call that particular cut of meat a steak – it looked more like a roast I eat with 5 people on Sunday) – I probably would have to come from Missouri to pick up the pieces. I would probably be cranky for you making me come all that way – but would have done so to help out a brother
Rob
Reply
Barry King May 25 2006 - 10:08 am
Why is Wade Burleson, “Wade” and Tom Hatley, “Hatley”?
Reply
art rogers May 25 2006 - 10:20 am
Perhaps because Wes has had a long conversation, face to face, with Wade and not with Tom. Conversations produce intimacy that take us to at least a first name basis, don’t you think?
Reply
Barry King May 25 2006 - 10:27 am
Yes, perhaps that’s the reason. I hope so.
Reply
John Fariss May 25 2006 - 11:21 am
I’m not exactly a “young leader,” even though I think of myself as younger than my 53 years. But one thing my age means is that I have been around long enough to remember events of the late 1970s and 80s in Baptist life. Consequently, unlike a number of readers, I am not in the least surprized at the ferocity or mode of attack to which Wade has been subjected–anybody remember “going for the jugular”? Actually this affirms two things I have believed for a long time.
ONE: what is going on has less to do with theology and the stated issues than it does with CONTROL. And as most any of us pastors who do counseling can affirm, when a person who is into CONTROL feels challenged, they lash out. Of course, I do not know Tom Hatley or Wade Burleson (or any of the trustees) personally, so I have no first hand knowledge about individual personalities. However reports suggest to me that a “culture of control” (to coin a phrase) exists in the BoT, or at least within a segment of it. Consequently, whether Dr. Hatley is an instigator or merely a pawn in it, his words are perpetuating it. Want an Biblical example? Pilate tried Jesus and finding no reason to execute him, offered to release him, following the custom at Passover. All four Gospels agree the crowd demanded the release of Barabbas instead, but Mark 15:11 says it was the chief priests who “stirred up” the crowd. For “stirred up,” read, “manipulated” or “controlled.” It was a case in which control was more important than the real issue, at least to those who thought they were in control.
TWO: related to control is the issue of MATURITY. Individuals, organizations, insitutions, and movements may be mature in their approach and application, or they may lack maturity. 25+ years ago, back home in Alabama, there had been a governor’s election, and the new governor was in the process making appointments. I happened to hear a statement made by the new head of the Alcohohic Beverage Control Board, who said something like, “We have employees at ABC stores who have been there 20 years. But the problem is that they don’t have 20 years of retail experience, they have one year of experience that they have repeated twenty times!” Most of us know church members who have been Christians for 20, 30, 50 years, whatever–but some of them don’t have 20, 30, or 50 years of Christian growth and maturity, they have one year of Christian growth that they have repeated year after year. I strongly suspect that a lot of the squabbling and fussing that is done within our convention (at the BoT, in our churches, and yes, in blogs) are directly related to our maturity levels–or rather our lack of maturity. I urge we all pray for maturity(beginning for ourselves)–for the sort of maturity which Solomon and the Book of Proverbs calls “wisdom,” and which Paul and Peter urge (Ephesians 4:15, 1 Peter 2:2, 2 Peter 3:18). It works, folks. John LeLand wrote about Baptists who split and tried unsuccessfully to reunite in the late 1700s through argument, negotiation, and complicated documents; he said they succeeded only when they decided “to think and let think.” (See “The Virginia Chronicle” in The Writings of the Late Elder John LeLand; New York: G.W. Wood, 1845, p. 111; reprinted by Church History Research & Archives, 1986). None of us are called to be door-mats; but we are expected to speak and act with Christian maturity, even when we interact with brothers who do not.
I hope to meet many of you in Greensboro.
Reply
Anonymous May 25 2006 - 12:26 pm
Thanks for a feel is a more realistic accounting of the events in New Mexico. From what I have read on Wade’s blog – I feel that he has provided a forum for people to blast the BoT. People have judged them as a group and they are individuals and to claim to know their mind and motives I feel is unscriptural. Mr. HAtley seemed defensive – but after reading through all of the blogs on Wade’s site – I think if I were any trustee I would be quite upset at the way I was being portrayed. In some ways – Wade has provided a forum for people to drag the Bot through the mud while conveniently staying above the fray himself. That is a great strategy – let others attack but provide the forum for them to do it. Then stay above the fray and become a saint – from reading some of the Burleson blogs you would think that Wade Burleson was the one sitting at the right hand of the Father. I am frankly disgusted at some of the actions of the trustees – but equally disguested by the manner in which the BoT has been attacked in Burleson and others blogdom. It has become a forum to whip up support for their planned strategy for Greensboro. I have a proposal: Everyone stop blogging and spend the next few weeks leading up to the convention besseching the Lord in prayer for our convention and then eveyrone on both sides go to the convention and vote their conscience. And if God is truly Sovereign then we can trust Him for the results. Isn’t God bigger than a blog. I realize this is a far out idea – to spend time in prayer – but I guarantee that would be a much wiser strategy than continuing to throw mud around the internet.
Reply
Kiki Cherry May 25 2006 - 12:27 pm
John,
Were you a missionary in Brazil for a while? I remember some Farrises who came to Zimbabwe to teach our Portuguese-speaking seminary students in Gweru.
Are you one and the same?
Reply
John Fariss May 25 2006 - 1:18 pm
No, I was never a missionary, and I can barely speak English (Southernese being my native language). In fact, I came to Christ only in my mid-20s and to my calling, seminary, & the pastorate in my early to mid 30s. But while at seminary, I had professors who got me mixed up with another “John Fariss” (or Faris or Farris or Pharis or. . . .) who was then a missionary, I think in Africa. Now, living in Maryland, I am sometimes mistaken for the John Faris who is in finances at our Baptist Convention of Maryland & Deleware (I tell ‘em, if you think I’m him, send me your checks and you’ll find out).
Reply
70 year old Brother in CHRIST May 25 2006 - 1:55 pm
John Fariss said what I have seen in the Churches of today. If one is a Christian they would want to Know GOD by reading his WORD and PRAYING. Sad that so many Church leaders are selected because of their Worldly status, I was elected as a elder because I was a Bank VP. When I became a Born Again Christian I resigned and joined a Baptist Church.
LOVE in CHRIST
Reply
chad May 25 2006 - 5:58 pm
anonymous,
I like the way you took the high road to tell everybody to stop blogging as if it is sinful, or as if it is being done in place of prayers for the convention.
So a blogging fast doesn’t seem like a bad idea, but blogging isn’t like watching TV or eating french fries, it is like lifting weights. It is a good thing.
there is nothing wrong with spending time writing and thinking about these issues.
Think about how the blogs you read gave you several different accounts to chew on to determine what happened at the meeting. The bloggers weren’t telling lies, they were trying to get to get it right and to get the information refined. The comments point out the weakness of the account or argument, and the commenter can call the writer on the floor if he needs to.
Look how you were even given a place where you could say how much you don’t like Wade Burleson and Wes posted it.
What do you propose, letting the BPnews do all the writing? Or should BP writers also take part in the writing fast, or just these pesky bloggers? Can bloggers not pray and blog at the same time?
Chad Edgington
Eastland, Texas
Reply
Anonymous May 26 2006 - 5:31 am
Chad,
Gossip: a group of people sitting around talking about someone behind that person’s back – the content could be true, could be false, could be distorted – but it is gossip because the person is not there to respond – down through the years this has not been considered appropriate behavior for a believer.
Blogging: a group of people sitting around a computer talking about someone or someones – the content could be true, it could be false, it could be distorted – but oftent he person is not there to respond for a number of posisble reasons
It is really easy to often make juicy prayer requests and say that we really need to pray for someone because he has done this or that and then give all of the details – and then piously pray for them. In many ways this is merely gossip disguised.
By the same token you can piously say how healthy it is to discuss issues – however unless there are BoT members whose motives have been quesiotned – there to repsond to the blogging – it is then still gossip – no matter how you try to sugar coat it with other terms.
By the way I am not upset with Wade or anyone else – it is blogging that I find rather unsettling.
I have been a misisonary for a number of years with the IMB and what I read on blogs grieves me for those on both sides and for our missions efforts. I stand by my previous post – and will not repsond again because where I live there are so many lost people that live here – that if I took the amount of time that I could be blogging and went out among them – I would not run out of lost people. I guess in Texas there are no lost people so you have plenty of time to blog or else you feel those who are lost have been fore-ordained to be that way so why waste your efforts on them. So go ahead and blog and pray – I will be out witnessing and praying as this is my last blog.
Reply
GeneMBridges May 26 2006 - 11:42 pm
Gossip: a group of people sitting around talking about someone behind that person’s back – the content could be true, could be false, could be distorted – but it is gossip because the person is not there to respond – down through the years
Blogging: a group of people sitting around a computer talking about someone or someones – the content could be true, it could be false, it could be distorted – but oftent he person is not there to respond for a number of posisble reasons.
In gossip, the content is person to person, face to face, and done in secret. The persons being discussed are kept in the dark and cannot respond or kept from responding. In blogging anybody and everybody can read it, and, on top of this, most of us post under our real names with profiles telling information about us. In addtion, a blogger account is free and they can (a) create their own blog to rebut or (b) create their own ID and speak up. In blogging we do a pretty good job of policing each other as well. It is not uncommon for one blogger to speak up and contradict or correct another. Wade did so in this very comment thread.
You’ve made a category error and played truth by definition. The two are not remotely related, and you’ve employed two logical fallacies.
By the same token you can piously say how healthy it is to discuss issues – however unless there are BoT members whose motives have been quesiotned – there to repsond to the blogging – it is then still gossip – no matter how you try to sugar coat it with other terms
(A) They can certainly do so if they wish.
(B) Thank you for admitting that not all of them are there and that not all of them are even aware of what is going on. This is an argument v. the Board taking group offense with Wade when the whole group hasn’t read anything on his blog.
(C) Wade is NOT the only blogging IMB trustee. There are others. Two of them, of which Wade is one, are not yes-men for the Board.
(D) When one discusses public information, then one is not gossipping. Gossiping involves secrecy. Blogging is done in the open, and the content of the information about the IMB is all public knowledge.
(E) Apparently its okay for the IMB to have a caucus group that meets in secret but not for individual trustees to blog. Let’s be clear here.
(F) Apparently, its okay for you to impugn the motives of others yourself in your effort to stand against speaking about other’s motives. I wasn’t aware one could sacrifice godliness for the sake of “the cause” whatever cause that might be.
I guess in Texas there are no lost people so you have plenty of time to blog or else you feel those who are lost have been fore-ordained to be that way so why waste your efforts on them.
(a) You had time to use ad homineum invective. You claim to be concerned about souls, but you took the time for invective vs. your brothers. Ah well, what’s a little thing like consistency?
(b) You’ve conflated fatalism and determinism in a swipe at Calvinism Not only do you not have an exegetical leg on which to stand v. election and reprobation, you don’t understand the basic difference between fatalism and determinism. If this is what passes for theological teaching these days, then I submit you’ll keep your converts in the crib. Why do we waste time on them? Hmmm, well we don’t know who the elect are that’s why.
(c) As to your note about time blogging v. time witnessing, well that’s why we practice a little thing called time management. For all the times people raise this “concern” you’d think that the main purpose of the church is to do personal evangelism. I’ve got news for you: if that is so, then the Church will be failing to live up to its primary purpose in the eschaton. There is nothing wrong with blogging, just as there is nothing wrong with reading a good theology book from time to time. You may want to try that sometime.
Reply