Buy Xopenex No Prescription Oct 25, 2006
Medrol For Sale Oct 24, 2007
Where Can I Buy Allopurinol Dec 5, 2006
Medrol For Sale, For what it's worth (and readers are certainly free to conclude, "Not much"), I've determined to weigh in yet again on the controversy that has surrounded the service of Wade Burleson as an International Mission Board (IMB) trustee. I do so with trepidation, and only in response to Wade's publication of a letter sent by California trustee Jerry Corbaley to all IMB trustees, 30mg Medrol, in which he details many of the more recent blog conversations that, Medrol coupon, taken together, contribute to the overall understanding that Wade clearly believes himself to have done nothing wrong at any point in the last two years. I have written a good deal about this subject over the last 20 or so months, Medrol us, and I don't intend this post to be a recounting of all that I've written previously. 40mg Medrol, But I have followed this saga as closely as anyone, and I want to share some observations.
This present round of blog activity centers on Wade and Jerry, 250mg Medrol. I know both men personally, Medrol For Sale. I've shared meals with both of them, Medrol craiglist, on one occasion eating with both on the same day. They are both personally very likeable men. I've tried to observe impartially all that has taken place, 200mg Medrol, and I've come to the conclusion that all of the controversy is, Medrol canada, at its essence, all about Wade Burleson.
At the beginning of my blog journey, Medrol paypal, I was really very sympathetic to Wade. I knew him only from his having been president of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma Medrol For Sale, (BGCO), and I went out of my way to see things from his perspective. 750mg Medrol, But I began to notice a separation: Those who were observing from afar (and not a few moderates who had left the SBC) were flocking to Wade's defense, while those who knew him closer up were reluctant to be supportive. Even one former IMB trustee, 500mg Medrol, who agreed with Wade's opposition to the two controversial missionary guidelines, Medrol ebay, expressed an understanding of the motivation of those seeking his removal. It was because he had been in an association of churches with Wade, and knew his personality, Medrol overseas.
When Wade was in his first year as president of the BGCO, 10mg Medrol, some financial restructuring took place related to how birthday offerings were distributed to the Oklahoma Baptist Homes for Children and the Baptist Village Retirement Communities. From all I have been able to gather (not having followed it closely at the time), this restructuring was desperately needed, Medrol For Sale. As you can imagine, anytime you deal with funding for children's homes, Medrol japan, it is a sensitive matter, 50mg Medrol, but the negative reaction and controversy that erupted was extreme, and those with whom I've talked tell me that this was due in large part to how the situation was handled by the president. He was apparently bombastic and bullying, 20mg Medrol, and his handling of this situation led to the almost unheard-of step of him being opposed for a second presidential term. Medrol usa, This opposition, according to one of the organizers of it, was poorly thought out and hastily arranged, Medrol india. With just a few phone calls being made in the days before the meeting, Medrol mexico, it only failed by a few dozen votes out of nearly a thousand cast. Medrol For Sale, When I considered this episode alongside the fact that at least two-thirds of the IMB trustees voted to ask the SBC to remove Wade as a trustee, I began to wonder if perhaps the problem was not all the other people with whom Wade has worked in denominational life, but perhaps the problem was Wade himself.
It may be that this latest effort on the part of Jerry Corbaley to have the trustees deal with this is a case of too little, too late, Medrol australia. I understand that, 100mg Medrol, from Jerry's perspective, to have the board continue to tolerate what he views (not without justification, in my opinion) as unrepentant sin is detrimental to whatever else the board does, 150mg Medrol. At the same time, Medrol uk, I can certainly understand the trustees, especially those who were recently added to the board and who were not a part of the January 2006 vote, wanting to simply ignore the situation and go on with the work for which they were elected, 1000mg Medrol. I honestly don't know what the best solution is.
Wade clearly has the rare ability to present himself to a wide audience as a very attractive personality. What he seems to lack is the capacity to work closely with people with whom he disagrees while maintaining that attractiveness.
Similar posts: Buy Imitrex Over The Counter. Hormone For Sale. Buy Augmentin Over The Counter. No RX Motilium. 30mg Hormone. 500mg Xopenex. 500mg Hydrochlorothiazide. Xopenex craiglist.
Trackbacks from: Medrol For Sale. Medrol For Sale. Medrol For Sale. Medrol For Sale. 100mg Medrol. 30mg Medrol. 150mg Medrol. 200mg Medrol.
Wes Kenney
Tim,
I’m quite sure you are right about the funds for the painting. My response, however, would be this: If a donor approached you and said, “Brother Tim, I want to pay to commission an artist to produce a $90,000 painting of you in your office and we will hang it in the church foyer,” how would you respond to that? I know we’ve sparred in the past, but I still suspect that you are a humble guy and you would probably talk to that well-meaning person and with all of your pastoral leadership do what you could to talk them into designating that money towards missions or some other ministry-related project. I think this would be doubly true if you had already had a $69,000 painting of you commissioned once already.
The issue is not whether the painting was made with CP money or whether the money was designated for one thing and then spent on another. The issue is one of leadership. With all his persuasive abilities Dr. Patterson should have been able to talk that donor into spending that $90,000 on missions or student development or scholarships or some such while he was half-asleep. That he did not says something about his leadership that I cannot find a way to admire. Quite the opposite.
Karen Scott Oct 25 2007 - 3:59 pm
Brother Tim R,
CB is not here, but we have discussed this at length and here is his answer when this question was already asked of him.
Does the source of money really matter? It has the appearance of extreme vanity. It is hard to comprehend spending over a $100,000.00 of anyone’s money to have a portrait painted that will only serve to remind folks in the future of excessive waste in ministry.
Tim, I personally doubt that a donor would have been offended if Dr. Patterson had contacted them and expressed appreciation for their generous offer of a new portrait, but requested instead that the money go for student scholarships, the new chapel or legal expenses. (This portion is mine).
Karen
Robin,
Thank you for the compliment, although I assure you that I have no desire whatsoever to be a “noble debater.” There are a lot of things I want to be, but noble debater is not among them. I want to be successful. I want to help people. I want to work hard, and make my boss glad that he hired me. But I could care less about debating.
Most of all I want to do what Jesus said. Love God. Love people. That’s pretty much it. I am sure that’s what you want too. But with your single-minded devotion to discredit a guy like Wade, it would be hard to tell.
I have been out of SBC politics for a while now, gladly so, and I don’t have all the answers you seem obsessed with getting. I never got answers for why Falls Creek renovations were pushed through without a proper vote, and now they are begging for money to finish the job. I never understood how mega-church pastors can violate the terms of service on the BOD for the state convention, and get away with it. I never understood why Gordman’s asks for my phone number when I buy blue jeans. Some things just are.
I have determined that I am going to love people, offer grace where others would pronounce judgment, and do the best I can to live for Jesus. If there are injustices going on, I want to try to point them out. I will call a spade a spade. But I will no longer blindly assume that the people in charge lack corruption. And I won’t waste precious time attacking the character of another.
Maybe Wade didn’t release the names you so crave, because he doesn’t think it is any of your business. Or maybe it just doesn’t matter.
volfan007 Oct 25 2007 - 4:13 pm
jason,
you made this statement concerning wade and what wes has said…..”And I won’t waste precious time attacking the character of another.”
does that go for dr. patterson as well? do you include him in this statement? and, would you castigate wade and the sbc outpost crowd for thier attacks on dr. patterson and dr. land and dr. mohler and others?
just wondering if it cuts both ways with you.
david
Robin D. Foster Oct 25 2007 - 4:18 pm
Jason
But it does matter. When it is said that Wade was recruited to get rid of Dr. Rankin, then names should be given in order to not leave us guessing at which trustees did so. Don’t you agree that the innocent should remain so?
I am in agreement with Tim. This whole thing should have been handled behind closed doors with the BoTs, but it became public.
Gary Snowden Oct 25 2007 - 4:32 pm
Robin,
Your inconsistency here amazes me. You demand of Wade that he produce names of those who recruited him to oust Dr. Rankin, and in the same comment you insist that the whole thing should have been handled behind closed doors by the BoTs. On the one hand you want full disclosure when it suits you, and on the other you demand secrecy when you deem it convenient.
Robin D. Foster Oct 25 2007 - 5:53 pm
Gary
I will try to be kinder to you than you were me as I attempt to explain this again.
Yes, before any public statement was made concerning Wade’s recruitment, it should have been handled behind closed doors.
Since it became public, all the trustees were suspect as to recruiting Wade. Who did it? Did anyone do it? If I was a trustee, I would not want anyone to suspect me of doing something I didn’t do. So since it moved from the private realm to the public, full disclosure is necessary to keep those who are innocent from false allegations.
It is not a matter of convenience, it is a matter of right and wrong.
Gary Snowden Oct 25 2007 - 6:24 pm
Robin,
My apologies for the earlier tone of my previous comment. You were correct in admonishing me for that and I offer you my sincerest apologies. I re-read it after having clicked on the submit comment icon and regretted having expressed myself that way.
That being said, if Wade’s accusations are true (and here we will surely have a difference of opinion), how do you reasonably expect that the same group that is engaging in caucus-type activities to undermine Dr. Rankin’s leadership will police themselves? That’s very much akin to what happened when Wade’s motion at Greenville was referred back to the IMB BOT. In a perfect world where no conflicts of interest existed and everyone’s integrity was unquestionably sound, that would function quite well. Where charges have been made of cronyism and recruitment to factions within a BOT, the very presence of those charges ought to suggest outside mediation rather than internal policing, else one might well face the old familiar example of the fox being asked to guard the chickens.
Robin D. Foster Oct 25 2007 - 6:53 pm
Gary
No problem, I hope it is fair to assume that you appreciate Wade and in fact support him. In your defense, I also will speak up for those I care about. Sometimes my passion for my friends get the best of me. Your reaction, in a sense, was very noble.
Concerning your statement about the IMB being able to police themselves, if what is said is true about caucus groups, there were still a sizable amount not involved in those groups. Wade has spoken of people on the BoTs who support him. Again, if what you are saying is true, I would hope that others would stand with Wade. Therefore, if this is the case, I do believe something like this (Wade’s recruitment reason) could have been dealt with privately without leaving the whole board suspect.
Thanks for talking with me. I have to run
God Bless
Hi David. I’m not really sure how to respond to your question. I do not have a problem being critical of a person on a blog. But when it is the kind of baseless stuff I read regarding Wade, it serves no purpose, but to destroy a person’s morale and possibly their reputation. So if Wade has done nothing to deserve these attacks, has Dr. Patterson? I probably would not be the foremost expert on that. I don’t know him that well. I have dined in his home, and spent time with him on a personal tour of his library and his collection of hand written sermons by Spurgeon. We have sat and talked in his study, and have fellowshipped together. But I’m sure that you guys know him a lot better than me.
My question to Robin, and David too, is this: Would you find it out of character, or unusual, for a group of men to attempt to orchestrate the removal of a person in a place of authority? Seriously. If I said to you that a group of church men had grown discontent with a leader of an organization, and those men attempted to put people in position who were sympathetic to their cause, would that surprise you?
Robin D. Foster Oct 25 2007 - 8:59 pm
Jason
Speaking generally, are some organizations capable of doing this? Yes, we are all sinners. Do all organizations do this? No, but when this happens it must be addressed.
If it comes out in public that this happens in a specific organization, then specifics must be mentioned so that innocent people will not be suspect.
Wade Burleson Oct 25 2007 - 9:08 pm
I deeply appreciate people like JasonK, Debbie Kaufman, Jim Champion, Karen and CB Scott, Gary Snowden, and Paul Littleton giving their views on this comment string. They are all very articulate. I do not attempt to comment on every blog that uses me as the subject of a post, but my brothers Wes and Robin are deserving of a response.
First, I confess to being confused about Wes’ intent in posting this piece and puzzled by Robin’s comments. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that they both are attempting to ruin my reputation in the eyes of other Southern Baptists by casting doubt on my leadership abilities (i.e. ‘bullying and bombastic), my moral character, (i.e. lving in ‘unrepetant sin’), and my personality (i.e ‘those who know him are reluctant to be supportive . . . (because they) know his personality’).
Let me be clear. I do believe that Wes and Robin are more than welcome to share their opinion about me in the blogworld. But for them to draw a conclusion about my leadership, my character, and my personality, they have to both know me and to work close with me – which is not the case. As Debbie Kaufman, a church member and friend of mine for many years correctly writes, ‘Wes, having lunch with Wade does not mean you know him.’
However, what baffles me about this post is the seeming use of gossip and rumor to ruin the reputation of a brother in Christ by two men who have in the past identified these sins as very serious. I wish to show Wes and Robin the exact sentences where gossip is used, and why it seems to me to be the antithesis of the Christian ethic Jesus Himself established for those of us who follow Him.
If Wes had observed firsthand my leadership of the BGCO through restructuring, he would be well within his Christian right to say, “I found Wade to be bombastic and a bully.” That would not be gossip – it would be a statement of what Wes himself feels. As I said, that kind of first-hand statement would be very appropriate in the blog world, particularly if that sentiment had been communicated to me earlier in private. Sure, it would be aggressive in nature, but respect is due the man who speaks his beliefs and puts his name behind his beliefs.
However, Wes wrote: From all I have been able to gather (not having followed it closely at the time) . . .the negative reaction and controversy that erupted was extreme, and those with whom I’ve talked tell me that this was due in large part to how the situation was handled by the president. He was apparently bombastic and bullying.’
This is gossip because it is not first hand knowledge. The issue is not that no names are given, nor specific support cited, but rather, Wes is saying something of which he has no first hand knowledge – and is practicing what the Bible calls ‘gossip.’
Now compare that to my allegation two years ago that there were some trustees working behind the scenes, in concert with at least one other agency head and in violation of our blue book and constitution, to undermine Dr. Rankin’s leadership and, if possible, to terminate him. This is not gossip because the words said to this effect were heard by me, the actions taken to bring this about were seen by me, and the caucus meetings held by a small group of trustees to undermine Dr. Rankin’s vision were broken up by me – after I myself had been invited to participate in those very meetings. In other words, I have first hand knowledge.
Now, here comes the rub. I have chosen not to reveal the names of the people involved ‘to protect their reputations.’ I not only have their names, I have confronted each of them privately, spoken to them personally, and told them I believed we should stop the back door narrowing of the doctrinal parameters of mission cooperaton and fellowship to exclude fellow Bible believing, Christ-honoring Southern Baptists from service. We should lay down our political in-fighting swords, love each other deeply, accept our different interpretations of Scripture, and focus on missions. I have repeatedly said that this group of trustees that were undermining Rankin compromised a minority of the board in 2005 – not the majority. I have also repeatedly said that during the past two years (2006-2007) the complexion of the board has changed. Under the leadership of Dr. John Floyd the board has actually been doing – even behind closed doors – the very thing God has called us to do – support the vision of President Jerry Rankin, hold administration accountable for the implementation of that vision, and support our missionaries in the field.
By the way, I have revealed the names of those trustees involved in the attempt to undermine Rankin, provided all the documentation in the form of emails and letters, and presented the specifics of my first hand experiences in the form of an affidavit just once – to a group of Southern Baptist leaders from all across the United States in February of 2006 in a meeting held in St. Louis, Missouri. The chairman of the IMB board, who has since rotated off, was at that meeting, as well as members of the Executive Committee of the SBC, administrators of the IMB, attorneys, and two people I requested to be present. The details of that meeting have not been released to the trustees of the IMB, the SBC at large, or anybody else – but the materials I presented are not only still in my possession, they are currently being placed in narrative form. The IMB trustees have never requested to see the evidence and I have never given it to anyone other than that group in St. Louis.
I did, however, ask on three separate occasions in the fall of 2005, via written email, to address these issues of undermining Dr. Rankin before the entire board, behind closed doors, in order to keep it a family matter. The recommendation for my removal came just a few days after my last request. I, of course, still have those emails. I was never afforded the opportunity to present the material. The IMB trustees never discussed it.
But, one month after the St. Louis meeting, at the urging of the former chairman of the Board of the IMB who himself was one of only three IMB trustees who heard the presentation with the other convention leaders, the entire trustee body unanimously rescinded the recommendation for my removal. I never issued an apology for anything I had written on my blog, and I made it clear before the entire board that I would not issue an apology before they voted to rescind the motion for my removal. You can’t apologize for telling the truth.
The IMB board of trustees have still – to this day – never heard a presentation from me regarding the basis for what I posted in December of 2005 – and as far as I am concerned, will never need to hear it. In less than a year, 40% of the trustees will be new and have no knowledge of the events in 2005. We’ve moved on. The only people who seem not to put it behind them are those (like Jerry, Wes and Robin) who continue to write that I am in unrepetant sin because I have never apologized for what I’ve written.
Now, back to Wes’ post. Wes says, Even one former IMB trustee, who agreed with Wade’s opposition to the two controversial missionary guidelines, expressed an understanding of the motivation of those seeking his removal. It was because he had been in an association of churches with Wade, and knew his personality.
Once again, Wes uses gossip to seek to destroy my reputation. This ‘former trustee’ is not named, has never approached me about issues he may have with my pesonality, etc . . . Wes obviously feels comfortable with sharing this information to reinforce his belief. Once again, Wes is not saying anything about his experience with me, but rather, gossipping about others and their experiences with me. Sadly, Wes has not chosen to contact the members of my church, the administration of the BGCO, or others with whom I have worked closely for several years, but rather an unnamed former trustee who has served with me in an association of churches. Other than the fact that no two trustees can simultaneously serve from the same Southern Baptist association of churches – and I have been in my association for the past sixteen years and no other pastor from our association has ever served as a trustee of the IMB – I would have serious doubts about the veracity of this anonymous comment. I have often said that ‘anonymous sources are as weak in content and singular veracity as the soul of the one who writes them is void of character and spiritual vitality.’
Wes’ closing paragraph states: Wade has the rare ability to present himself to a wide audience as a very attractive personality. What he seems to lack is the capacity to work closely with people with whom he disagrees while maintaining that attractiveness.
Rather than seeking to defend myself on this issue, I will leave that to others who have actually worked closely with me. Nevertheless, I find it ironic that the very thing I have advocated for two years – ‘cooperating with Southern Baptists who hold to different views regarding tertiary issues for the purpose of missions and evangelism’ – is the very thing Wes says I can’t do. Of course, I’ve learned that not everyone thinks as logically as I – for some still don’t see the illogic of passing a guideline that disqualifies the president of an organization from serving as a new employee of the very organization he purports to lead.
Well, I apologize for taking so much space, but I felt this would be a good opportunity to show how one can specifically point out when something that is written violates Christian character and conduct – and then show how it does. I know what it means to easily and quickly forgive. I have a ready and quick heart to forgive both Wes and Robin for what I believe to be a blatant attempt to ruin my reputation and character in the eyes of fellow Southern Baptists.
I learned a long time ago that you must have tough skin in the blog world. I’ve developed it. But I’ll never lose the ability to tell my brothers in Christ exactly what I think – and put my name to it. May the Lord bless Wes’ and Robin’s ministries, and may they never be the recepients of a similar undermining of character through gossip and rumor.
In His Grace,
Wade
P.S. I have used up my allotment of space and time on this subject and will be unable to respond to any follow-up comments.
Robin Foster Oct 25 2007 - 9:46 pm
Wade
Thank you for responding. Even though the length of the comment is long you have yet to answer a simple question. Who called you to come join the hunt for Jerry Rankin. If this did not happen then say so now. If this did happen then spill the beans and don’t leave the entire board suspect over this accusation.
I have not accused you of anything. Nor would it be my desire to ruin anyones reputation. Which I find that funny. If anyone asks questions of your actions then they are trying to ruin you, but if you do the same with Dr. Mohler or Dr. Patterson, then you are only protecting Southern Baptists from tyranny?
As you know, we have had more than just a simple lunch together. I have begged and pleaded with you to change your tactics through emails, phone conversations, and face to face. To no avail.
I decided to come out of my comment hibernation because several people had accused trustees of asking you to come on the board to fire Dr. Rankin. I asked for names. I never said this did not happen, I only wanted names. Finally CB gave Winston Curtis. Will you back CB up now or say that Winston did not do this? As a man who has an impecable record of serving Oklahomans and the SBC (Bro. Winston), will you deny that he did this, let his name stand suspect, or come out and say that he was the one who did it? Winston’s name has been brought out, the ball is in your court. Even with your lengthy comment, the question still stands.
Wes Kenney Oct 25 2007 - 9:48 pm
Wade,
I’m glad you’ve decided to respond to my opinions here, but if the length of your response is any indication, you either missed the opening words of the post (“For what it’s worth…”), or you think it’s worth a great deal.
You mentioned three areas in which you assert that I’m trying to “ruin your reputation.” I’d just like to briefly address those, again, for what it’s worth.
First, you say I am questioning your leadership abilities. I have written before on this blog about my belief that you are a rare and outstanding leader, with a personality that is well-suited to the exercise of executive authority. Where you have apparently struggled is in situations where your opinion was in a great minority within a deliberative body.
At least a couple of other trustees I can think of by name also opposed the policies on prayer language and baptism, and they somehow managed to not become the subject of a two-thirds vote for removal. So it isn’t your leadership about which I’m unsure, but again, your ability to work closely with folks with whom you vehemently disagree.
Second, you suggest that I have “drawn conclusions” about your moral character, citing the sentence in which I stated my opinion that Jerry Corbaley believes you to be in unrepentant sin against the board, and noted parenthetically that I believe he is not unjustified in that opinion.
In your comment here, you stated clearly that you have never apologized for anything you have written on your blog. In December of 2005, writing of IMB trustees, you said, among other things, that “These crusaders refuse cooperation in favor of conformity, and I really think it is because they have forgotten how to minister in the power of the Spirit through prayer, humility and cooperation.”
Now it seems to me that only the intentionally obstinate would not admit that a reasonable person could believe themselves to have been insulted by the suggestion you made on your blog in December of 2005. And you yourself say that you have not apologized for having said this. Therefore, I think it is entirely reasonable for me to say that I think someone would be justified in believing that you are in unrepentant sin in this case.
Third, you lament that I have “drawn conclusions” about your personality. All I can tell you on this is that I have had many conversations with people, some currently serving on the BGCO Board of Directors whom I know well, some IMB trustees who approached me in Greensboro or San Antonio, some simply pastors here in Oklahoma, and their testimony regarding your personality is remarkably consistent with the observations I have shared in this post.
Bart Barber Oct 26 2007 - 6:49 am
It is precisely because Wade Burleson has advanced himself as the master cooperator that his tumultuous past is germane to the discussion. Here’s discord on the major board of trustees in Southern Baptist life. What’s the cause? Burleson says that the cause is everyone else, “crusaders” in the midst, the fact that we’ve been deprived of the soothing balm of Daniel Vestal and Clyde Glazener, and the doggoned insistence of the Southern Baptist Convention upon being Southern Baptist. The other trustees say that the problem is Burleson. Wes has offered evidence that the IMB is not the first forum where Wade Burleson has knocked over the tables with a whip—that this is a recurrent pattern in his life. It remains to the Southern Baptist people to decide whether they think that Wade Burleson is Jesus with the moneychangers or just a mischievous toddler given to tantrums.
Bart Barber Oct 26 2007 - 8:55 am
To elaborate on my previous comment, one’s position on the issues will likely impact one’s assessment of Wade’s demeanor and behavior. His directness and persistence, if you agree with him, are the assets that make him a prophetic hero (i.e. “Jesus and the moneychangers”). If you disagree with him, you may be tempted to regard him as petulant.
I do believe, however, that we can draw a distinction between wrong and petulant. The thrower of tantrums is a person who will generate controversy even when no items of importance are on the table. I do not believe that this can be said of Wade. Even if he would suggest that the issues before us are “tertiary,” surely we can all agree that the past two years have involved matters of significant import. The choice before us, then, is whether Wade is right or wrong. My inclinations on that question are surely not hard to discern.
My previous comment allowed only for the two options that Wade is messianic or juvenile. Bad form and bad content on my part. One must allow for the additional possibility that he is a robust force misapplied, but conscientiously so. Controversy followed Jeremiah everywhere he went. Same for Martin Luther. Same for J. Frank Norris. Same for Bill Clinton. Same for Terrell Owens. The significance of the phenomenon itself will be informed by the nature of the issues.
Wade Burleson Oct 26 2007 - 9:43 am
Bart,
A well-reasoned, well-articulated comment. I agree with your assessment and appreciate you the manner in which you address the issues. Though we may not see eye to eye on different matters our convention faces, I count it a privilege to work side-by-side with you to make our convention kingdom focused.
In His Grace,
Wade
Alan Paul Oct 26 2007 - 11:13 am
I don’t know Wade – but from his posts overall. I find him to be both genuine in what he believes and a little arrogant. I have seen and worked with those like him before and have mixed feelings about this kind of personality. I see the genuineness of their mission in life and the passion they have for it and appreciate it in a world in which most of us are apathetic at best – but have a hard time getting past the seeming “my way or the highway” mentality with which they handle those who disagree. They usually call that mentality “fighting for what they think is right”. Many times they say the opposite of that (i.e. Wade says that we should be a cooperating convention that should be able to work alongside one another even if we disagree), but operate within those boundaries arrogantly and with a kind of moral authority nonetheless. I have found that they are usually only cooperative on the important issues if you agree with them. If not, they usually don’t cast you aside, but work against you.
I have also found that most people who are leaders carry this mentality to some degree – it’s part of what makes them good leaders (though I am not sure whow that squares with the servant-leadership model – but that’s another discussion). If they don’t have this quality – they usually aren’t very good leaders and they don’t get much done.
At Corbaley’s treatise – I think he needs to find a life – what a waste of time – he clearly has a personal issue with Wade and is trying to punish him at the IMB’s time, energy and money’s expense.
I am completely floored right now. I have been reading this blog for a year, and I really thought that Wes was a reasonable guy. I know it is hard to be confronted with sin, and no one likes to admit when they have done wrong, but Wes, you committed sin with this blog. If you had shown up in the pulpit stone drunk, or been found in bed with another woman, your sin would not be worse than the gossip you posted on this blog. Wade put it nicely, and I will put it bluntly. You need to repent of this post, and remove it. Gossip is so destructive, maybe more than anything else, and you, with your own words, have ripped apart a brother. I implore you, please repent of your gossip, and remove this post.
Robin, I don’t frequent your blog, but have counted you as a friend from our encounters on this site. I don’t understand you. Wade could not have spelled it out more clearly to you. The names you crave are none of your business. He knows, they know, and the powers that be know, and according to scripture, there is no reason, other than your odd fascination with it, for you to know. I assume that you are able to read. So read Wade’s comments again, and explain why you persist with this strange fascination with names and dates. It just does not apply to you.
You can say that Wade has a double standard, however, that does not change the fact that you have both crossed the line.
Recently my wife and I decided to consider venturing back into SBC life. We have been away from the SBC for about three years now, and left because of the very things going on in this blog. Gossip, innuendo, character assassination, politics. It has no place in a New Testament culture. We have frequented a Southern Baptist church in our area that we seem to both like. Reading blogs like this makes me question whether to rejoin an SBC church. If not for the fact that each church is autonomous, I would run the other way.
Wes Kenney Oct 26 2007 - 3:56 pm
Jason,
Give me a break. Floored? Come on. Consider the following:
Wade says that I am guilty of gossip, because I didn’t witness the things about which I wrote firsthand. He contrasts this with his own blogging, which he says is only about those things which he saw with his own eyes. But unless he can seriously assert that he believed that no one would ever read what he wrote and then tell someone else about it, he is guilty of participating in precisely the same thing I am accused of.
This is absolute nonsense, and I’m growing weary of it. It is absolutely legitimate for me to talk with people who are in a position to know, formulate some observations about events, and write about those observations on my blog. It is equally legitimate for readers to conclude that what is said here is perfectly worthless and move on. Or simply to challenge the observations themselves (which there’s been very little of here).
But to become so upset as to make accusations of sin is over the top, and, in my view, just silly. And for the record, I still think you’re a reasonable guy… 
Bob Cleveland Oct 26 2007 - 8:42 pm
Wes: you said:
“But unless he can seriously assert that he believed that no one would ever read what he wrote and then tell someone else about it, he is guilty of participating in precisely the same thing I am accused of.”
Are you serious? That’s way too big a stretch for anybody to make.
My goodness, you can’t be serious.
Bennett Willis Oct 26 2007 - 9:36 pm
From Bart Barber’s comment above: “The other trustees say that the problem is Burleson.”
They are going to have the opportunity (again) to say that the problem is Burleson. As I said on Bart’s blog, I don’t think that they will say that. I find that I am really attached to data and I think that I’m about to get some data. It should be interesting.
Bennett Willis
I would hasten to add that the definitions given above for “gossip” are not only biblically incorrect, but cannot be found in the common dictionary. The degree removed a person is from the information has no bearing on its qualification as gossip. In other words, “second hand information” is by no stretch to be considered gossip, even second-hand negative information as it would render out-of-bounds any negative observations by Christian historians. Nor is gossip always equal to slander. Gossip can be documented, truthful information, yet information given for the purpose of tearing down another or elevating your own righteousness above others. If second-hand information should be discarded as gossip, who here will be the first in line to advise Southern Baptists to stay away from Ben’s new book?
And in this vane, I know very few of us can claim that everything we have written in comments and op’s is outside that definition. So whether or not anyone will stand by every post written in its current edited form, or can back up words with documentation, it makes no difference according to the biblical parameters we have been provided. Who hasn’t deleted comments? Who hasn’t either deleted or hidden posts from the front page? Who hasn’t had to change wording after rebuke? I have yet to see anyone who claims they can stand by everything they have written on a blog have the ability to back it up.
Bart makes one good point in his comment above: the issue of what is germane to the discussion, namely reputation. Is it germane to talk about items that cast suspicion on Trustees? Robin is as vehement about defending their reputation as Jason is Wade’s, and without evidence, he sees them all worthy of defense. Patterson? Ben wants his reputation tanked among those who believe he should lead. Grudem? Wade insinuated that theological laxity and social passivity led to the changing of his beliefs on the evil of infant baptism. Mohler? The letter and the “proverbial finger” remark certainly were designed to cast suspicion on his reputation as a denominational servant. And the false accusations of Mr. Drake? That was sad day for most. Issues not personalities… Please.
It seems everyone is doing the exact same thing. Much of it is embarassing and absurd, but it is what it is, and Southern Baptist blogging has this exact reputation tatooed on its forehead. The definition offered for gossip is wonderfully abismal, and the attack on reputation is ever so alive. It is up to each of us to do better, for the charge of hypocrisy rings hollow in these halls.
I agree with you, Colin, that gossip is still gossip, even if it is true. If I whisper in your ear, “you know, so-and-so is pregnant, and she’s not even married,” it may be true, but because the motivation is questionable, it sinks to the level of gossip. That person who whispers about the pregnant girl could avoid the charge of gossip if their motivation for passing the information along was different. For example, if they wanted to help the person. Then, it is not gossip. If I say, “I heard from some very reliable sources that so-and-so sleeps around,” then it is most certainly gossip, because of the motivation, and the fact that the person has no real first hand knowledge of what they’re talking about. It deals with no real, verifiable facts, only subjective opinions. It is very difficult to defend against the charge of gossip when the information is not first-hand, and when it deals issues that are purely suggestive.
What Wade did was not gossip, he stated facts that he had first hand knowledge of, and reported them only after attempts to correct the issues privately. Wes’ comments were not first hand (I have heard that…), and do not appear to have any redemptive purpose whatsoever. It is gossip, and it is wrong.
You asked what one of us has never removed a blog entry. I would be on that list. The only comments I have removed are spam, the only posts I have removed are old ones, to free up space. Of course, I try to stay away from denominational politics on my blog.
Wes, you’re right, I should not have been floored by your reaction to Wade’s comments, and your refusal to admit that your comments were wrong. I should not have been the least bit surprised.
cb scott Oct 27 2007 - 10:05 am
Again I will say it as I have many times before in many places. It is a trustee problem we have in the SBC. The problem is, we need some. Actually, we need many.
cb
JIm Champion Oct 27 2007 - 1:01 pm
Follow the link to Wade’s response to Jerry
volfan007 Oct 27 2007 - 1:12 pm
colin,
great definition of gossip. i, like you, beleive that we should always look to the bible to define what sin really is. thanks colin for interjecting some soundness to these accusations.
david
Jim,
Now that was funny. I think though you missed the description. It was not Wade. It was Dr. Patterson to Ben.
Jason,
You are a better man than I if you have never deleted or edited blog entries or any comments you have made on blogs. I applaud you. Here again I will retract a statement, one I said above, “It seems everyone is doing the exact same thing.†This is too broad and does not convey my meaning.
On to your response: The “second-hand†qualifier you use for gossip is not in the dictionary. If you think about it, that makes reporters, historians, and everyone who desires to cast aspersion on anyone’s reputation as gossips. Let us, however, use your definition. Was Outpost reporting first-hand knowledge about Patterson and Mohler in the anonymous letter? Who witnessed the refrigerated fur closet? Did Wade know or just suggest Grudem was persuaded by others to change his Systematic Theology? Did bloggers know that anger was Mohler’s motivation, and he was giving everyone the “proverbial finger?†Did he or anyone know first-hand Wiley Drake signed the petition?
Illustration: The pregnant girl. My motivation is love, and I want her to change. So here’s what I will do. I will go ahead and tell people around her so that she is embarrassed and rebuked by such a multitude that she will change. My motivation, you see, was pure. We see this going on in the blogs, only it is deemed “Denominational Accountability.†So the effect is good: yet the ends do not biblically justify the means.
You are right that intent matters. But we are held to a higher standard. We must account for intent and effect. It is not enough to desire the best for another, we must take action (or refrain from it) in order to build them up. We are called not to speak evil of a brother (James 4:11): to build up our brothers and the church (Rom 14:19; 15:2; 1 Cor 8:1; 10:23; 14:12; Eph 4:29; 1 Thess 5:11): to admonish those in transgression with a spirit of gentleness, bearing their burdens (Gal 6:1ff). I like Chuck Swindoll’s definition of gossip: anything that tears another down. In other words, motivation is not the driving factor- love is, and that involves motivation, effect, consequence, and edification. If you or anyone has anything to add or take away, please, let us discuss it from Scripture.
Robin D. Foster Oct 27 2007 - 4:28 pm
Colin
Thanks for your comment. I have read some of your stuff and your thoughts have intrigued mine. I got a bit confused from your comment with my name. I know that you included Jason with those remarks and I didn’t know if you were talking about him, me, or both of us.
Allow me to provide some clarification as to what I am attempting to do. I am defending the trustees because accusations have been maintained that Wade was asked to come on the IMB BoT’s in order to fire Dr. Rankin. This very well could be the case. You’re right, I don’t have evidence that says they didn’t do it, but on the other hand, no evidence has been presented that this was done. I have asked for names and times and only one name has surfaced. What I am vehemently defending are the innocent trustees of the IMB. That could be the whole board, it could only be 90% of them.
There is a reason I pushed for the name. It has been said that if you say something enough, it becomes true in the minds of those who hear it. If we keep on hearing that Wade was asked to come on board to assist in firing Dr. Rankin, then I am afraid it will be accepted as common knowledge and innocent people will be looked upon as guilty. Again, what has been reported could very well be true, but to continue under this assumption puts the innocent under wrongful suspicion.
Let me say that I know Winston Curtis. He has a stellar record in Oklahoma as a pastor and a state leader. He will stand for what is right, but he will not play politics. Concerning the conversation between Wade and Winston, the only people who know what was said are Wade, Winston, and God. Therefore, either we stop saying Winston asked Wade to come on board to fire Dr. Rankin so that God can deal with it, or we continue making these assertions at the detriment of innocent trustees who are serving God and the SBC with integrity and honor.
I know this, there are some innocent people who are now under a cloud of suspicion. What should have been a high honor in serving on the IMB has probably turned into a nightmare.
That is why I am speaking up.
Robin D. Foster Oct 27 2007 - 4:32 pm
Just for the record, I did talk with Winston and he adamantly denies ever asking Wade to come on the IMB BoTs to fire Dr. Rankin. I guess I should have said that in my comments.
Karen Scott Oct 27 2007 - 5:27 pm
Robin,
I am glad that you have chosen to protect the IMB BOTs.
However your comment to Colin, “You’re right, I don’t have evidence that says they didn’t do it, but on the other hand, no evidence has been presented that this was done” would mean your evidence that it is false is no stronger than your evidence that is true.
Since no trustee has come forward to absolutely refute that such actions have never happened on the board then it would appear that the intent of your other comments and those of Wes in the original post would only serve to destroy the reputation of the messenger (Wade).
Also, Brother Wade stated in his comment that he revealed the names and evidence concerning the trustees involved in an attempt to undermine Dr. Rankin to a group of Baptist Leaders from across the US in Feb, 2006. He stated that the group included people from the IMB, EC and attorneys. No one from that group has come forward to declare the claims as false.
There is no wonder why people choose to remain silent about such things that happen within the SBC. There seems to be no protection for “whistle blowers.” It is always better to discredit the individual who steps forward than to be disillusioned by our established processes or leaders.
Karen
Robin D. Foster Oct 27 2007 - 6:05 pm
Sis Karen
Thanks for your comment and you hit the nail on the head. Neither I, you, or anybody (other than Wade, Winston, and God) know what was said or has any evidence. Therefore, should anyone continue to state that Wade was asked to come on board to fire Dr. Rankin?
The point is not whether this happened or not, the point is that everyone on the board is now suspects in doing this.
I might add that that none of the leaders which Wade spoke to came out to say his claims were true either.
Again, ultimately no one knows but God and the people directly involved in conversations concerning Wade and his involvement with the IMB. Therefore no one has evidence as to whether Wade was asked to come on board to fire Dr. Rankin. To say so leaves a lot of people, many (possibly all) who are innocent, suspect.
Karen Scott Oct 27 2007 - 7:18 pm
Robin,
Again we would have to agree, no one has come forward to say that it happened, but then again people have remained silent for years.
With my children, I can often tell who made the mess by who is the quietest when questioned about it. By nature people will more readily defend their innocence than admit their guilt.
And another problem is when those on the fringe choose to remain quiet often thinking that it is the most “Christian thing” to do and sometimes their silence is just plain “ole” apathy.
If Brother Wade had been the first person serving on a BOT to tell of such things then I might be skeptical also, but since I have been hearing about similar scenarios for years on various boards then I guess I am not as quick to cry “foul.”
Karen
p.s. I have not been keeping up with the blogs as closely in the past few months, but it seems like every time I have seen the question raised about the IMB BOT it has come from you. Maybe I have missed something.
Robin D. Foster Oct 27 2007 - 7:46 pm
Sis. Karen
I had the privilege to speak with C. B. earlier this week. We got some things straightened out and I began to understand him a little better. I hope he understands me a little better also.
I appreciate your candor in our conversation. Not much can be accomplished if we are not honest with one another. Concerning the IMB BoT’s, it has been a while since I have engaged in any debate on it. I shut my personal blog down in August so as to focus more time on my DMin studies and SBC Today. If you have the time (I know that pastor wives are real busy), you can look at SBC Today and see where I have put forth my efforts.
I have commented on some blogs, but not as regularly as I used to. This issue concerning Wade’s recruitment came up again and I had to speak. You may also notice that this same discussion was on SBC Today and I shut it down. I was not the one who brought up the IMB BoTs.
I know we disagree on certain things, but I hope my words to you are taken with the respect they are intended to convey.
colin Oct 27 2007 - 8:53 pm
Robin,
I said, “Robin is as vehement about defending their reputation as Jason is Wade’s, and without evidence, he sees them all worthy of defense.”
My point to Jason was that you defend the trustees just as he does Wade, and for the same reason, yet he was insinuating his actions were pure while yours were not. You have been given no evidence not to do so.
My point overall was that those calling Wes out as being a gossip do the very same things he did, as I demonstrated.
Robin D. Foster Oct 27 2007 - 8:57 pm
Colin
Thanks for the clarification. I have to admit that I can be quite dense at times. Thanks for helping me understand. I appreciate your analysis.
Colin, your point on gossip is well taken, however, I would take issue with what you said about shaming a person into doing the right thing. I think the Bible says something about love compelling us to do the right thing, not shame. Are you suggesting that it is okay to spread gossip in order to to convince a person to do the right thing?
Secondly, I am not defending Wade, per se. As I have stated earlier, I barely know him. He and I met several years ago. And this year, he extended grace to me in a way that really touched my heart. I have been put through the ringer many times by Baptist pastors and leaders over the past few years, and his gesture of kindness and grace I will never forget. What I am defending is the right thing, and that is, one does not tear down a brother the way Wes tore into Wade here. That’s it. I don’t know anything about Paige Patterson’s fur closet or his two $90,000 paintings. I have spent time with Dr. Patterson several years ago, and my personal experience with him was not entirely positive, but that was more of a personal thing than anything. Whatever has been said on other sites has little bearing on my point here, and that is that Wes was wrong when he attacked Wade using gossip and second-hand information. His comments cannot be defended by what others have done. They stand alone as a gesture of gossip, and that is wrong, no matter what. Doesn’t the Bible say “two wrongs don’t make a right?” Okay, wait, that was my mom. Close.
Robin, I am wondering,have you even read Wade’s comment here? He has plainly spoken that he has evidence in written form that he was recruited to the board in order to fire Dr. Rankin. That you have not seen this evidence does not mean the evidence does not exist. It only means that you are not relevant to the situation. You seem to indicate that if you have not seen the evidence, then it must not be important, or exist at all.
Wade has given evidence, from my perspective, to generally stand for the truth. Because he has not given me reason to doubt him, I will trust that if he says he has evidence, I believe him until proven otherwise. On the other hand, I have served on boards and committees in the SBC. I have seen the political manuevering, the personal attacks, the attempts to fire people, etc. It does not suprise me in the least, because I have been there, and been witness to it. It is shameful. Because I have personally witnessed to it, I believe that it would not be out of character for some members of an SBC board of trustees to form an alliance for the purpose of firing someone. Wade has a reputation for truth, SBC boards and committees have displayed the tendency to be harsh politically, over and over again. Therefore, I will give Wade the benefit of the doubt on this.
Robin D. Foster Oct 28 2007 - 9:43 am
Jason
I can see that we are not making connections concerning what either of us are saying. I went back and reread what Wade wrote and while he provided documentation including an affidavit for private conversations he had concerning his recruitment to fire Dr. Rankin, those documents only show what happened from his perspective. If he has tape recordings or emails from another trustee saying that they want to fire Rankin, that is another deal all together.
Again, neither you nor I have refutable evidence whether these allegations are true or not. Therefore, my point is that unless evidence (recordings) are presented, then people need to stop commenting that Wade was recruited to fire Dr. Rankin. To do so without first hand evidence is wrong.
Again, I am not saying it didn’t happen, but until evidence is provided, I will believe those who are involved are innocent until proven guilty and let God deal with it.
Jason, thanks for the civil conversation. I am glad we can talk in this fashion. It has helped me think this through more fully, but really, this is becoming quite old. If some want to believe wholeheartedly in these accusations with out irrefutable evidence to the legitimacy of the allegations, that is their choice. As for me, I’m done.
colin Oct 28 2007 - 1:39 pm
Jason,
I admit I am not always as clear in my words as I desire. You said, “Are you suggesting that it is okay to spread gossip in order to to convince a person to do the right thing?” Absolutely: no. I was trying to make it clear that I was using your definition of gossip and apply it (in that illustration) to show that it is grossly insufficient as a definition. Further, it illustrates exactly what many bloggers presently are doing to Patterson, Mohler and others, and I am glad to hear you decry it as wrong. And in line with the illustration, if you suggest that the young expecting mother’s story should be kept discreet, expect others to cry that everything should be out in the open- no secrets, no closed doors.
Further, I am in no way suggesting that it is ok to gossip because others are doing it. You were vehement about defending the actions of making the letter public, and then attacking Wes. I was showing you that your position was contradictory, and based on YOUR definition and reasoning, you must accept or reject both.
As for gossip, please, evaluate Wes on the biblical admonitions. Wade as well. I would very much like to hear Wes’s evaluation of what is and is not gossip, and Wade’s as well. Jason, thank you for a civil, non-patronizing discussion.
Debbie Kaufman Oct 28 2007 - 2:39 pm
Colin: I hope others see you and Robin’s arguments as ridiculous as I do.
Trish Oct 28 2007 - 3:23 pm
Robin,
Let me see if I understand correctly about what you are saying. If the evidence is not available, or the existing evidence cannot be made public, then people should stop stating publically that Wade was recruited to help get Dr. Rankin fired. If you are going to go public with an accusation, then go public with what is necessary to back it up. If you can’t provide proof for the accusation you are making, then don’t make a public statement.
Debbie,
FYI, I don’t see Robin’s and Colin’s statements as ridiculous. Just my two cents worth…
Trish
Robin D. Foster Oct 28 2007 - 3:42 pm
Trish
Sometimes simplicity out weighs the long didactic approach. You have proven this true. Thanks.
Debbie Kaufman Oct 28 2007 - 3:49 pm
Trish: If you had been behind this as long as I have, I think you would.
Karen Scott Oct 28 2007 - 4:28 pm
In defense of Jason, I would like to point out a few things:
1. We are mistaken to think that Brother Wade was the first to make Mr. Corbaley’s letter public. Mr. Corbaley, himself, takes credit for that when he emailed it to 80+ trustees. The moment he pressed the send button it became a public record.
2. Wade did not attack Mr. Corbaley’s reputation in presenting the information on his blog. He did not go back and dig up all of the problems that anyone might have had with Mr. Corbaley in his present position as DOM or any former positions that he may have held.
3. It is my belief that Wes’ post was to point out or allude to problems that Wade may or may not have had with other people (since I am sure that Wes will admit that he was not privy to the conversations between Wade and the other parties). I feel that since there seemed to be no logical defense of Mr. Corbaley’s strange email then to defend Mr. Corbaley’s actions Wes needed to be put Wade on the defense.
I also feel that if Robin or anyone else wants verification of an attempt to rid the IMB of Dr. Rankin, a google search provides a start for that information. In a couple of seconds I found an Email from Pam Blume, former IMB trustee from NC posted on SBCOutpost (with her permission) on Dec 16, 2005 and a statement made by Jerry Nantz who was a trustee from Las Vegas on Dec 5, 2005. I am not sure how much more verification would be required for people to believe that there is or at least was a problem.
As to the documents and affidavit that Wade presented to the group in his meeting, Robin may be correct in stating that it was from “Wade’s perspective†and “did not include tapings of conversations,†etc. but, we must not overlook the fact that a couple of attorneys were present in the meeting. His evidence must have been pretty convincing since this meeting took place before the board was to vote on his dismissal. Had the board and their counsel thought he was just a “trouble maker†then given the atmosphere of the board at that time there is a great possibility they would have continued with their process to remove him. We know from their own mouths that they chose not to do so.
In Alabama, if Big Al (our elephant mascot) is in the room then we are usually able to recognize him, if not by ourselves then at least after two or three people have told us. So if it looks like an elephant and walks like an elephant it usually is an elephant on the table.
If would seem that some in our convention have become very apathetic when we are presented with information and then choose to ignore it or worse, try to find a reason to justify it (an elephant dancing on the table).
Karen
Robin, like you I am getting kind of tired of talking about this issue. Not because I believe that Wes was justified in writing this destructive post (I do not). But in church this morning my pastor talked about Solomon’ desire for wisdom. In his prayer, Solomon admitted that he didn’t not know whether he was coming or going, so how in the world was he going to lead a great nation. The last thing I want to do is get swept away by the tide of denominational politics, when we serve a God who so readily provides us with all the things we need to live a good and godly life. I think I would rather focus on that for a while.
cb scott Oct 29 2007 - 2:55 pm
Wes and Robin,
I have posted on the topic of this post on my blog THE REPORT. I mentioned your names. I did not say anything mean. I did not even rag on you guys. I will do that when I post as a guest on SBC TODAY. I also mentioned Tim, Ben and Bart. Again I did not rag on them either.
cb
I remember living in NYC and seeing Roy Scheider, who apparently has not worked much since Jaws, leading a war protest. When interviewed he uttered this ridiculous statement, “When people KNOW AS MUCH AS I DO, they will join the protests.”
The inanity and arrogance of this statement, which I thought would never be topped, was, however, topped when I read the following statement from a certain member of a certain church in Enid:
“Trish: If you had been behind this as long as I have, I think you would.”
What arrogance! What inanity! What a presumptive attitude!
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:
