Observations on Controversy

Observations on Controversy

Posted on Oct 24, 2007 in IMB issues by Wes Kenney 103 Comments

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, in which he details many of the more recent blog conversations that, 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, and I don’t intend this post to be a recounting of all that I’ve written previously. 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. I know both men personally. I’ve shared meals with both of them, 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, and I’ve come to the conclusion that all of the controversy is, at its essence, all about Wade Burleson.

At the beginning of my blog journey, I was really very sympathetic to Wade. I knew him only from his having been president of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma (BGCO), and I went out of my way to see things from his perspective. 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, 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.

When Wade was in his first year as president of the BGCO, 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. As you can imagine, anytime you deal with funding for children’s homes, it is a sensitive matter, 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, and his handling of this situation led to the almost unheard-of step of him being opposed for a second presidential term. This opposition, according to one of the organizers of it, was poorly thought out and hastily arranged. With just a few phone calls being made in the days before the meeting, it only failed by a few dozen votes out of nearly a thousand cast.

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. I understand that, 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. At the same time, 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. 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.

• 

  Karen Scott Oct 30 2007 - 4:23 pm

  Amy,

  I don’t feel that Debbie was in any implying that she knows everything. I believe that she meant only that she had been following this particular situation from the very beginning which now has been a couple of years and has read various blogs and comments and had seen a pattern in some of the comments.

  I do not personally know Debbie but I have come to admire her by reading her blog and comments on various other blogs and it is evident that she loves the Lord, her husband and family, her church family and friends.

  I have never seen her promote herself as “knowing everything” or displaying an arrogant attitude in any shape form or fashion. She stands firm in what she believes but I don’t see that as arrogance.

  Karen

  Reply

• 

  Benji Ramsaur Nov 1 2007 - 7:27 pm

  A few thoughts

  1. Wes states “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.”

  Opposing something is one thing. Doing something about what you oppose is another.

  2. Anonymous states “I can personally testify to the fact that the “nice guy” act of WB is often just an act. Disagree with him. Call him on the carpet for his actions and statements. Go on do it and you will receive the same vitriolic email that I did.”

  I have disagreed with Wade through private e-mail and he..uh..was still nice to me.

  3. Even if Wade is all that Wes says he is, there is a sense in which Wade’s motivation does not matter. I have argued this before and I still stick to my guns on this.

  * If Roe vs. Wade ever gets overturned through politicians [who could care less personally] “using” me, I doubt I will lose much sleep over it.

  Grace

  BCR

  Reply

• 

  Robert Vaughn Nov 2 2007 - 5:01 pm

  Wes you wrote: “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.”

  My, my. I think you need to repent and retract this statement! This 153 page email may be “too late”, but could hardly be described as “too little”!!! I could hardly bring myself to click the link, much less read it.

  Tim G. and Karen Scott:
  Regardless of whether Wade should have posted Jerry’s e-mail (I can’t even imagine anyone reading it anyway), Wade’s own comments on his blog would indicate that he had to know that Jerry would not respond and therefore the “permission” would be “automatic”.

  He [Jerry, rlv] informed me over the phone that unless I was calling to confess to him my repentance before God, he would not talk with me…

  I called Mr. Corbaley several times over the weekend to discuss his concerns, but he would not receive my calls. I finally left a message on Mr. Corbaley’s cell phone giving him a deadline of last night to call if he did not wish his letter to be made public. I told him that if he chose not to call me about his concerns I would take that as permission to post his letter.

  Reply