SBC

I have a couple of thoughts.

First, even thought I am in basic agreement with the positions the International Mission Board took re: baptism and private prayer language, I wish they had not taken a position at all. I believe on such matters, the Convention should speak, and if it does not wish to speak to these matters, neither should the IMB.

This leaves the SBC agencies speaking with mixed messages. The North American Mission Board speaks one way, the IMB another.

I don't know if Wade Burleson will lose his seat on the IMB. The more important question is, should he? I have seen no specifics about what he is supposed to have done wrong, only generalities. Until we know that, it's just a matter of choosing up sides based on whether you're for or against the new IMB policies, or a personal regard for Bro. Burleson.

Tom B.

 

I am in support of Burleson and his claims. I am concerned with the way the IMB trustees are handling the situation. They are accountable to the convention and yet they are silent. I do not think that is helping their cause.

I also am concerned with the continual narrowing of the standards. What is next? Do you have to hold to a certain end times theology? Do you have to be a non five point calvinist? I think this is a slippery slope.

 

I agree with Burleson. I believe that all religious organizations should be an open book. Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.

Public schools are open to the public scruutiny. Why should SBC entities be any less?

Personally I have seen things done which are a disgrace in an attempt to cover things up both in the religious and secular world. Christians should be above board. They should be held in the highest esteem by those who trust them and should not be given any reason otherwise.

 

When Rankin was a missionary it was known that he had a private prayer language then. Look at who appointed him. Wasn't it the conservatives?

 

He did not post to harm the convention.

Is he helping the convention?

Is his mode of bringing this situation out in public break protocol in how these meetings are discussed and handled? If there even is a protocol? If there is why is he to be looked upon as the one who is in the right? Are we to take his word for it from his blog?
How are we to believe that his opinions and he himself are above reproach? Is it because he says he believes his position is right and that in and of itself makes his motives pure?
I did not see any of the other trustees running out and running Burleson down until Burleson started posting on his blog. Then the comments that I have read were not really of a personal nature but more like offical statements that are given to press reporters.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the things I just mentioned I just wanted to present a particular angle on the situation.
In a sense Burleson blogging his conversations even with permission seems a little bit self serving on the surface. Alot of information concerning this whole mess has been nothing more than speculation,assumption etc... It has turned into gossip in a sense.
I'm sure some may think he is a whistle blower looking out for the average joe in the SBC. Others will think that he may be an opportunist looking to further a particular agenda he has in his own mind but not yet revealed. Who knows? I'm just a little hesitant to endorse his method of seemingly exposing an alledged conspiracy of some sort to oust Rankin
His running out and blogging is sort of like the guy who can't wait for the teacher to get back in the room so he can rat on everybody that talked while she was gone. It just kind of has that feel to it.

 

I have friends who are and who have been in leadership in the SBC and have verified everything he wrote.

 

Once again the SBC is known for what they are AGAINST instead of what they are FOR.

 

My above post is not neccesarily my opinion on the situation. I was just throwing that out there.

I would also be willing to say that Wade really shook up the apple cart and the other fellows didn't like it at all. I was merely playing devil's advocate to other's opinions.

I to have been to Mr. Burleson's site. His writings have the sound of honesty to them.
Again I was just simply looking at it from another angle.

GB has heard what I think about some of the good ole boyism in the SBC. It is ridiculous at times.

The other trustees could quite possibly be upset because Wade didn't "play ball" with them and their ideas.

To be honest with you I have always been aware of the executive committee and some of its functions. However I sure didn't know that the committee had this kind of influence.
It will be good that this whole affair comes to the floor of the convention. Regardless of one's position concerning the new requirements for missionaries.

 

A little light in a dark room sure does make a huge difference. The private deals and secret meetings of the past need to revealed and the people supporting the IMB need to know where the money goes, how many real full-time missionaries their are, what the folks in the countries we are working in think of the work we are doing...etc

W. Burleson is giving us a sneak peek on all the nonsense that has been going on for years and I wish more would do the same thing!

If this is the Lord's work, with the people's money why can't we know what's going on without a stone tablet engraved by God falling from the sky?

 

Anyone who has done nothing wrong and operates above board welcomes scrutiny. That kind of openness builds trust.

 

All in the name of image building. I heard some sermons by Peter Lord in the 70s and he came out against good ol' boyism and a number of practices in the SBC without calling it that.

 

Have you read Burleson's blog today? It seems he believes that the motion to remove him will be rescinded.

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/

 

That is an issue that has yet to be explored, the average age of the board members and how that plays into this whole "kill the rabbit (think Elmer Fudd)" mentality. There are reports that some of the board members thought a blog was somehow pornographic. There is such a disconnect here!

 

If they do not back off they may bring on pressure they may not like.

 

Prophets are never very welcomed among those who do not stand for righteousness.