Wade Burleson removal as trustee

The IMB cannot remove a trustee. Nor can the board of trustees of the IMB remove a trustee. They have recommended his removal. It will be voted on at the SBC in Greensboro, NC in June.

 

This sort of garbage is why I am IFB and not part of the "organization".

I fully lay in the hands of the Almighty and choose NOT to be in the hands of feeble and indecisive men.

My recommendation to all men of God? COME OUT!!! Be what God would have you to be and not put yourself under the domgatisms of the SBC, placing yourself in their mercy and subject to the corrutpion that ensues!

A fellowship of likemended believers and full accountability to God is all men need to be the leader God would have them to be.

 

Maybe they will put Pat Robertson in.

 

Sal - I serve in an SBC church. I'm not sure that I know of what "domgatisms" or "corrutpion" you are referring to. Could you enlighten me?

 

Very familiar with Wade Burleson, lots of family and friends attend his church. Been there many times myself. You'll have a hard time finding a better Bible teacher anywhere. If Wade Burleson is not what the SBC wants, then perhaps I am in the wrong denomination. Perhaps it has to do more with his very strong calvinist beliefs than this missionary item. I'll have to look into this more.

Listen for yourself or review his messages, I highly recommend his "Romans" series:

http://www.emmanuelenid.org/

 

Here is his sermon addressing the issue:

http://www.emmanuelenid.org/sermons/Principles.htm

 

The world says that if you don't agree with someone just fire them. The IMB at its finest.

The SBC leaders are doing a very good job of biting and devouring one another.

Gal. 5:15, "But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another."

 

Well, after listening to Burleson's message on this event I can only say, Unbelievable!

Pharasies abound in the SBC. I hope this becomes a major issue in June. I don't think the regular SBC member has a clue what these new rules are.

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/

 

In reading Burleson's blog, {Wed. Jan. 11, 2006}it seems that a problem he considers serious is that leaders who don't conform to specific interpretations of the Bible are removed from leadership and service.


Now, I believe that this is a proper response from the board.
If someone chooses to contradict what the denomination, whatever it may be, believes then he should find a church that believes what he believes.
A lack of unity in the leadership will bring the whole endeavor to failure.

Burleson might do better to find a Pentecostal church.
While there is definitely wiggle room for differences of interpretation in the SBC, I personally feel Burleson has gone beyond the bounds.

MR

 

MR, This goes to prove that you haven't read Wade Burleson's blog and don't really know what the real issues are.

There are a group of trustees (according to Burleson) who are running the IMB from closed and secret meetings and his Blog is an attempt to correct this gross violation of IMB Trustee Policy.

 

The issue is really two fold.

1. First there is the issue of cooperation and the narrowing of the parameters of Southern Baptist fellowship.

2. Second, there is the issue of the biblical basis of these IMB guidelines on baptism (and tongues.)

For the most part those who agree with the biblical basis for rejecting non-Baptist (alien) baptism will agree with the IMB's decision and those who disagree with rejecting alien baptism with disagree with the IMB's decision . However it is possible for one to believe in rejecting alien immersion in their own local church, but not want to make it a test of fellowship in the larger SBC world.

 

J.R.

How about defining Alien Baptism for us and let us see how many Southern Baptists will agree with your definition?

 

Take a look at

http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/pdf/vision_assessment.pdf

 

I will not presume to comment for my good friend, but my understanding of alien baptism is that it is threefold:

1. Any alien with a green card is baptized when they make a profession, under their own name.

2. Any alien without a green card is baptized as above, but only their first name is used, to protect them from INS.

3. Any alien from another planet who gets saved may be baptized in whatever liquid is safe for their body. Romulans, Vulcans, and Klingons, of course, use ice water.

That is my understanding of Alien Baptism.

 

Hardsheller, I did indeed read the blog and my opinion that Burleson should move on stands.

I have mixed feelings on revealing what takes place in the board meetings.

Burleson seems to relish the notoriety though.

I couldn't actually care less one way or another.

If he stays, he stays.

MR

 

You should care a lot.

Apparently you do not realize the power and control issues present in the SBC and how well Satan is moving.

When I lived in AZ I brought it up about how wrong the BFA and was told it was biblical. Some weeks later they were wrong. People lost millions of dollars. They lost close to 500 million dolars. It was on the national news for several months. And you don't care?

You need to quit playing the apathetic majority and be informed.

 

Mountain Runner,

So what if Burleson is right - that a minority of IMB Trustees are meeting in private and setting the agenda of the IMB Trustee Meetings prior to those actual meetings which is a violation of the IMB Trustee Policies?

 

Hardsheller,

You asked, "How about defining Alien Baptism for us and let us see how many Southern Baptists will agree with your definition?"

Actually the IMB's definition of proper baptism is pretty good. Historically alien baptism has been defined as baptism administered by a non-Baptist church. However with the demise of denominationalism, we must define what a non-Baptist church is. This is what the IMB's new guidelines do.

I realize there are multitudes of Southern Baptist pastors who disagree with the new guidelines and receive alien immersions in their own churches. Yet we need to be honest and admit this is basically a new trend. As late as the 1950's 95% of Southern Baptist churches rejected alien immersion. I have a survey from 1915 in which all of the editors of state Southern Baptist papers were asked this question. Maryland was the only state in which more than a handful of churches received alien immersion.