IMB Trustee Meeting

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Jimmy C, Jan 10, 2006.

  1. Jimmy C

    Jimmy C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    The IMB Trustee meeting is happening this week. Wade Burleson an IMB trustee from Oklahoma is recording his insights on his blog:

    http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/

    I would encourage all Southern Baptists to take a look at his blog, and contact IMB trustees from your own state and ask them to comment on some of the issues that Dr Burleson is raising. BTW he has some of the other trustees a bit miffed at him over this.
     
  2. Jimmy C

    Jimmy C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    From Marty Duren's blog - he is attending the IMB Trustee meeting:

    http://www.sbcoutpost.com/

    The "Executive Session" is over.

    Wade Burleson was the first one out, walking very slowly.

    Several minutes passed before anyone else exited.

    There wasn't a smile to be found.

    I do not know for sure, but Wade was either censured or removed from the board.

    That is my best guess, but no one can say at this point.

    posted by martyduren at 5:27 PM

    you can comment here: [11 comment(s)]
     
  3. shannonL

    shannonL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    I went to Wade B's blog. I went to Marty Duren's site. It just seems like this is not right to me. Especially Mr. Burleson's. He is presenting his point of view with meetings he has had with other trustees. I understand this is america and he is free to blog. But somehow it seems like this is no more than spreading gossip and rumor via the internet. The other trustees that oppose his views are not out blogging in response.
    Obviously if his view was the majority view he wouldn't be having to try and by pass the Executive committee by blogging his views without the others fairly stated.
    He compares his stance to that of Luther standing up to Rome. Please, give me a break. When he got to that point I began to think a little ego was poking up at that point. I think maybe his integrity should be questioned. Running out and blogging every little thing that goes on as being a trustee is a little bit childish. If this man would do this as a trustee I sure wouldn't want to go to him for counseling. He might blog it.
    I do disagree with the landmark position however.
    But speaking in tongues would have to go plain and simple.
    Also, Wade sounds like the moderates who used to be apart of the association I was in as a pastor in NC. Those guys all speak the same lingo. "The baptist tent is a big tent". "We can set aside non essentials for the cause of evangelism". That is bologna. I've found out that what conservative SBCers and moderate SBCers consider "nonessentials" is a whole lot different. I would say speaking in tongues private or public is a big difference It is not a BAPTIST practice now is it? So why should we allow missionarys who do that into the IMB? Do we want pentecostalism to spread overtime in our churches that are planted overseas?
    So what if some churches are pulling out over this. Good let them go join the Word of Faith movement. They can start healing and having women as co pastors in their churches. Just like the crowd that left to go join the CBF. Good bye and good ridence. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
     
  4. Jimmy C

    Jimmy C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Typical response Shannon, I would have expected nothing less. But lets go back and look at Dr Burleson. He is a conservatives conservative in the SBC, past president of the OK convention - the conservative branch, picked by the committee on committees of the SBC who only chose SBC conservative blue bloods. Fully onboard with the conservative resurgence, in fact a leader. He opposed the CBF in OK, in fact nailed his own 95 theseis to the door of the convention hall where they were meeting.

    Examine his writings, he never names names of those that are opposed to him, or that do things to hurt him. he is reporting news. He lays out his arguments against those that oppose him, but does so in a loving manner. He admits that he may be wrong, but he lays out a scriptural basis for why he thinks he is correct.

    His biggest crime is that he is bringing to the light of day, what some do under the cover of night - he is opposed to the secrecy and adding in new requirements that by the way are not to be found in the BFM 2000.

    I find it laughable that he would ever be considered a moderate! On one of the moderate boards that I read the CBF Oklahoma folks are still not fond of him.
     
  5. RandR

    RandR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shannon's views unfortunately reflect the attitudes of many within the SBC today. She doesn't even respond to Wade's real concerns, which have less to do with "prayer language" and baptism specifically and more to do with constantly re-defining "conservative" by narrower and narrower extra-biblical criteria.

    The one trustee I spoke with supported the new policies because "tongues have never been normative for Southern Baptists." So that is the new definition of sound theology....whatever SBs deem "normative." God help us.

    Sadly, whatever action took place in yesterday's executive session was a pre-planned pre-set agenda by a faction on the board. (At this time I'd rather not divulge how I know that.) A clear violation of board policy. An egregious violation of Scripture. And yet, the status quo in the SBC these days.
     
  6. Jimmy C

    Jimmy C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    See the attached article from Baptist Press - I give them credit for running the article, and printing Dr Wade's statement.

    http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22424

    the fundamentalist conservatives in the SBC have now started turning on each other, I think that this is just the beginning. How long before you cant serve on the mission field or be a seminary proff unless you are a 5 pointer? Rand you are 100% correct in your above assesment.

    When I said that this issue was rocking the SBC, most on this board condemned me saying that they were SBC and had not heard anything - now we see the IMB trustees have taken unprecedented action (according to BP) in removing this fine man.

    The SBC is being ruled by a small group of aging men, the best thing that could happen is for them to retire - other wise the convention will continue to suffer outrages such as this.
     
  7. Jimmy C

    Jimmy C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its late - Dr Burleson not Dr Wade (blond moment I guess)
     
  8. shannonL

    shannonL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    I HAVE GOT TO CHANGE MY NAME ON THIS BOARD.
    It is my real name. However, I'm a man.
    Did any of you read my whole post or just glance at it and then respond? If you did you would have found out that I'm a MALE. My fault though.
     
  9. shannonL

    shannonL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Look, I know what some of you are saying is true.
    There is alot of "good ole boy ism" in the convention. It is true they probably do need some new young blood on the committee.
    Still, I just think Wade might have dug his own hole by running out and blogging. If he felt that stongly about it maybe he should have been a little more stealth in his approach? Time and patience might have been more to his advantage.
    RandR, where in scripture is a private prayer language found? Show me where in baptist history this practice has ever been considered "baptistic"?
     
  10. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jimmy C,

    You've got to be kidding with your jab at 5 pointers right?

    Don't you know Burleson is a Calvinist?

    Don't you know that this "agenda" of control within the SBC is really aimed at Calvinism which is the whipping boy of the SBC?

    The next group to be denied missionary status will be Calvinists if this trend continues. Mark My words.
     
  11. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to your position you would deny Missionary Status to the Apostle Paul.

    Remember when he said, "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all."

    You're right about it never being considered "Baptistic". But we've never before said it was essential that Missionary Candidates never have done it.

    It's also ironic that the President of the International Mission Board has admitted that he spoke in tongues early in his life and the "Good Old Boys" of the SBC still "anointed" and "appointed" him to the Position.

    This whole mess is a veiled assault on the Leadership of Dr. Rankin and an attempt to force his resignation.
     
  12. Jimmy C

    Jimmy C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hardsheller

    What I am saying is that the SBC keeps narrowing the definition of conservative. Dr. Burleson brings out that one of the greatest SBC missionaries to China, Miss Bertha Smith, would not have qualified as a missionary because she practiced private prayer language. Private prayer language is not prohibited by the BFM 2000, and as far as I know seminary proffs and convention employees other than IMB missionaries are free to have a private prayer language.

    We will have to see what happens at the next SBC when the convention is required to vote on the explusion of Dr Burleson from the IMB trustees. I can only hope that Dr Burleson is not thrown off, and that he continues to press for positive change.

    I have heard that the next big fight in the convention will be over Calvinism.

    ShannnnL - that is quite a backtrack from your first post - where Dr Burleson was basically the new face of the CBF!
     
  13. Hardsheller

    Hardsheller
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,816
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jimmy C,

    The rumors you have heard are right.

    If a handful of trustees get this weird over nonessentials at IMB, think of how they would salivate over the blood of Calvinists.
     
  14. blackbird

    blackbird
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    Jimmy??? Would you care to create a list of names for us---just start at the top and work your way down! Then I will take your list and go "one by one" and tell you what role that particular person had in turning the SBC away from the liberal crowd that now names themselves mostly with the CBF!
     
  15. drfuss

    drfuss
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apparently the Apostle Paul would not qualify as an IMB missionary since he used a private prayer language. I Cor. 14:18.
     
  16. shannonL

    shannonL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jimmy C,

    I posted prematurely. I did a little more reading and research. He was upfront about what he was doing as far as telling other trustees that he was blogging.
    I still disagree with the tongues issue. Just because Paul said he spoke in tongues more than anybody else doesn't mean he was referring to speaking privately in tongues. He also said that he would rather speak in his own tongue with understanding in order to edify others. Paul puts alot of weight on "Interpretation" of the tongues.
    It all comes back to whether or not you believe the that tongues is referring to "human languages" or just goobly goo. Can Dr. Rankin or anyone else for that matter. Can they tell you what the interpretation of their private tongues means? If not how edifying can it be other than on an emotional level?
     
  17. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    The fight now is over control.
     
  18. Jimmy C

    Jimmy C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    ShannonL

    I am not a proponent of tounges myself, but, I think that to disqualify missionaries on the basis of private prayer language is another step on a slippery slope that will lead to only letting those serve that meet narrower and narrower definitions - that are not necessarliy biblical. Would you have disqualified Miss Bertha Smith - I dont think that I would have. As far as I have read, interpretation was only required for public tonges - a requirement that I am 100% on board with. I have never been moved to a private prayer languagem but I dont think that those who do are in violation of scripture.

    Blackbird - those boys did the job, but it is time for them to move on. Jimmy Draper evidently thinks so as well. Tom Ascol has some interesting comments on the founders.org blog. you should check him out.

    http://www.founders.org/blog/
     
  19. Jimmy C

    Jimmy C
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    sorry folks, I wont let this one go!

    The following is a passage from Paige Patterson. The Troubled, Triumphant Church: An Exposition of First Corinthians.


    "Paul then arrived at the conclusion of the whole matter. The church was to covet the gift of prophecy and was not to forbid speaking with tongues. 'Forbid' means to 'hinder,' 'restrain,' or 'prevent.' The statement once again emphasizes the relative unimportance of tongues in comparison with prophecy. However, the Corinthians were not to prevent speaking with tongues. Precisely what Paul meant by this must be understood in the light of the total emphasis of chapter 14. The Corinthian effort at tongues had been reduced in every conceivable way to a position of relative unimportance.

    In addition to this, six principles governing the use of tongues in the Corinthian congregation have already been given, and a seventh will follow in the last verse. These principles effectively circumscribe the use of tongues altogether in the assembly of believers. Nevertheless, for two reasons Paul said that tongues are not to be forbidden. First, he had already allowed that if one engaged in ecstatic utterance in privacy, while there was no real significance, edification, or meaning to be found in it, it was not thereby evil or wrong. That private experience might be permitted to the person. In the second place, Paul knew that the Acts phenomenon of speaking the wonderful works of God in a language in which the speaker was untutored had really happened. Furthermore, Paul knew that under the right circumstances it might happen again. The necessity for the revival of the sign gifts such as tongues seems to be unlikely, but Paul did allow the possibility."

    Patterson, Paige. The Troubled, Triumphant Church: An Exposition of First Corinthians. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002. pp. 268-9.

    Seems the president of SWBTS did not have a problem with private prayer language in 2002, wonder why he has not come out in support of Jerry Rankin or Wade Burleson?
     
  20. RandR

    RandR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shannon,

    Forgive the tardy reply. I never said I could show where "private prayer language" is biblical. I've never tried, and frankly, I don't have a dog in the "continuationist" vs. "cessationist" fight. (Personally, I take greater exception to the new baptism policy.) My comment on tongues was simply that if the litmus test of sound theology is "has it ever been normative for Southern Baptists?" then we're in real trouble.

    I suppose that since you've actually now read Wade's posts, perhaps you see that his main concerns have to do with straining at gnats in order to centralize control and narrow the circle of fellowship.
     

Share This Page

Loading...