SBC

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Phillip, Jan 31, 2006.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    If this turns into an anti-SBC forum by those who are not members, I ask that it be closed immediately. That is not the point of this conversation.

    I would like to hear some real opinions on the situation with Wade Burleson and his Blogging concerning meetings of the convention. You may discuss the entire situation including the issues that he disagrees with.

    Do you think he will be the first Trustee to loose his position on the SBC board?
     
  2. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Go to his weblog and read his posts. The entire position of his opposers is based on the fact that he posted information from meetings on the web. Its found at www.wadeburleson.com.

    Burleson takes the claim that the SBC's attorney made an opinion based on confidentiality and he claims that he does not break any of the three terms the attorney listed.

    First, he claims all of his comments are true; based on simply reporting the facts.

    Second, he makes the claim that he did not post to harm the convention.

    ...and, Third, he did not post any information from a confidential meeting. All information supposedly came from "open" meetings.

    All of the news articles I have read from those who oppose him claim that posting this information on his BLOG was enough to remove him.

    On the other hand, he claims that it is no different than Enron or Worldcom keeping their policies private during board and stock-holder meetings before their fall. He claims that it is not exactly like this, but similar. The Baptists who send the trustees in to run the agencies that make up the SBC should be held to the standards of "servants" for the convention and church members rather than leaders who are above the small church member who has no business knowing inner-workings of the convention.

    My pastor is a state trustee (Oklahoma) and he is against Burleson and actually pointed out his BLOG to me. After I read it; however, I find that whether or not I agree in principle with the specifics of the three items in question--I do feel that Burleson has a strong position, especially after the President of the IMB admitted to a private prayer language at home and a large percentage of missionaries may have to be sent back home to be re-Baptised because they were not Baptisted SPECIFICALLY by another Southern Baptist Pastor.

    Burleson's claim is that we have already agreed to follow the BFM 2000 and if we begin to continue to tighten the requirements, someone may someday add rules and abuse the system. (Such as demanding the King James to be used by missionaries.....this is my example not his, but I think you get the point.)

    Regarless of which direction this goes, it will obviously be an interesting unfolding of events. I believe that Wade is probably right on the issue that there are some trustees who would like to demand how the convention is operated without church input; but then again, is he handling this in the appropriate manner?
     
  4. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    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.
     
  6. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    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?
     
  7. shannonL

    shannonL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I have friends who are and who have been in leadership in the SBC and have verified everything he wrote.
     
  9. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with GB. He has never been known to print false information.

    You must understand that I have not read the attorney's opinion. The three issues brought up may not be mutually exclusive.

    It would be EXTREMELY subjective to prove that he was BLOGGING in an effort to "harm" the convention. It would never hold up in a court of law. Your opinion that it damages the convention may not be his intent. Unless you can find it in writing that he has the intention of damaging the convention, you don't have a case against Wade's weblog.

    I could write a weblog using completely public information regarding corruption in a company and my intent could be to straighten out the situation 'in the long run'. You would have a lot of difficulty proving that I am trying to damage it, even though short-term damage may occur to SOME of the trustees who wish to remain secretive about public issues.

    The SBC--being a public trust (in essence) is going to have a lot of trouble proving that Wade is intentionally attempting to damage it. It may damage the "careers" of some trustees who try to play "cover-up games", but that isn't the same issue as damaging the organization as a whole.

    Summary: The issue of whether or not Wade's intents are to help or damage the SBC become a moot point based entirely on agreement with the issues. ....at least in my opinion.
     
  10. All about Grace

    All about Grace
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once again the SBC is known for what they are AGAINST instead of what they are FOR.
     
  11. shannonL

    shannonL
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    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?
     
  13. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Anyone who has done nothing wrong and operates above board welcomes scrutiny. That kind of openness builds trust.
     
  14. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    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.
     
  15. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Likes Received:
    0
  16. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    PastorSBC1303, thank you for the link. I made an incorrect assumption that he wasn't going to post until after the meetings based on his remark about being gone.

    Personally, I don't think they will remove him, but if they do; THAT is when I will become concerned about the remaining trustees.

    No matter how much spin is placed on the meetings, I don't think public SBC opinion will be on their side.

    I think some of the local rumors I'm hearing is related to the fact that Wade was head of the Oklahoma group and had some run-ins with many of the "old-time" pastors within our state.
     
  17. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    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!
     
  18. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    If they do not back off they may bring on pressure they may not like.
     
  19. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Prophets are never very welcomed among those who do not stand for righteousness.
     

Share This Page

Loading...