just because we disagree it doesn't mean we don't like you

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette recently published an article regarding the IMB's current status with Wade Burleson. The tone of the article is essentially straight forward, but I would add my two cents worth on two accounts.

IT'S NOT ABOUT TONGUES

First of all, the issue of the new policies is not about "speaking in tongues". We already have a policy forbidding the charismatic practice of public tongues on the mission field. Because the missionary is assigned to spread the gospel and to plant new churches, this policy is understandable and practical. The issue is "private prayer language." There is a difference. Rankin and others have repeatidly said that while they have a "private prayer language" they do not take that outside of their closet and into the public arena. I have found that many Baptists get a little twitchy when "tonques" are mentioned. The fastest way to get people to run to your side on an issue in Baptist circles is to tell them that you are the guy who is against the charismatic practice of speaking in tongues.

I fear that some people will read this article and think, "Oh, OK, that Burleson guy is the one who is for speaking in tongues." Not exactly.

It is hard to get all the facts into one article so I don't want to assign too much blame for this, but I do want to clarify the point for accuracy sake. Another point here to be accurate:

UNFLAPPABLE IS NOT THE SAME AS UNFRIENDLY

I was glad to read that chairman Hatley does not think that blogging is a problem. I have maintained from the beginning that I believe that a part of my responsibility as a trustee is to inform and inspire those to whom I have influence about IMB issues. My trust is to my church and to our convention as much as (more) than to the IMB BOD. As you know, this blog is my way of having an ongoing conversation with my church family specifically and a broader audience generally. It only makes sense that I talk about the IMB since I, as pastor, serve the board as a trustee. It would be the same if I preached a series of sermons about my work on the IMB for instance and those sermons were available to the public. Blogging is just a more direct form of communication that invites feedback and clarification. A gift to the church in my opinion.

I wish that many of my fellow trustees felt the same way about blogging. Without going into the sordid details, suffice it to say that the word "blog" was a new four letter word for many in our last meeting.

And it certainly seemed evident to me that Wade's blogging was a BIG PROBLEM for many. It in fact dominated discussion.

This is why I was a bit confused by this statement from our chairman,

"We are not against his blogging or anyone elses communication in public..." He described (the problem with Wade) generally as his "behavior toward his fellow trustees...just a general approach to his relationships on the board."

This is an interesting statement that I wish had better explanation. Again, I know that a short article cannot possibly exhaust all details and meaning, but I certainly would want to know what Tom meant by this.

I do not believe that there is another person on the board who can speak to this issue more thorougly than I can. I have been with Wade from the beginning, as we are good friends and fellow pastors from the same state. I have sat with him at all the meals, accompanied him to most of his meetings and have stood in the hallway with him in the normal discourse of fellowship between meetings. I have been with him when he has discussed difficult issues with fellow trustees and have heard his public statements to the board in plenary and executive session.

Believe me when I tell you that he has been gracious in his opposition. He has never lost his temper, blown his cool or discredited or disparaged others opinions that were different from his own. He has never shied away from an opportunity to bring closure to a disagreement. He has expressed his love and respect for others at every turn.

Wade may be guilty of being unflappable and unyielding and disciplined in his opposition, but from what I have observed, he has not been hard to get along with. He goes out of his way to show kindness and respect.

I suspect that what Chairman Hatley is referring to is Wades tendency to be resolute and to not bend when be believes he is right (even when he is greatly outnumbered). It is in his nature. When a man believes with all of his heart and soul that he is standing on the side of scripture, if it is his nature to do so no matter what the reaction or "vibes" he is getting in response, he will go to the wall with that conviction. This has been the dynamic at play, because Wade is one of those kind of guys. I am sure that some have been offended by this straightforward resolve.

Wade has told me on many occasions that he really does like many of these people who have voiced their anger and disgust at him. That is an admirable quality.

I love our diversity as Baptists. It is the essence of the cooperative program to invite others into a big tent that has been adequately defined by our confession. The BFM 2000 does that for us. To promote cooperation and to embrace diversity is to value dissent and open debate about issues of substance. In this environment, it is important to remember that just because we disagree it does not mean we don't like each other.