let's get on with it

Many of our church members have asked me about IMB issues. Of course, there has been enough public information lately to keep everyone interested. Instead of addressing it from the pulpit, I will address it in this venue.

I was pleased to see that that the IMB Executive Committee is now recommending to the full board that the motion to remove Wade Burlison be rescinded. This is the right thing to do and I do not believe there will be much of an objection to this recommendation from the full board. Despite what many may think, the IMB board is made up of men and women from around the country who absolutely want the best for the Kingdom and for SBC missions. I am sure that cool headedness will prevail in our next meeting.

As you know, I stand with Wade on these issues and my conviction has not moved one iota that the new policies adopted by the board last year are detrimental to our witness as Southern Baptists and to our strategy in world missions. I have heard from many missionaries around the world and from some of our own church members who serve with the IMB in foreign lands who have shared their concerns with me. I do not believe that it is the role of every trustee to be in full agreement with every policy passed by the entity. I know the argument that once a policy is passed, the board should stand as one. In most issues, this will be the case. But when a policy is especially divisive, I believe trustees have a responsibility to work within the system to see them changed and to communicate their concerns. I agree with Wade that once a policy is passed, it is a convention issue.

Speaking of Wade...

I believe the motion and vote to remove Wade was more kneejerk than malicious. There were many in our last meeting who had been worked into a frenzy by the high beam of blogger publicity that was egged on by some who felt indicted by his words. I think that now most trustees have had time to think, pray and reason about the issues involved, and the upcoming discussions will be more productive.

So what is wrong with the policies?

My main objection to these policies has always been that they are an infringement on the local church and are outside the theological parameters of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. I stated in my initial objections to these policies during trustee debate that I believed the result would be division in the SBC and the marginalizing of good conservative SBC churches around the country. I think the subsequent response to these policies has been evidence enough to this.

The new policies smack of landmarkism. This is an ideology that does not have a good track record in world missions and should not be tolerated by the board.

To be fair, I am still a virtual newcomer to the board and many of my cohorts have served for many years and the issues Wade and I addressed are ones they had hashed and rehashed many times. For those of you who wonder how this could have happened with this kind of emotion, the simple answer is that it was a lengthy process. On a board where new members rotate in every year, it takes a while to digest substantive issues with all the nuances of the arguments pro and con. It is a wonder that this kind of thing doesn't happen more often.

So what now...

Despite these objections and many others, my main concern now is that we as a trustee board stop straining at gnats and get on with the important work of world evangelization and church planting. Of course, some healthy discussion is in order. I am very hopeful that chairman Hatley will welcome and encourage this kind of discourse. We will need to have a heart to heart talk about the appropriateness of trustee communication outside the board meetings. I am talking about blogging AND trustee politicking in caucus groups. There are deep concerns about undo political influence from outside the board. I am praying that all that we have been through in recent weeks will serve to create a fresh new openness of communication among board members.

Let Rankin and his staff lead...

I am also praying that the ultimate outcome of this will be an open discussion of how a board should support it's leadership. Jerry Rankin was elected by our convention to lead the IMB. As a board, we should either get rid of him (if we have reason) or support him and his staff wholeheartedly and make life EASIER on him and not more difficult. Keep him accountable, yes, but otherwise find ways to assist him in the vision of New Directions and work with him to make it better. I am praying for the day that Jerry finds the board his greatest asset in advancing SBC Kingdom work. I think the convention is better served when this is the climate of the group that is charged to work with him.

In our church, our deacons are my biggest supporters and champions for our vision. They are also to keep me accountable. I cannot imagine a situation where I could not count on them to be behind me in the challenge of mission advancement. They are on the front lines WITH me, not shooting at me from behind the lines. If my deacons have a problem with me, they know that they have the freedom to come to me any time to work it out.

My feeling is this: Let's support Rankin or give the board reasons to get rid of him. If nothing can be found to fire him, get to the front lines to support him. The convention has spoken and he is the man whether we like it or not.

This will make us better...

Someone said the other day that they long for the day when the convention was more congenial. Oh yeah... when was that? The Cambellite controversy of the early 1800s? Landmarkism in the mid 1800s? The revivalism and Sunday School board controversy of the early 1900s? The education crisis of the mid 1900s? The conservative resurgence? When you read the history books you will find that we have always had periods of disagreement. When you put people of differing passions and gifts and personalities in the same room, you've got chaos. And chaos is absolutely necessary for kingdom growth and church health. Our struggle and our diversity makes us better. This controversy should cause you to embrace the convention even more! We are a dynamic and diverse people. I worry about a couple that doesn't argue and I don't trust a Body of Believers that always agrees.

And I am not just talking about the SBC. Start with the Jerusalem council and read forward to disputes between Paul and Barnabas, the Corinthian and Galatian church etc and you will find that Kingdom work is messy business.

But somehow all things work together for the good. God on His throne continues to use us in spite of ourselves and the miracle of it all is that it is often because of our hard times and petty struggling and infighting that His best work in us emerges from the rubble.

So...let's get on with it.