to clarify

I have recieved many emails over the past few days from people who are concerned that I will no longer speak my mind regarding the work of the IMB. Although the new policy does forbid me from being "critical" of board approved action. Rest assured, I will speak my convictions in a positive and upbeat fashion, never disparaging of either board action or board personalities.

As I have said before, I have not changed my positions or my concerns expressed in any of my previous posts. I believe a healthy discussion about ecclesiology and missions will be good for all of us. I believe we are all in a learning process the end result of which will be very positive. I believe it will be possible for trustees to speak their mind in a way that "speaks the truth in love". That is our mandate and that will be my guide in future posts regarding the IMB.

resolutions i am making coming out of our last imb meeting

1. I resolve to be an encouragement and support to Jerry Rankin and the IMB staff as they work to accomplish a bold mission of world evangelism and church planting. Our new policy specifically holds trustees accountable for the way we talk to and about our president and staff. This trustee will take this very seriously, and will be the first one to speak up when I believe we have violated that policy.

2. I resolve to lead our church to become more missional both in our support of the IMB in our financial giving and in our own missional approach of partnering with strategic missions platforms around the world. I would challenge every church in our convention to do their part in partnering with these incredible missionaries around the world. These men and women are my heroes. If your church is interested in our experience in these partnerships, feel free to contact me.

3. I resolve to get the stories out that need to be told. I am tired of board meetings that focus on the petty and woefully unnecessary and neglect the BIG picture of kingdom building.

4. I resolve to work with my fellow trustees to increasingly create a climate on our board that will be affirming, supportive and encouraging to IMB administration. We must always think the best of our president, cover his back, lift him up in prayer and in every way become champions of his vision.

5. I resolve to work with my fellow trustees to continually review and improve IMB policy that is overly restrictive of our missionaries on the field. These champions on the field, living in very difficult situations must not feel that their board is out of touch and not hearing them. They must feel supported in their mission and encouraged by board policy to accomplish their task. I will work diligently as a trustee to do what I can to improve these policies to extract narrow ecclesiological or soritological theology wherever it may be found.

6. I resolve to work with my fellow trustees to review and improve IMB policy that may be overly restrictive of trustee communication. There are already discussions regarding positive ways trustees can engage the blogging community. I believe this is best accomplished when trustees have complete freedom to "speak the truth in love".

7.. I resolve to get to know our trustees better. The more I get to know them, the more impressed I am with the quality of our board.

8. I resolve to pray more. To pray for our incredible missionaries, our president, our board members and our vision of reaching the world for Christ in New Directions.

9. I resolve to help strengthen our ability to work in a positive environment on our board. To help protect our board from harmful political manipulation and to better facilitate open communication.

10. I resolve to keep our church and all of you who read this blog informed about the work of the board. I cannot be critical of board approved policy, but I will be informative and supportive in expressing my opinion.

reflections on our imb meeting (everyone stay calm)

Note: I have many reasons for believing that this was a a really good, not GREAT meeting- and for reasons that only someone in the context of our board dynamics would understand. I understand that a lot of people are angry about what they percieve as the "silencing" of trustees. Perhaps the nature of my blog has added to that perception. I ask everyone to not jump to conclusions about my position. I am not naive or a patsy. I know what I am doing and what I am saying. Those of you who read my blogs know that my prayer has always been that things would work together for the good and for God's glory in this whole situation- I believe wholeheartidly that this is happening. If you are upset with me for believing that- I have no control over your perception. I prefer your emails over your public comments on this particular blog. Right now my impression is that there are too many of you who are too passionate to hear me in a public forum. I am taking Wade's lead here and removing the comment section and asking you to email me instead.

We have just completed what I believe to be one of the best IMB meetings we have had since I have been on the board. The demenour was mostly Christlike and friendly; very enjoyable. Even in difficult discussions, our trustees for the most part maintained a joyful spirit that was God honoring.

The end result was a UNANIMOUS vote to rescind the motion to remove Wade Burlison.

We also passed policy on trustee accountability that I believe is adequately specific and will be a big help to trustee deportment and communication in the way we speak about board approved policy and in the way communicate publically about one another, our president and IMB personnel. It wasn't perfect, and I would have changed a few things, but hey- whose perfect this side of heaven.

I am most pleased that EVERY trustee on our board will be held in account. Our opposition to one another and to policy must always be gracious and upbeat, non inflamatory and carefully expressed in a way that does not bring desparity to the board OR STAFF. The wording is very specific; we must not disparage one another or IMB staff.

Note the definition of "Disparage": to belittle or express a negative opinion of.

From now on trustees of the IMB must not belittle or express a negative opinion in public of any fellow board member or of the President of the IMB or of IMB personel. From now on, all such opinions will be dealt with in a biblical Christ like manner within the board.

This is good (maybe not yet great) policy, and I am pleased.

I give Him praise for a spirit of Christian unity in our meeting that I have not sensed before. As I have said, I believe that there is great benefit in struggle, and that often God does His best work when we go through the storm. I believe God will be glorified.

Tom Hatley is to be congratulated for positive leadership throughout our executive sessions.

I believe we have made significant progress as a board this week!

Obviously, though I stand by all of my concerns expressed in previous blogs, as a trustee of the board who is more excited than ever about what we are doing oversees (I heard some incredible stories this week that I will blog about later), I am forbidden by this new policy on trustee responsibility to express criticism in a way that I have in the past. From now on, all such criticism will be between me and my brothers and sisters on the board.

does the waodoni tribe have a legitimate church?

Ron West, commenting on a recent blog, makes a point that I think is worth thinking about:

In the 80s I spoke to a missionary who was invited to mission conference in the church of SBC president at that time. There were over 30 missionaries there and he and his wife were the only Southern Baptists. They were allowed to speak in one Sunday School class while non Southern Baptist spoke in the main service. I know of other SBC presidents in the last 25 years where similar conferences were held. I have been invited to speak at mission conferences on more than one occasion at the church of IMB trustees. At these conferences a large number if not the majority of missionaries were non Southern Baptist. Many of the missionaries from other groups are wonderful and effective missionaries. I serve on the field with missionaries from their sending boards and have great fellowship with them. However, I know for a fact not all in their organization would fit the guidelines being set out in the new baptism and tongues policies at the board.

In our own church we have had Steve Saint speak to our congregation. His father was one of the missionaries killed in South America bringing the gospel to the incredibly violent Waodoni tribe.

The story of these missionaries is one that has inspired millions of Christians around th world and was the inspiration of the films "End of the Spear" and "Beyond the Gates of Splender" (Two films that some of our own church members had a big hand in). Saint and others were a part of the missions group associated with The Plymouth Brethren. This is a conservative Christian denomination that holds to many of the same beliefs as Southern Baptists, with the noted exception that they have no ordained clergy (very non-Landmarkist).

Ron raises a strong point. If we are prepared to say that our missionaries around the world cannot cooperate with non (landmarkist) Baptist missionaries, what does this say about the legitimacy of missionaries like Nate Saint and Elizabeth Elliot or Anglican missionary Eric Liddle of "Chariots of Fire" fame?

I recently read a review of Saints new book "The Great Omission" written by Robert Reece of YWAM (Youth With a Mission). Saints experience in Ecuodor has some interesting parallels to the policy changes we have made, and is another example of why I believe a landmarkist approach to missions would be a disaster for the IMB (The bold is my emphasis):

Steve Saint is the son of the martyred missionary, Nate Saint, who was killed by the Waodani Indians (formerly known as Aucas) of Ecuador in 1956 along with Jim Elliot, Roger Youderian, Ed McCully, and Pete Fleming. After his aunt, Rachel Saint, and Elisabeth Elliot successfully planted Christianity among the Waodani, Steve spent some of his childhood among these Indians who murdered his father, even being baptized by them. In 1994, when his Aunt Rachel died, the Waodani called him from his business career in Florida to live among them again.

When he arrived in the Amazon jungle, Saint was shocked by the state of the Waodani churches and Christians: “I was dismayed to find that the Waodani church was less functional than it had been when I lived with them during school vacations while growing up” (p. 18). What was the cause of this sad situation? Beside the fact that non-Christian outsiders were increasingly dominating their lives, the Waodani “also felt threatened by all of the benevolence they were receiving from Christian missions and relief organizations” (p. 18). Initially, the Waodani churches had been self-governing, self-supporting, and self-propagating, but now they waited for outsiders to build their church buildings and to conduct their Bible conferences.

This type of dependency concerns Saint because it causes what he calls “The Great Omission,” that is, it eliminates the contribution of indigenous believers like the Waodani to the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Saint emphasizes that the model of missions that creates dependency in indigenous believers will never be able to complete world evangelization. He believes that dependency ends up sapping the strength and patience of both donors and receivers, and it is difficult to cure after it becomes established. The real goal of missions is to plant healthy indigenous churches that can do their own part in fulfilling the Great Commission. Yet many indigenous believers are so smothered by the good intentions of western Christians that they feel incapable of matching up to the task by comparison. They sit on the sidelines, waiting for more sophisticated Christians to minister to their needs.

How does this dependency happen? Saint explains, “Anyone of superior education, superior technology, and superior financial ability who is attempting to help people of inferior capability in those areas has to guard against creating dependency” (p. 56). Furthermore, North Americans assume that “more is almost always considered better when it comes to money” (p. 126). Saint likens money to medicine which must be administered in the right dosage to effect a cure. Too much money, like too much medicine, can harm more than help. In missions, if imported systems are too expensive for the local Christians to afford, that will tend to make them dependent on outsiders. Thus, less funding can help overcome “The Great Omission,” by prompting local believers to exercise their own faith and use their own resources for evangelism.

North Americans tend to make the common mistake of thinking that worldwide standards must equal theirs to be valid and effective. For example, we may assume that pastors among the Waodani need the same training as American pastors, or that church buildings in Africa should have the same specifications as those in the U.S.A. In his efforts to help the Waodani overcome dependency, Saint adopted technology appropriate to the jungle setting. In this way, he helped the Waodani cope with modern needs by training them in both dentistry and aviation, but in a form they can afford and use without depending on outsiders. Thus, the Waodani use portable dental chairs and solar-powered drills that can be carried in a backpack, and they fly what he calls “a powered parachute.” Such innovations appropriate to the Waodani lifestyle have helped them to become self-supporting once again.

Saint concludes with a comparison between modern missionary methods and those of the Apostle Paul. In contrast with Paul’s method of turning over responsibility to his converts at an early stage, modern missionaries tend to stay too long in leadership over their converts, expecting them to attain the same qualifications as the missionaries before assuming responsibility. Saint advocates the Pauline method to avoid dependency, characterized by the four words “Know-Go-Show-Blow.” This signifies the necessity of knowing God personally, going where He is not yet known, showing the people there how to follow Him, and “blowing,” that is, leaving that place soon in order to start over in another place. In this way, missions would be able to incorporate all their converts into the evangelistic work force and so fulfill the Great Commission.

Saint raises some very intersting questions regarding missiology around the world. Perhaps for us a more basic question would be, "is this a real church?" If these people have not been baptized by an ordained Baptist minister, can we really say that they constitute a church? And can our missionaries in this part of Ecuodor cooperate with the likes of Steve Saint?

when your enemy becomes your friend

The rationale of the recent IMB policies has generated a great deal of comment from the blogging community. Tom Ascol, Wade Burlison, David Rogers, Marty Duren, Art Rogers, Dorcas Hawker to name just a few. In addition, I have enjoyed the critique of Tom Ascol of Malcolm Yarnell's white paper concerning the "Heart of the Baptist."

I have not intentionally left out bloggers who are in favor of the policies, I just haven't found them yet. Ben Stratton has certainly commented enough on other blogs to constitute worthy discussion on his own, if he had one. Wes Kinney has come out in favor of the majority group, but hasn't commented on the rationale yet. I think all of us would benefit if Tom Hatley and Bob Pearle had their own blogs.

In spite of their one-sidedness, I offer all of these commentaries up as examples of how great discussion of substantive issues emerges from thoughtful bloggers. Often the comments in the posts exceeds and add great substance to the points in the original blog. We all benefit from hearing each other out.

It is time for SB leaders to wake up to the possibilities of the blog. To simply discount all blogging as "gossip" is in the words of Rumsfield on Syria, "notably not helpful." Certainly the potential for gossip increases exponentially in this kind of forum, but to say it is not worth our attention would be foolish. The potential for gossip increased with the invention of the telephone, but that didn't stop us from putting them at IMB headquarters.

Jerry Corbaly is putting together his thoughts on how he can ask the IMB to embrace blogging as an effective tool. He is asking for help on this. I would encourage everyone to go to his site with suggestions. It is now public knowledge that Jerry is the one who first introduced the motion against Wade. A suggestion coming from him to the board regarding the future of blogging in a positive sense would have added impact it seems to me.

Wade is also asking for your input on how this can be accomplished.

I am reading a biography of Teddy Roosevelt, one of our countries most effective leaders and change agents. He was one who saw the necessity of good communication during a time of rapid change. He was the first governor of New York to hold press conferences and to talk openly about the operation of the government. In fact, he called the press into his office TWICE A DAY. His words:

"At that time, neither the parties nor the public had any realization that publicity was necessary for any adequate understanding of the dangers of the "invisible empire" which throve by what was done in secrecy." ("The Rise of Teddy Roosevelt" page 728).

I am sympathetic to my fellow trustees who don't know what to make of the bright light cast on the IMB in recent months. I have felt somewhat squemish about it at times myself. But I have now come to the opinion that it should not only not be avoided, but encouraged. As our convention moves into the future we must engage younger leaders and become not just tolerant of internet blogging, but REALLY GOOD at it.

It may very well be that the very thing the board has been most concerned about as destructive and dangerous, is potentially the greatest tool for involving people in our missions causes since the start of the cooperative program. Blogging is here to stay whether we like it or not. We recoil from it and reject it to our peril, or embrace it enthusiastically to our great benefit.

long awaited rationale made public

I am grateful to IMB chairman Tom Hatley for releasing the rationale for the new policies on baptism and private prayer language passed last November. He has not revealed who wrote the rationale, although I suspect it was a culmination of those who headed up the subcommittees responsible for researching the issues These are not official until the full board acts on them, and they should not be seen as the sentiment of everyone on the board. Hatley is careful to state this in his open letter.

I have a busy day and will not be able to comment fully on these papers until I have more time, but do want to make a few quick points:

1. Although I am grateful for their release now, I would have been even more grateful if I, as a member of the personnel committee that was asked to pass them, would have had ample opportunity to study, research and talk through them in open debate over an extended period of time. In plenary session (public session) I suggested we take more time to think through the issues involved, sensing that it could create controversy convention wide. The sentiment from the majority of the board seemed to be that new members on the board could not possibly grasp how previous committees had been dealing with these questions in years past, and therefore the board should not delay a vote. Of course, for me, that is non-issue, I was the one being asked to vote. The motion passed without much debate.

2. Having said that, these papers do nothing to change my mind and I don't believe would have changed my arguments. The greater issues for me were (are), 1) not all Baptists hold landmarkist and cessasionists views on ecclesiology, therefore marginalizing good churches (like ours) and harming our cooperitive efforts; and 2) they seem to me to be a serious breach of the autonomy of the local church. We have no business sticking our head in the tent of the local church. In the hallway after our debate in closed session, someone pointed out to me that is not unusual for the board to be more restrictive in their requirements of candidates than churches are of their members. Fair point. But these issues are not pragmatic in nature (emotional health, physical health etc), they are docrtinal/theological and hit at the core of our beliefs and practices as cooperating Baptists.

3. You may ask why I am so concerned. I have been with our missionaries on the field. I have seen their hard work in places like Sri Lanka, Bulgaria, Jordan and Africa. It is EXTREMELY important to me that our board not give in to landmarkism. I cannot imagine a scenerio in which we are demanding that a missionary in some muslim country where Christianity is outlawed, must plant only landmarkist churches. There are many places around the world where only house churches exist and their church structure is not yet fully developed. To demand that they conform to our Americanized version of ecclesiology would be senseless. To demand that our local churches send only candidates who have a landmarkist and cessasionist view of scripture is unthinkable to me. The effect, I believe, would be devestating.

Consider also that this could get very personal for us as a church. We have missionaries on the field right now serving in some very difficult places who are members of our church. We support them, we love them, we pray for them. They are NOT landmarkist. Landmarkist ecclesiology would be extremely detrimental to their strategy. They are directly impacted by the policy and direction of our board and are held accountable for carrying out it's objectives.

This is not conjecture or speculation. Our decisions matter.

As I have said before, my hope is that the end result of all of this will be better communication of the issues and arguments. My prayer is that this process, as difficult as it has been, will lead to a much better, stronger and unified board. We are all learning.

Thanks again to our chairman- access to this rationale will provoke healthy discussion across the convention.

More later.

messenger's new face (and great hair cut)

It was recently announced that one of our church members, Ray Sanders, has been appointed as the new editor of "The Baptist Messenger". I can say with a disproportionate amount of inobjectivity that I can't think of a better man for the job! Ray is one of the most creative and visionary guys I have ever known. He knows how to cut to the chase on substantive issues and has a keen sense of the times in which we live.

I think we can all expect that Ray will move the messenger forward dramatically to the delight of thoughtful (young and old) Oklahoma Baptists.

Also, I like his hair style.