Header image alt text

Southern Baptist in NC

Keeping Christ central in the world of Southern Baptists

Nov 07

17

Crow–Eaten as a Meal!

Posted by Tim Rogers on November 17, 2007
Posted in International Mission Board • SBC Outpost • Trustees • Wade Burleson  | 49 Comments

When I was growing up I was told by me Father that words were always sweet coming out but bitter when ingested. He informed me that the most bitter words to ingest were words presented as truthful ones but dissected and turned into untruthful ones. These words he told me were the difference in eating steak and crow. Steak is good and nourishing. Crow is meat, just like steak, but not filling and bitter. Thus, I find myself with the bitter task of eating crow.

Thursday evening November 15, 2007 on SBC Outpost, I made a statement concerning Brother Wade Burleson’s offer to resign in comment #22. I said; “He thought better of it and removed that offer from the table.” After speaking to Brother Wade personally, I was told that the statement was incorrect. He never removed his offer to resign. He and I disagree on many things, but on this I can see how he views that statement as being wrong. I should have kept saying what I was saying all along instead of trying to make a stronger case. What I said from the beginning is true–Brother Wade was told to write out his resignation and he never did. This statement Brother Wade agrees with as we discussed it on the phone. He had many things to consider in writing such a statement but got distracted by something else.

Because words mean things, I can see how Brother Wade and others can say the statement; “He thought better of it and removed that offer from the table” and the statement; “Brother Wade was told to write out his resignation and he never did” are not the same. If you believe that these two statements do not mean the same thing and thus believe my use of the first placed Brother Wade in the position of being someone not telling the truth, then I am sorry. I have never said that Brother Wade was lying and thus do not believe I need to apologize for such a statement. I have not spread gossip just because I will not reveal my source. The fact is that Brother Wade was told to write out his statement of resignation and he never did–he told me that.

That is all that I have to say on the Wade Burleson issue concerning this resignation. I will trust the outcome of this issue and my heart to our Sovereign Father who judges all men’s hearts–and has assigned Wade Burleson a mansion next to Jerry Corbaley, which is located across the hall from the mansions of Paige Patterson, which is next to Ben Cole.

Excuse me while I return to my meal.

***Clarification***

It seems that Brother Wade has a point of clarification where he believes it to be worded more accurately. I have stated; “Brother Wade was told to write out his resignation and he never did“. Brother Wade believes this would be more accurately worded by saying; “I was asked to write out my proposed resolution.” His proposed resolution involved his resignation before the end of the year.

I believe that Brother Wade and I disagree over semantics here. I personally do not see the difference in a statement that says he was asked to write out his resignation and a statement that says he was asked to write out his proposal to resolve the issue which included a letter of resignation.

Digg ThisShare via email

Sep 07

11

Do We have Duplicitious Trustees Serving the IMB?

Posted by Tim Rogers on September 11, 2007
Posted in International Mission Board • Trustees  | 23 Comments

In a post here one of our IMB trustees has stated;

Any of us, however, is capable of acting one way in public and another way in private – or saying one thing when people are listening and another when they are not. I am of the opinion that the SBC is a better convention when trustees and leaders say publicly what they feel free to say privately.

This statement seems to imply that during these closed door meetings some trustees are saying things they would not desire to be repeated in public. I only have a couple of questions concerning these forums.

  1. If a trustee openly stated in a contentious way that another trustee was bearing a false witness during these forums, would the one contentiously expressing the accusation want it to be made public that he had leveled such an accusation against a fellow trustee?
  2. Would the trustee that was accusing a fellow trustee of bearing a false witness appreciate the scrutiny of the SBC public once it were known that the one being accused of bearing this false witness was not only a honest, humble man of God but was an elder as the Bible describes the older men?
  3. I also wonder if a trustee were calling for public forums would like for the SBC public to know that a trustee being accused of bearing a false witness actually apologized? Not for bearing a false witness but for the other trustee’s offense and the accused trustee left without being acknowledged by the trustee making the accusation.
  4. In fairness, according to the statement it is possible for us all to be one way in private and another way in public. A person with such a characteristic is both a hypocrite and duplicitous. While we all have the natural man battling against the spiritual man, and thus possess the possibility, as Christians we should not act one way in private and then act another way in public.

These IMB forums are private and I do not believe they should be made public. I trust our trustees. If I did not trust them I would certainly say so at a convention where trustee issues can be handled. I also would hope that we do not have trustees that will accuse others of bearing false witness and becoming contentious in their actions toward older persons, who the Bible clearly tells us to honor and respect, in the private or public arena.

Digg ThisShare via email