A wise man once said that those who tell the truth never have to keep track of their lies. The beauty of blogging is that the person who is consistently speaking the truth will become evident. In addition, that person who misrepresents the truth will eventually be uncovered.
It was interesting that when the Sheri Klouda story first broke on this blog a few weeks ago several comments were made regarding alleged 'inaccuracies.' To this day not one person has shown me even one inaccuracy in the Klouda post and Dr. Klouda herself has publicly verified the accuracy of my post. I learned a long time ago you don't put anything in print as fact unless you know it to be true. There will be some who will allege inaccuracies and falsehoods for personal gain or protection, but the blog is a wonderful tool for helping keep the record straight against those who distort or misrepresent the truth.
Allow me to give a recent example. I wrote a post entitled There Was No Trustee Investigation Committee and stated that an administrator at the International Mission Board had asked me to remove the phrase 'trustee investigation committee' from my blog, because there was not one. It seems that though my recommendation called for one, administrators and trustee leadership felt it best to only address policy, protocol, and procedures of the Board. The report laid out the proper boundaries of the board according to bylaws and policy documents and was presented as the response to my motion. There was no 'investigation' into the merits of the concerns raised within my motion because the committee did not feel they had the authority to investigate. I frankly have no problem with the official response to my motion because I never felt it was appropriate, from the beginning, that the trustees of the IMB be charged to investigate the manipulation of the trustee processes by outside influences, including other agency heads.
Nevertheless, a fellow IMB trustee took exception to my statement that an IMB administrator told me that there was no investigation committee. This trustee wrote on his blog, "What idiot told Mr. Burleson there was no trustee investigative committee? Or were such words twisted out of context? He then asked me to identify the idiot in a comment section. Well, I called the trustee in question rather than post the name of the administrator on my blog, and this trustee informed me via phone that he had already received an email from Dr. Rankin explaining that he, the President of the IMB, was the one who told me to remove the phrase 'trustee investigation committee'from my blog.
Now, this trustee is attempting to say, in what seems to me to be an attempt to deflect his own embarrassment, that I took Dr. Rankin's words out of context. I most assuredly did not. Dr. Rankin, in his usual forthright and gracious style, told me that I should remove the phrase. He said that the report to my motion was an honest and cooperative effort to answer policy questions raised by my motion, to not spend any more time dealing with my recommendation than necessary, to attempt to be as non-controversial as possible in the response, and to get back to focusing on the missions and purpose of the board. I affirmed the desires behind the issuance of this report, but then asked Dr. Rankin why not one person asked to see my documentation, affidavits and materials that served as the basis for the major concerns expressed in my motion and that I have requested on three various occasions to trustee leadership to present to the entire Board. Again, he responded by saying 'there was no investigation committee' and suggested that I remove the phrase from my blog. After the conversation, I wrote a new post that gave the details of what I learned from the 'IMB administrator.'
I agree with Dr. Rankin that IMB Board should never have been given the responsibility to investigate outside influences upon the nominating process and the pushing of agendas that were contrary to the IMB President's and administration's desires. My motion at the Southern Baptist Convention requested the Executive Committee of the SBC to take that responsibility. I really appreciated Dr. Rankin's help in understanding the report. For my fellow IMB trustee to now attempt to say Dr. Rankin's words were taken out of context is over the top. But he continues to seek to rewrite history on his blog. He stated in a post yesterday, entitled Of Idiots and Context, "To date, (Mr. Burleson) refuses to address the issues listed in the May 2006 Executive Committee report."
All I can do is smile at that statement and thank the good Lord for the ability to blog. It is easily seen by anyone who wishes to take the time to read that my response to the May 2006 Executive Committee Report has been a matter of public record for almost a year --- well before last year's Southern Baptist Convention in June. My fellow trustee's statement "Mr. Burleson refuses to address the issues listed in the May 2006 Executive Committee report" is once again, either an intentional misrepresentation, an unfortunate memory loss, or a momentary lapse in the accountability policies of the IMB.
You may read my official response to the IMB Executive Committee's report of May 2006 in the following posts. A thorough reading of each post below will give you the background and the history of my eventual recommendation to the Southern Baptist Convention which was presented one month later in June of 2006.
This Really Gets Old, But In The End, It Will Be Worth It (May 24, 2006)
Reflections in the Denver Airport and Decisions (May 25, 2006)
The Tipping Point Is Reached (May 26, 2006)
In The Counsel of Many There Is Great Wisdom (May 27, 2006)
The Decision: A Motion in Greensboro (June 1, 2006)
The above five posts illustrate the beauty of blogging.
There is a past record to keep revisionists from succeeding in rewriting history.
In His Grace,