Wednesday, May 31, 2006

The Decision -- A Motion In Greensboro

After listening to the advice of many people, visiting at length with my wife, and both requesting and receiving from the Lord a peace in my spirit regarding my decision, I am ready to take what I believe to be the next appropriate step in my service on behalf of the Southern Baptist Convention at the International Mission Board.

There will be a motion to the Southern Baptist Convention in Greensboro, North Carolina requesting messengers to authorize the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to appoint an Ad Hoc Committee in order to to listen to, view evidence of, and possibly investigate further, five concerns involving the International Mission Board.

Further, the motion will request that the Ad Hoc Committee report on its progress to the to the Executive Committee of the SBC with a final report and recommendation given to the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio.

The next meeting of the International Mission Board is during the middle of July in Richmond, Virginia. I will begin my second year of service as an IMB trustee during that July meeting. I hope there will be a new spirit of openness and transparency regarding our work. Blogging has been my attempt to energize and mobilize grass roots Southern Baptists in their understanding of, and participation with, the International Mission Board's ministries through a greater comprehension and appreciation of the IMB's work.

I will continue to seek to build relationships with every trustee of the International Mission Board over the next several weeks. I will continue to privately confront my fellow trustees if I believe there are violations of Board approved policies occurring. I will also continue blogging, ever mindful of biblical principles that guide us, all the while seeking to abide by the new trustee guidelines which forbid trustees from publicly criticizing Board approved policies regardless of one's personal convictions.

I look forward to serving the Southern Baptist Convention as a trustee of the International Mission Board for the next seven years. I know that not everyone will be pleased with my decision NOT to go public with details that serve as the basis for the Greensboro recommendation, but I have an absolutely clear conscience that I am doing exactly what the Lord would have me do.

May God bless the IMB staff and administration, may God bless my fellow trustees, may God bless our missionaries, and may God bless the Southern Baptist Convention in Greensboro.


"I move that the Southern Baptist Convention, in session, in Greensboro, North Carolina 2006, invoking Bylaw 26 B of the Southern Baptist Convention, authorize the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention to appoint a seven member Ad Hoc Committee to determine the sources of the controversies in our International Mission Board, and make findings and recommendations regarding these controversies, so that trustees of the IMB might effect reconciliation and effectively discharge their responsibilities to God and fellow Southern Baptists by cooperating together to accomplish evangelism and missions to the Glory of God; and

That this Committee listen to, view evidence of, and possibly investigate further, five concerns involving the International Mission Board which are not limited to, but include:

(1). The manipulation of the nominating process of the Southern Baptist Convention during the appointment of trustees for the International Mission Board.
(2). Attempts to influence and/or coerce the IMB trustees, staff, and administration to take a particular course of action by one or more Southern Baptist agency heads other than the President of the International Mission Board.
(3). The appropriate and/or inappropriate use of Forums and Executive Sessions of the International Mission Board as compared to conducting business in full view of the Southern Baptist Convention and the corresponding propriety and/or impropriety of the Chairman of the International Mission Board excluding any individual trustee, without Southern Baptist Convention approval, from participating in meetings where the full International Mission Board is convened.
(4). The legislation of new doctrinal requisites for eligibility to serve as employees or missionaries of the IMB beyond the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.
(5). The suppression of dissent by trustees in the minority through various means by those in the majority, and the propriety of any agency forbidding a trustee, by policy, from publicly criticizing a Board approved action; and

That this Committee follow the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement in regard to theological issues, and operate within the Constitution and Bylaws of the Southern Baptist Convention; and

That to accomplish the Committee's work all the trustees, officers, employees, and administrators of the International Mission Board, shall fully cooperate with the Committee to accomplish the purposes outlined in this motion; and

This Committee shall report on the progress of its work to the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention and the International Mission Board; and

That the Ad Hoc Committee make its final report and recommendation to the June 2007 Southern Baptist Convention and request that it be discharged."


I will seek to answer any and all questions people may have regarding this Greensboro recommendation, but the privilege of a response is reserved for those who identify themselves by name or by their personal blog.

In His Grace,



Paul Fries said...

This is your decision. I appreciate your willingness to seek advice and counsel but in the end you have made your decision and that is the way it has to be. I cannot honestly say what I would have done if I was in your shoes.

I appreciate your spirit and will be at the convention to support your motion.

Anonymous said...

Somehow I think we all knew your answer before you published it. I believe you have left the fire smoulding. I pray I am wrong. I really don't believe we will see any committee action that will rightfully address your concerns.
Mark my will still be considered a renegade and a troublemaker. In my book you are a defender of the faith and a hero to us laiety. Much prayer has been offered on your behalf and much more will have to be offered.

Charlie of Gainesville

WTJeff said...


Good call. Option #1 won't happen and Option #2 would cause an uproar that would distort the true issues. May the Lord bless you and this motion.


Jeff Parsons
Amarillo, TX

Anonymous said...

I understand your decision and I feel that it was probably the best one you could make, considering the circumstances. Exposing everyone would not have gotten very far, I don't believe, and it would have marginalized you beyond repair. Your enemies would have had all the ammunition they needed.

Having said that, I have NO FAITH whatsoever that anything will come from your committee. I think that all of this will become so confused, jumbled, and influenced, and that very little will be addressed. That is how things work in politics. Delay. Hinder. Hide. Keep Working. My biggest concern has to do with the IMB policies.

2007? Why will it take so long? There will be a lot of missionaries turned down in a year.

I understand why you did things this way. We just need to turn this over to the Lord. That also might mean that we find other ways to cooperate, do ministry, and reach the world until all of this works out (speaking of the IMB).

Anonymous said...

Brother Wade,

Thank you for deciding to use the established channels at the SBC to look into and address your concerns.

Jonathan Borland

Scotte Hodel said...

For what it's worth, I agree with your decision.

Anonymous said...


Last year I called a brother and long-distance mentor of mine seeking advice and counsel about a similar issue in CA. He told me, "Due process and cross reference. Things won't change overnight but if you follow the correct process you can affect change. Always remember that truth tellers can be cross-referenced but liars cannot." And then he said, "Always remember that there are men and women everywhere who want to stand up and do what is right. They just need some encouragement."

IMO you are doing just these actions.

We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. We have been preceded by many faithful men and women who have shed their own blood for the sake of the Kingdom of God out of their love for Christ and surrender of their own personal agendas.

Because of these truths may the messengers this year rise up, press on and run with endurance the race set before them. May their eyes be on Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our salvation. May they follow the truth whereever it may lead them.

an Okie M in CA

tl said...

Number 3 has been chosen.

But number 2 always remains as an option if true transparency (of process) and accountability are not the results of an ad hoc committee.

Anonymous said...

This EA IMB M respects your choice. Contrary to others, I believe there are more than a few good men and women left in the SBC who can serve on such a committee.

It is unfortunate that we anonymous M's will not be able to get a response from you this go around. I hope that you will take us into consideration the next time you choose to withhold comments to anonymous bloggers.

Anonymous said...

I support your decision, but let me ask a question for clearification on SBC policy. When you make a motion can it be voted down? What happens if your motion is voted down?

I'm glad that God has given you peace about what to do. I will be at Greensboro and you have my support.


Dori said...

Thank you for remaining faithful to God's leading in these matters.

Bob Cleveland said...


If you set aside personal preferences, and take no account of wrongs done to you, and give up any ambitions of revenge, then this is precisely what should happen.

Come to think of it, that was, consistently, the pattern Jesus showed in what He did.

Well done.

Phillips Lynn said...

Pastor Wade,

I know there are many nervous men breathing great sighs of relief over your decision, because they will once again be able to control the outcome.

I pray that I am wrong.

dlfj said...

Once again you have proved that you are more interested in God's agenda than your own.

Thank you, Wade. You are a man of integrity and wisdom. May the Lord richly bless you for your stand for Him. He is the only one you have to answer to for your actions. I think He is pleased right now.

I will pray that this motion passes and that the Lord will be in the work of the committee. I have little confidence in our ability to solve the problems, but I have great confidence that God will work out this situation exactly as He sees fit. His will must, and should be done, not ours.

God bless you.

Jeff said...

Smart option. Seeking #3 first leaves the option of #2 if necessary.

Brittany said...

I'm still new to SBC policies regarding motions. Can the convention opt to reject your motion? If they do, what will your response be?

I know your decision was a difficult one to make, especially in light of the accusations that have been leveled against you. I'm reminded of Mary's situation when she anointed Jesus. Other believers were quick to condemn her, but before she could defend herself Jesus spoke for her and silenced the critics. I pray that you experience a similar God-directed defense that won't require your own input :)

Tony Gulbrandsen said...


I wonder if you should include a section requiring individual interviews by the Ad Hoc Committee with each trustee. A trustee should be able to turn down such an interview, but I don't see, in the current wording a way, the need to get all the facts.

The committee could just read minutes of the meetings and make their recommendations based on those records. If each trustee were interviewed individually by the committee, then those who are in fear would be able to still express their concerns.

Just my $.02 and I will be praying for you, the IMB, and the SBC. May we see God's hand in this when more people come to know Him.


Anonymous said...

As a parliamentarian and studier of past SBC motions let me offer a "different approach".
The SBC-Exec. Comm. has resisted, repeatedly turned down, and convention ruled motions to NOT be an investigative arm of the SBC.
The Exec. Comm. does not believe that is it's role...and documents back that up.
The motion would be better served if you "direct(he's already authorized to do this) the President elected at this convention(Greensboro-'06)to appoint an 11 member(any number)Blue Ribbon ad-hoc committee to investigate(what you have suggested) the issues at IMB (equally divided by minister/layman vocations).
This will have a chance...the other will be simply ruled out-of-order.
I would begin 'lobbying' the Committee on Order of Business now and see if there is an acceptable wording they would promise to bring to the floor so the messengers can vote on it. Otherwise bringing it to the floor without the committee's support is doable...but difficult.
Hope this helps...

Your friend in KC

Tom Bryant said...

Thanks for choosing this grace filled option.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Wade!
We can see that God is working through you as you consistently seek Him in all your decisions. We'll be praying as the convention approaches for all that it entails.

John Fariss said...

In a way I am disappointed--as I said earlier, I wanted to read who did what to whom (and that "just a little too much"). But you probably made the right choice. I "heard" in your earlier messages a lot of hurt and a lot of anger, both of which are perfectly human considering all that happened to you. (Which is what some bloggers interpreted, I think, as this "becomming all about Wade." And by the way, there is nothing unBiblical about being angry. We usually emphasize Jesus' completely divine nature, sometimes at the expense of His completely human nature; but the fact is, there were times He got MAD--and none of this nonsense about "righteous indignation" being acceptable, but not anger. Anger is anger, and righteous indignation is nothing but a euphanism someone constructed as part of a buffet system of theology. Anger is part of the way God made us, and is in itself neither good nor bad. The problem comes in what we do with our anger, how we handle it, and whether or not we release it or cherish it.)

In the wording of your decision, I seem to hear more peace and calmness on your part, and even a suggestion that you have worked through the brunt of your emotions, and thus are ready to move on. Praise be to God!

I still have some qualms about the effectiveness of an investigative committee, as I said in an earlier post. It appears that the NAMB trustees did a fair to pretty good job in their recent one, but the IMB trustees have handled things (so far) much differently. And I still suspect that a committee named by any SBC President will have a credibility problem with one significant constituantcy or another--unless the committee can be named by virtue of the offices they serve, including the state conventions, and covering a wide cross-spectrum of SBC life (as with those who wrote the '63 BF&M). Anony parlimentarian has probably offered good counsel.

And too: it is still possible, at a later date, to escalate, should this fail.

Anonymous said...


You have made the right decision.

The only proviso is that, as the "Parliamentarian in KC" has commented, you need to do appropriate groundwork so that your motion sees the light of day and is actually voted "up or down" on the floor of the convention in Greensboro.

Rather than implementating #2 and making certain information public immediately it would be turned it over to the "blue ribbon" study committee. It seems to me that #3 and #2 are really the "same" in the long term since over time whatever revelations would come to the surface immediately will be one portion of the "input" being used by the committee.

Among the problems remaining are that certain trustees may refuse to cooperate with the committee. Also the committee may not necessarily come up with any tangible recommendations for change and even if they do there is no mechanism, except a groundswell of outcry in the SBC, to implement change.

The issues at the IMB BoT could be in play for months -- if not years.

If at some future date #3 proves to be useless then option #2 is still available as a fall back position.

I am just a dumb guy in sitting in the pew. It seems to me ironic that a "discussion" over such trivial stuff as a "private prayer language" has taken on a life of its own. I guess this prayer language is just a convienient handle that allows one to refer to the current situation at the IMB BoT.

Simlarily, Watergate wasn't really about Watergate -- it was just the office building where a key event happened leading which tripped the first domino in a chain of events with larger implications.

Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK

Kevin Bussey said...

Go for it! You da man!


Once again you show GRACE, GRACE, GRACE. I voted for # 2 even thro I know that GOD is in Control, in HIS TIME. We all need to continue to lift this matter up in Prayer. Leadership is not POWER, it is to LEAD LIKE JESUS and to have a SERVANTS HEART. I pray that we all display the GRACE that is witnessed by your example.
Your Brother in CHRIST

Bob Cleveland said...


A further observation: I don't think it is possible to plan beyond what you've proposed. If the Motion rises or falls, is voted on or not, the action and other circumstances will reveal many things. One of them is what God may be up to.

Any further action would necessarily be decided upon based on that.

Roger: The issue of prayer language may or may not be a trivial issue. God has given me that gift, so I wouldn't make that call. But consider this: here is a gift which is biblical, and God says is given by the will of the Holy Spirit.

That a God-given gift, regardless of WHAT it is, can disqualify someone for IMB service, is not trivial at all.

Pastor Ray said...

Sorry if you got this twice,
You had my hopes up when I read the first paragraph. I thought that you were going to run for president.
However, regarding this motion I FULLY support your decision. Wade the SBC must have a committee like this one so that accountability for the trustees will be accomplished if anything at all. It really spooks me to know that there are positions and people w/authority like this w/in the SBC. Stay w/it...

Bro. Ray Earley

Tim Rogers said...

Brother Wade,

I would have to agree with the comments on the Anonymous post. I pray that you have sought counsel as to this being something that will not be ruled out of order. I do pray that you seek advice to ask the Chairman on the Order of Business as to how this should be worded. He is Dr. Allan Blume and I have personally found him to be fair and balanced in his approach. His wife used to be on the IMB BoT and I know that he seeks God's face as he makes decisions.

Also, do you think it wise that you make the recommendation or someone else make it. If you make this recommendation it will come across as "sour grapes". I do pray that you allow someone else to make this motion.

Brian said...

Great integrity. What an example for us all. Church member agruments,church staff arguments, or IMB policy problems, there is a RIGHT way. Thanks for showing your character. See You In Greensboro.


Arkansas Razorbaptist said...

We look forward to voting for you someday for the SBC's top job. Your restraint in the face of outright character assassination is admirable and should be emulated across our convention.

Writer said...

Brother Wade,
I am very happy with your decision. It will be my privilege to vote for this motion and trust God for the results. Our God is sovereign and He will accomplish His purpose. Let us not forget Jeremiah 32:27, "Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is there anything too hard for Me?"

Anonymous said...

Thank you for not posting that last anonymous comment. It was rude and un-Christ-like and as soon as I pushed publish the Holy Spirit rebuked me with the scripture in Romans 2:1-2. I do not want that on my record. I apologize and repent of my actions!

Ken Dare said...


Anonymous said...


If nothing else, the choice you have made will, over time, certainly let you know how far-reaching the influence you have detected extends beyond the current IMB situation. For example, if the motion is squashed by various kinds of maneuvers before it ever sees the light of day, you will immediately know that the powers that be have no intention of letting you have a public, reportable say in the Convention meeting. But, if, to give an appearance of fairness and even-handedness, they allow the motion, and it passes, then the makeup of the committee appointments will speak volumes, as will the nature of the process they undertake and whether the committee report is a cover-up/ whitewash.

Whatever happens in any of these steps, though, you must not, under any circumstances, make a promise that you would not go public with your information. Though you would undoubtedly be severely criticized in certain quarters--but, how is that significantly different from what has already happened?--it is the presence of that verifiable information, and the very real possibility that it will be publicly disclosed, which is the only thing that can keep this investigation on track.

Why do I say that? If you promise not to disclose publicly if they do an investigation, what is to keep the committee from "burying" your information or using it selectively to the end of protecting the guilty? But, if you continue to have the option to present the information publicly, they will be forced to play fair or be exposed for not doing so and be embarrassed by their duplicity, as well as the committee report being thrown out.

For whatever it is worth, I think you should consider having an immediate news conference in Greensboro, if the powers that be refuse to hear your motion or take an up or down vote on it. If they know that possibility exists, they will think much harder about reacting to your motion with a preemptive strike designed to silence you by shutting you out of the appropriate annual public forum.

One Who Has Seen Too Many Coverups
Where the Truth Came Out Too Late to Accomplish Anything But Belated Apologies and Regrets for Not Acting Sooner

Anonymous said...

The newly elected president should appoint, and you should jump in the water and run for that position.
... which reminds me of a song...
Wade in the water... Wade in the water children, Wade in the water... God's a gonna trouble the water....

Anonymous said...

I must say that it is really - amusing isn't quite the word I want, but it will have to do here - to watch over your shoulders as you guys struggle with these issues, and try to do so with integrity. These battles initially erupted almost 30 years ago now, and many of us in the early days of the struggle have long since decided that there are more important places to invest our energies for the Kingdom. In my opinion, those in the power structure have always been about power (Al Mohler would be president of SBTS if the moderates had won control of the SBC), and to assure they remain in power they have continually drawn the net tighter and tighter to make sure everyone is on board with their view and practice of scripture - thus the additional requirements the IMB places upon missionaries that are above and beyond the BF&M 2000.

Bob Cleveland said...


I hit "send" on the last comment before I finished. Sorry for the "double header".

Moses told the children of Israel, with their backs to the Red Sea and their faces to Pharaoh's thundering herd, to watch the Lord deliver them while they remained silent. I can attest that He still does that, from time to time.

If He says that to you, then you can, and should, remain silent.

Don't ever promise that away as a possibility.

Todd Nelson said...


Praying for truth, grace, and peace to break out in due course. In the meantime, patience is one of the most needed virtues now -- not just for you (you seem to possess plenty of it :-) but also for all who long for the needed corrections to the status quo (the mess we're in).

I didn't comment before you made your decision, because I'm on the outside looking in. But for what it's worth, I hope and pray for the best possible results: organizational health, reconciliation, and unity around missions -- starting with the IMB and spreading through all the agencies of the SBC. Thanks for hanging in there. I will be one of the many who are praying -- for the sake of unity and growth in the Kingdom.


Rachel Robinson said...

Thank you so very much for standing up for what is good and right. I will be praying that you motion passes. Is there any other way we can assist you? (petitions?)

Dave Miller said...

I remember 1979. Every effort by conservatives was thwarted by parliamentary procedures. The only thing they couldn't thwart was the vote for Adrian Rogers.

I have an ominous feeling that the same stuff might happen here. I just hope I have a chance to actually VOTE on the resolution about dissent and this motion.

I have my doubts.

In human terms, who gains the presidency gains the power.

At least the Greensboro convention will not be boring!

Anonymous said...

I appreciate your honesty and attempts to keep your commitments. After praying for you today, I came across a quote in Ricardo Semler's boo, _Seven Day Weekend_ that might apply to the future ethos of Boards of Trustees. "We've also adopted a practical way to ensure that our board doesn't become isolated from the day-to-day operations of the company. Boards at some companies have made a name for themselves as a group of overdressed, overly serious, over elderly males (mostly) who meet in solemn and stuffy convocation with others of their own ilk in overly oak-paneled meeting room. They think of themselves in classic Roman terms as tribunes of the people; or more accurately, as tribunes of the shareholders. Aside from the fact that the tribunes were supplanted by dictators and that Rome was sacked by the barbarians, it's an outdated way to run a multifaceted company by putting the representatives of one facet in charge and excluding others. Sort of like setting up a democracy and only giving the right to vote to white male property owners."

Secret cloisters eliminate field workers from having a voice in the future of their own work. Let's change that. Please.

World A Worker.

David Rogers said...


Although I didn't send any advice the last time, I think you are probably making the wisest choice. I think it is good to go through the proper channels as they are set up.

By the way, I just found out I am going to Greensboro. I will be there to stand behind my Mom, together with my brother and sisters, during the special time of remembrance of my father at the end of the Pastors Conference program. I look forward to seeing you there.

David said...


I look forward to seeeing you in Greensboro.

Could you find possbibly have printed your fifteen part historical document series on "Southern Baptists and Cooperation in Missions"? I would pay money for it!


Anonymous said...


I think that this seems to be the best of the three options. It will hopefully bring people into this matter who hopefully will have a certain distance from the situation. Who would be the person to nominate this committee? People put in place by the next SBC Prez?

On a side note:
You said:
I will seek to answer any and all questions people may have regarding this Greensboro recommendation, but the privilege of a response is reserved for those who identify themselves by name or by their personal blog.

I think that the anonymity of comments is essential to this conversation because it enables people who would otherwise not be able to comment (there is a positive side to anonymity in addition to the negative side).

However, I do want to point out that you can have a personal blog without ever identifying yourself. Additionally, you can have a personal blog that either misrepresents your true identity or never actually reveals ther person's identity. My point is this: given the unreliablity of the way in which people identify themselves why descriminate against anonymous comments?

I will continue to post anonymously until my voice, or dissent if you like :), is repressed.

SWBTS Student

Anonymous said...


You have made the right choice...may the Spirit lead us all on the convention floor.

Anonymous said...

"All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, But the Lord weighs the spirits." Proberbs 16:2

Anonymous said...

Wade: You and I have been friends for a long time, having served together on the BGCO Board of Directors and Taskforce together. You have been down and preached in my association.
I'm afraid that you motion will be called out of order if addressed to the Executive Committee. I'm not real sure how to go about getting it before the convention for a vote, but I hope you can.
I have expressed my feelings of disappointment to both the past and present Chair of IMB for what they have been doing. They both know that I feel NO ONE should serve as member, much less Chair, that does not pastor or belong to a church that gives less that 10% to CP.
Please know that you are in my prayers.

Clif Cummings said...

I concur with "your friend from K.C." about the great possibility of your motion being ruled out of order because of the "role of the SBC Exec. Committee." Having attended the majority of SB Conventions over the last 15 years - motions being ruled out of order seem to be the norm, NOT the exception.
Perhaps you should seek counsel from a friendly SBC Executive Committee member. It would be a great disservice to our Convention for this not to be given the chance to be voted upon - by no fault of yours - but siimply due to parlimentary procedures or SBC policies governing the responsibilities of the Exec. Committee.
However, just as I was about to close my comment, I re-read your motion. Apparently you have diligently researched this by your reference to "ByLaw 26b of the Southern Baptist Convention." If that is the case be sure that President Welch and all parlimentarians are as familiar with "ByLaw 26b" as you seem to be!

See you in Greensboro!

Anonymous said...


I am a Baptist but not SBC, having left in the early 1970s when things looked grim. I did complete a Phd at one of the conventions finest semiinaries in recent years and know a little of Baptist history. As I was preparing to return to an SBC school for a terminal degree, I read widely on the conflict from 1979 forward. I was out of country for most of the conflict and heard only faint rumblings at the time of their happenings.

What amazes me is the amount of politics in the SBC. IMO as an outsider, the SBC does not seem to care who comes to the dance, so long as they (being the conservatives) get to call the tunes.

Moreover, one of the lasting legacys from the troubles with liberalism in the Northern Baptist Convention was the accusation that NBC execs (paid servants of the convention) "manipulated" the decisions. And they did as a matter of fact. . . . Kind of looks to me like its deja vu all over again!


Anonymous said...


I appologize to you and others commenting. I did not do my homework regarding Bylaw 26B prior to making my initial comment.

I will find out what 26B says.

Roger Simpson
Oklahoma City OK

Jerry Grace said...

Dear Wade,

I thank you made the right decision as well; to withdraw from being an item of controversy is a noble act in a hotbed of politics even though you may have great support. Besides should and when you decide to accept a nomination for SBC president, nothing could begin to approach the name recognition that this event has brought you.

God Bless you.

Jerry Grace
Satartia, MS


A pragmatic pondering... Will the majority of the messengers at the convention understand what this motion is all about?

To really understand it, a messenger would have been reading the blogs, and to a lesser extent, the state Baptist papers, for weeks (months?) leading up the convention. I don't assume that's the case at all for most.

How can this motion really be understood by the rank and file -- and intelligently voted on (if allowed) without a lot more info. shared?

Can that (will that?) info. be communicated during the discussion time after the motion is presented? By whom?

LivingDust said...

Brother Wade,

I am glad to see that you have decided NOT to publically divulge the names of those IMB trustees who have acted improperly.

You have carefully shown the Southern Baptist world that all is not well at the IMB. I trust that wisdom will prevail and truthfulness, transperancy and principled dissent will no longer be repulsed, but found to be acceptable practices for all involved at the IMB.

Many Southern Baptists will be watching to see how your motion is received in Greensboro. We look forward to the final report of the Ad Hoc Committee in San Antonio and the coming changes at the IMB.


Anonymous said...


I don't like your decision, but I can understand it. Coming from my side of the road, i.e. already being so fed up with the SBC that I am only going to the CBF convention, although Greensboro is 4 hours closer to me, there would be nothing to lose. For you, trying to play within the rules so you may continue to be a part of the current SBC, even if you don't like some of it, this makes sense.

In my ever so humble opinion, I think the leaders who have broken the rules need to be called on teh carpet. Why do I say that? First, they did not hesitate to single you out and viciously attack you and make a motion to remove you from the trustees - something that had never been done. They are not playing by the rules by kicking you out of closed door meetings, something that the chairman can't do. They were not playing by the rules when they continue to politics instead of focusing on their true purpose - to enable all the powerful tools they have at their disposal to fulfill the Great Comission.

All that is happening to you just continues to reinforce my decision that I can no longer be a part of the SBC and that I have no desire to find a place. I will make my place in the CBF where I can think and disagree without feeling like the only one outside the circle.

God bless you. I pray His hand will be upon you with great might. Honestly, unless He does move in a major way, you, your opinion and your motion will be tossed aside like yesterday's garbage by the very people who consider themselves to be your leaders.

Rusty Mullins
Pastor, Wytheville Baptist Church

Anonymous said...

Hi Wade,

I applaud your decision. The motion provides an opportunity for the entire SBC to "speak" in a meaningful way to what has transpired at the IMB.

While I am as sceptical as anyone regarding the possibility of a cover up or burial of the issues by a committee, I am hopeful for a truth based outcome because:
1) It is highly unlikely that you are the only person who knows the information you have decided to turn over to this committee (but not disclose publicly at this time); 2) Your reluctance to make this information public is not likely shared by some who know what you know; 3) Should the committee not process the information appropriately, the information is, therfore, likely to be disclosed at some future date.

The possibility of a resolution that honors the Lord is worth the risk.

Beyond that, the vote will be a clear signal regarding the kind of Convention we want to be - a people of the truth, or a people of the lie. Should the SBC reject this motion, I suspect that some of us will find it difficult to continue in an SBC headed in that direction.

Anonymous said...

Wade, this Okie is praying that the Lord will use your decision and initiative to bless Southern Baptists and Christian missions throughout the world. Perhaps, the day will come when men will cease to look at the gospel of Jesus Christ as a stepping stone to attaining personal and magisterial control over others within the SBC agencies, especially those who might hazzard to challenge on principle their views of nonessential Christian doctrine. Until then, we are praying that the Lord will touch the hearts of those in SBC leadership to address and correct the problems caused by those greedy for power and thirsty to intimidate and/or destroy those who would dare to disagree with them.

In His Grace and Peace,

Bro. Rob said...

Wade, at the risk of appearing to selfishly promote my own blog, I am taking the privilege of responding by my own personal blog:

Thank you, brother, for your heart.

Anonymous said...

I would hope that a committee composed of some people who would not be "hand-picked" would be the one to investigate. I would suggest the presidents of all the state conventions, (or some other broad-spectrum already-existing group)as a group that there would be no question of bias in the choosing. I would be afraid that any committee chosen by anyone in power in the SBC might be biased. But I do hope and pray that it goes well, not only for you but for the cause of missions and the reputation of Christians in the eyes of those we are trying to reach for Christ.


Anonymous said...

Wade,I have attended the SBC since 1974 and feel sure that your motion will be ruled out of order because motions dealing with SBC entities are either referred to the entity or ruled out of order.I hope that you have spoken with Dr. Rankin and Dr. Welch to get their counsel on what should be done concerning the IMB situation.God willing,I'll be there to see what happens.

Anonymous said...

I believe this is a grace-filled method to keep the issues on the surface, but I fear it is a dead-end road. The powers-that-be are well-versed in squashing motions. And also, the motion could be ruled out of order because it directs the Executive Committee to do something like an investigative function and if I remember correctly, previous motions of such like have been rejected. Be prepared to go to the new president and lay out all of your information. I fear that is the only way to prompt action. I cannot be at the convention, but I pray for you and others who are carrying the banner for us.

Mike in Henderson, TN