Break in series (Introduction): “Beyond the Overkill, a Ray of Hope”

(A Prefatory Personal Word: Dear Readers, Thank you for your great patience with me this last week!  I got sick as a horse last Tuesday afternoon and was not 100% again until Sunday morning–fortunately, in time for the last baptism [of five people!] of the Fall in the beautiful Guadalupe River.  Even today’s post is going to be short, in comparison to my standard fare, because I am trying to ease back into things without pushing too hard and possibly causing a setback [something I've tended to do coming back from illness in the past].)

As were many of you, I was stunned and saddened by the IMB trustees’ decision to censure their fellow trustee, Wade Burleson.  Especially now that Wade has posted his side of the story, stating for all to see what he had made clear to the powers that be on the Board that was he was willing to do to avoid the censure vote, this is going to be a public relations disaster among all except the most angry and vindictive wing of the Second Phase of the Conservative Resurgence. 

I would not be surprised if a fairly high number of those trustees who voted for censure (we will, of course, never know who they are because of the BoT policy gagging all such information from public consumption, in order to muddy the waters of individual trustee responsibility/accountability) have had serious second thoughts about that vote, since most apparently did not know the whole story of what Wade had offered.  However, I do not know if that means the vote would be different if it were taken this week, even with “the rest of the story” out on the table.  It may well be that the determination to “get” Wade Burleson for keeping the SBC public informed in regard to what is really going down politically with the IMB BoT was so fierce that the power brokers really didn’t care what onlookers thought, other than to make a statement that any dissenting voices among our trustees will be crushed, no matter how much public support you have.

At the moment, a close-up shot of this situation does not easily produce “a silver lining” to this lightning strike.  In fact, about all I can see close up is a few additional openly disgruntled trustees and Wade’s dogged determination to stick by his guns in continuing to attend BoT meetings (at his own expense) and blog about what is taking place.  And, like William Wilberforce’s perseverance in opposing the slave trade in the British Empire, I pray Wade’s will be rewarded with the needed reforms of the IMB trustees and some of their policies. 

But, beyond this classic example of the angry wielding of power in overkill, there is great reason for hope when we look through a wide-angle lens.  I will cite three instances for your consideration, one of which goes back awhile, with the other two being quite recent.

Because so much has happened in between, it is hard to believe that the SBC meeting in Greensboro, NC was less than a year and half ago.  It was there that the first major backlash against what I have termed elsewhere the “apocryphal” policies passed by the IMB BoT in the Fall of 2005 took place.  Both the election of Frank Page over two hand-picked CR II candidates and the motion I offered (which, after Executive Committee action, led to the Garner Motion in San Antonio) were, to a significant degree, reactions against the overreaching of those in power, notably in the IMB BoT. 

At this point, it very much remains to be seen what the reaction will be this time–to this very recent, heavy-handed attempt to silence and discredit Wade Burleson.  However, given the exploding numbers of those who trust Wade’s version of what the deal is with the IMB BoT far more than that of IMB trustee chair John Floyd, Jerry Corbaley and company, it has now been assured that there will be fireworks in Indianapolis in June 2008. 

To be specific to what just happened, whatever was previously being planned–and I know some were already in the works–in regard to resolutions and motions dealing with ways to make entity trustees truly accountable (i.e., instead of the current situation, in which they are supposed to be, but there is no way to actually hold them accountable) to the will of the SBC at large, that number will now be far greater.  In addition, the number of voters who will be energized to attend and vote in favor of such resolutions and motions will also be considerably larger–mostly due to their horror at this classic example of blatant vindictiveness and wielding of crushing power which was completely unnecessary (i.e., overkill).

The two much more recent examples offer tangible hope that reform is occurring in at least some grassroots circles in the SBC.  The de-throning of the Roger Moran-related leadership by the Missouri Convention was a major set-back for the CR II at the state level.  What happened?  Well, there definitely was a well-organized group who campaigned against Moran et al.  However, in the big picture, it is a classic example of what happens when two things occur: 1) things go too far in one direction; and 2) the rank-and-file are excluded from say-so on the direction of things. 

In other words, the Missouri vote was a desperately needed course correction.  And, in the end, the clear majority, who do not want a narrowing, fundamentalist power-in-the hands-of-a-few approach running the show in the SBC, made their will known.  Hopefully, power brokers elsewhere among Southern Baptists were listening.

In the last–and most recent–example, the Arkansas Convention came within 28 votes (out of 608 cast) of getting the two-thirds majority needed to change the state Constitution’s current (dating back to the early 1970s, apparently) Landmarkist statements rejecting open communion and alien baptism.  And, when a state where Landmarkism has historically been quite strong only votes 36.8% in favor of the position on baptism currently favored by most CR II leaders and reflected in the recent IMB BoT policy, that tells me that these powerful leaders are seriously misreading the mood of the SBC.  Instead, they are reading onto the denomination what they want to see–their own views–all the while that at least noteworthy pockets of the grassroots are apparently choosing to look at things quite differently.

In conclusion, it certainly could still happen that the SBC meeting in Indianapolis will be little more than a coronation ceremony for Al Mohler.  But, from what I have just written, you can tell that I think that smug conclusion might still be a tad premature.  There remains a whole lot more water to go under the bridge before next June.

Coming Wednesday: Break in series (II): “More Midstream Musings”