Historical Privilege Cast Aside
According to Pastor Art Rogers, the paper entitled (Trustee Policies and the Perspective of History) was made available to the BoTs at the meeting in Tampa. It would have served them well to have read and researched the contents of this paper prior to adopting their “policy” which was designed to prevent dissent from anyone on their Board.
Trustee Policies and the Perspective of History
Someone must speak against the new policy on "Trustee Responsibilities" not because the joint committees' efforts were in vain, but because this policy lacks historical perspective.Until 1979, a tight system of power and control enveloped our denomination, and party loyalists who supported the leftward shift in our denomination were continually appointed and reappointed to serve on our convention's boards of trustees. But in 1979, the election of Adrian Rogers offered a real hope that the system could be changed and that our denomination could be saved.In those early years of the conservative resurgence, inerrantists slowly trickled onto the boards and agencies of our denomination, each year joined by others until sufficient majorities could turn our seminaries, our commissions, and our mission boards around. Some of the people in this room - men and women who stood against overwhelming opposition and endless assaults on their motivation and character - were among those early trustees of the conservative resurgence. But they kept carrying the message back to the people that things were not well with our agencies. They kept reporting the problems, the compromises of doctrine, the ethical misconduct and the abuses of power that had infected our denomination. And in time, the convention listened. In time, every seminary president who would not affirm inerrancy was replaced, and every mission board president who would not respect trustee governance resigned.Those were not easy years for the men and women who first began to push for change, for accountability, for doctrinal faithfulness in our convention agencies, boards, and institutions. But they kept taking the message, the criticism, the bad news and the reports of problems back to the churches and the people; and in time, our convention was restored.However, if this policy had been in place during those early years when Adrian Rogers sent his first appointees to the boards, when Bailey Smith and Jimmy Draper and Charles Stanley were slowly but methodically appointing inerrantists who would stay the course and save our convention, then the message would have never been heard. There would have been no conservative resurgence if Midwestern Seminary and Sunday School Board trustees had not stood firmly against board policies in the Elliot Controversy. There would have been no conservative resurgence if Jerry Johnson had been silenced from publishing his criticisms of the Roy Honeycutt administration at Southern Seminary. There would have been no conservative resurgence if Ralph Pulley had not taken the hard line against Russell Dilday at Southwestern Seminary. If W.A. Criswell had never written "Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True," if James Hefley had never printed "Truth in Crisis," if Skeet Workman had never stood against abortion and homosexuality at the Christian Life Commission, and if Paul Pressler had not publicly spoken out against the abuses of our denominational press and criticized the editorship of Al Shackleford, then none of us would be here today.Last night Trustee Ken Whitten said something prophetic when he noted that one day none of us would be here, and that these policies will still be binding. If we adopt them, we have tied the hands of the W.A Criswells, the Jerry Johnsons, the James Hefleys and the Paul Presslers of tomorrow. They will be kept from doing what made the conservative resurgence possible in the first place. They will be kept from taking the problems to the people, to the pastors and laymen who support the Cooperative Program, and to the WMU ladies who pray for our missionaries.This we cannot do for the sake of our own service, or for the sake of theirs.Trustees must vote against this policy and, in doing so, preserve the very means by which we have all been afforded the chance to serve in a denomination that would not have had us thirty years ago. (copied from Pastor Art Roger’s site)
The writer of the paper definitely researched the history of the SBC which is apparent that the committee of IMB BoTs who authored the "new document or policy" to silence dissent have not done.
I had blogged earlier in the week on another blog site the following:
"If the current trustees of the IMB were the trustees of LifeWay in 1990, there would be no Sanctity of Human Life lesson in our Sunday School material today.
I remember when CB Scott made the motion in 1987 and over half of the trustees and the whole LifeWay administration were against his motion to include a Sanctity of Human Life lesson in all Sunday School material on the third Sunday of January until Rowe V. Wade is overturned.
He did not cease to push for his motion to be adopted. Finally in 1990 enough trustees voted to support the motion and we now have a Sunday School lesson every year to support Sanctity of Human Life.
Had Mr. Hatley and Mr. Corbaley and others like them who now serve as IMB BOTs, Mr. Scott would have been expelled immediately from the board for he was far more aggressive and pushy in his endeavor than Dr. Burleson has been.
This is only one illustration. There are countless others such Jerry Johnson, Paul Pressler, Larry Holly, Paige Patterson, Robert Tennery, Bill Powell, T. C. Pinkney and countless other men who sought change in the last 30 years of the SBC.
Dr. Burleson has only followed a precedent which has been handed down to him by those who served as Trustees of various Boards and Institutions in the history of the SBC. Not one has ever been expelled. Possibly some should have been, but Dr. Burleson is certainly not one who should have been.
We have got to go to Greensboro in June. This cannot be ignored any longer"
No longer will Dr. Burleson be able to follow the "trail of dissent" that has be so evident in Baptist life throughout the history of our Convention.
The developments of the past few days should make us all even more determined to travel to Greensboro.
If this "new policy" adopted at the IMB becomes embraced by our other Baptist entities then the person or persons controlling the caucuses will become more powerful to continue their agenda for control of the SBC.
Trustee Policies and the Perspective of History
Someone must speak against the new policy on "Trustee Responsibilities" not because the joint committees' efforts were in vain, but because this policy lacks historical perspective.Until 1979, a tight system of power and control enveloped our denomination, and party loyalists who supported the leftward shift in our denomination were continually appointed and reappointed to serve on our convention's boards of trustees. But in 1979, the election of Adrian Rogers offered a real hope that the system could be changed and that our denomination could be saved.In those early years of the conservative resurgence, inerrantists slowly trickled onto the boards and agencies of our denomination, each year joined by others until sufficient majorities could turn our seminaries, our commissions, and our mission boards around. Some of the people in this room - men and women who stood against overwhelming opposition and endless assaults on their motivation and character - were among those early trustees of the conservative resurgence. But they kept carrying the message back to the people that things were not well with our agencies. They kept reporting the problems, the compromises of doctrine, the ethical misconduct and the abuses of power that had infected our denomination. And in time, the convention listened. In time, every seminary president who would not affirm inerrancy was replaced, and every mission board president who would not respect trustee governance resigned.Those were not easy years for the men and women who first began to push for change, for accountability, for doctrinal faithfulness in our convention agencies, boards, and institutions. But they kept taking the message, the criticism, the bad news and the reports of problems back to the churches and the people; and in time, our convention was restored.However, if this policy had been in place during those early years when Adrian Rogers sent his first appointees to the boards, when Bailey Smith and Jimmy Draper and Charles Stanley were slowly but methodically appointing inerrantists who would stay the course and save our convention, then the message would have never been heard. There would have been no conservative resurgence if Midwestern Seminary and Sunday School Board trustees had not stood firmly against board policies in the Elliot Controversy. There would have been no conservative resurgence if Jerry Johnson had been silenced from publishing his criticisms of the Roy Honeycutt administration at Southern Seminary. There would have been no conservative resurgence if Ralph Pulley had not taken the hard line against Russell Dilday at Southwestern Seminary. If W.A. Criswell had never written "Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally True," if James Hefley had never printed "Truth in Crisis," if Skeet Workman had never stood against abortion and homosexuality at the Christian Life Commission, and if Paul Pressler had not publicly spoken out against the abuses of our denominational press and criticized the editorship of Al Shackleford, then none of us would be here today.Last night Trustee Ken Whitten said something prophetic when he noted that one day none of us would be here, and that these policies will still be binding. If we adopt them, we have tied the hands of the W.A Criswells, the Jerry Johnsons, the James Hefleys and the Paul Presslers of tomorrow. They will be kept from doing what made the conservative resurgence possible in the first place. They will be kept from taking the problems to the people, to the pastors and laymen who support the Cooperative Program, and to the WMU ladies who pray for our missionaries.This we cannot do for the sake of our own service, or for the sake of theirs.Trustees must vote against this policy and, in doing so, preserve the very means by which we have all been afforded the chance to serve in a denomination that would not have had us thirty years ago. (copied from Pastor Art Roger’s site)
The writer of the paper definitely researched the history of the SBC which is apparent that the committee of IMB BoTs who authored the "new document or policy" to silence dissent have not done.
I had blogged earlier in the week on another blog site the following:
"If the current trustees of the IMB were the trustees of LifeWay in 1990, there would be no Sanctity of Human Life lesson in our Sunday School material today.
I remember when CB Scott made the motion in 1987 and over half of the trustees and the whole LifeWay administration were against his motion to include a Sanctity of Human Life lesson in all Sunday School material on the third Sunday of January until Rowe V. Wade is overturned.
He did not cease to push for his motion to be adopted. Finally in 1990 enough trustees voted to support the motion and we now have a Sunday School lesson every year to support Sanctity of Human Life.
Had Mr. Hatley and Mr. Corbaley and others like them who now serve as IMB BOTs, Mr. Scott would have been expelled immediately from the board for he was far more aggressive and pushy in his endeavor than Dr. Burleson has been.
This is only one illustration. There are countless others such Jerry Johnson, Paul Pressler, Larry Holly, Paige Patterson, Robert Tennery, Bill Powell, T. C. Pinkney and countless other men who sought change in the last 30 years of the SBC.
Dr. Burleson has only followed a precedent which has been handed down to him by those who served as Trustees of various Boards and Institutions in the history of the SBC. Not one has ever been expelled. Possibly some should have been, but Dr. Burleson is certainly not one who should have been.
We have got to go to Greensboro in June. This cannot be ignored any longer"
No longer will Dr. Burleson be able to follow the "trail of dissent" that has be so evident in Baptist life throughout the history of our Convention.
The developments of the past few days should make us all even more determined to travel to Greensboro.
If this "new policy" adopted at the IMB becomes embraced by our other Baptist entities then the person or persons controlling the caucuses will become more powerful to continue their agenda for control of the SBC.
posted by Phillips Lynn at 7:01 AM
2 Comments:
Brother Phillips,
As you present God's Word tomorrow may you have power like never before. May God certainly bless your family. Pray for me as I preach.
Villa Rica
Pastor Villa,
I appreciate your prayers and I am praying for you, your family and your ministry also. God blessed greatly in our services yesterday. We are fortunate in having a great expository pastor who loves the Lord and spends time in His Word. Again, thank you for your prayers.
I am looking forward to meeting you in Greensboro.
Post a Comment
<< Home