Burleson's Motion Referred TO IMB

Discuss current news and trends taking place in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Moderator: William Thornton

Burleson's Motion Referred TO IMB

Postby T. D. Webb » Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:14 pm

The Convention Messengers voted to refer Wade Burleson's Motion to the IMB for their response which will be considered by the SBC in San Antonio, next year. Wade, who said he would support the referral, was his customary gracious self, in lauding many of his fellow Trustees, as he addressed the Convention, even earning the compliments of Bobby Welch for his attitude (as compared to those who appeared to be heckling Burleson when he spoke. . .William can verify if that was the case). Surprisingly, no one from the Executive Committee made any statement regarding the move to refer the matter to the IMB BoT. Curiously, Bobby Welch, who as Chairman is supposed to be neutral in hearing motions, came out in favor of the motion. Wade's only additional suggestion was that the entire BoT select the committee rather than having the Chairman (who may likely have a direct conflict of interest) choose the participants. Regardless what procedure is followed, we can be sure of one fact. The eyes of the SBC will be on the folks at the IMB BoT, and focused on their every move and motive.

In the meantime, look for Wade to follow through with his challenge of Dr. Tom Hatley's edict forbidding Burleson to attend any forum or executive sessions of the IMB BoT. The power players are going to have to find a new place to hide. As Bobby Dylan wrote, "The times, they are a changin' ".


In His Grace and Peace,
T. D. Webb

"The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him." (Proverbs 18:17)
T. D. Webb
 
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:45 pm
Location: Central Oklahoma Hills

Re: Burleson's Motion Referred TO IMB

Postby William Thornton » Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:27 pm

T. D. Webb wrote:The Convention Messengers voted to refer Wade Burleson's Motion to the IMB for their response which will be considered by the SBC in San Antonio, next year. Wade, who said he would support the referral, was his customary gracious self, in lauding many of his fellow Trustees, as he addressed the Convention, even earning the compliments of Bobby Welch for his attitude (as compared to those who appeared to be heckling Burleson when he spoke. . .William can verify if that was the case). Surprisingly, no one from the Executive Committee made any statement regarding the move to refer the matter to the IMB BoT. Curiously, Bobby Welch, who as Chairman is supposed to be neutral in hearing motions, came out in favor of the motion. Wade's only additional suggestion was that the entire BoT select the committee rather than having the Chairman (who may likely have a direct conflict of interest) choose the participants. Regardless what procedure is followed, we can be sure of one fact. The eyes of the SBC will be on the folks at the IMB BoT, and focused on their every move and motive.

In the meantime, look for Wade to follow through with his challenge of Dr. Tom Hatley's edict forbidding Burleson to attend any forum or executive sessions of the IMB BoT. The power players are going to have to find a new place to hide. As Bobby Dylan wrote, "The times, they are a changin' ".


In His Grace and Peace,


Burleson was soft spoken ad gracious...good for him. I couldn't hear any heckling, though I did hear some applause when he spoke.

Burleson is to be commended for going along with the recommendation to send the issue to the IMB. He did, however, do what looks like the standard Burlesonism - "I'll go along with the referral but you've gotta do something about the IMB who will not let me appoint who I want on the committee." Imagine that, a first year trustee doesn't get to run the whole board. Burleson is going to have to figure out a way to work within that group or get out. I have no sympathy for him at this stage.

One thing's for sure...we will deal with this for another year and then in San Anton next June.

BTW, the more I see Welch in action, the more I like him. He is the best moderator I have seen in all the sbcs I have attended - a man in whom there is no guile, best I can see. I like him.
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12098
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Burleson's Motion Referred TO IMB

Postby T. D. Webb » Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:50 pm

William Thornton wrote:Burleson is to be commended for going along with the recommendation to send the issue to the IMB. He did, however, do what looks like the standard Burlesonism - "I'll go along with the referral but you've gotta do something about the IMB who will not let me appoint who I want on the committee." Imagine that, a first year trustee doesn't get to run the whole board. Burleson is going to have to figure out a way to work within that group or get out. I have no sympathy for him at this stage.


Respectfully, William, what is your basis for the assertion that Burleson wants to personally appoint the entire committee or wants to "run the whole Board? The fact is that there appears to be an entrenched group of folks within the BoT who have been practicing the very things you are suggesting that Burleson wants to do.

The fact that Wade Burleson has just finished his first year on the BoT does not mean that he should sit still as a second class Trustee, quietly watching the "good ole' experienced boys" ramrod their personal theologies and control agendas through the Board without hearing any objection from him. His constituency (the SBC Messengers representing the rank and file Southern Baptists) elected him to represent them just as much as they did the "seven year" veteran of the IMB BoT. The fact of the matter is that several of these "experienced" Trustees have betrayed the initial trust placed in them, and demonstrated a gross lack of responsibility in the coercive manner which they have utilized in stifling dissent on the controversial actions they have pursued in controlling the IMB.

Let's face it. These folks are not used to being held accountable or having to explain their actions. As a consequence they have, for the past six months, pursued exactly what you are suggesting: Put this newby, Burleson, in his "novice place". There is a day coming, hopefully sooner than later, when the SBC will no longer tolerate these power players making the IMB BoT their personal "Good Ole' Boy Club", where submissive "initiates" warm seats in filling their role of simply rubber stamping the actions of their "elders".

Burleson does not need, nor does he want our "sympathy". However, he does deserve our respect and appreciation for subjecting himself to the abuses and calumnies of the "establishment" to which he has the "audacity to stand up to and call to account" (my words).


In His Grace and Peace,
T. D. Webb

"The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him." (Proverbs 18:17)
T. D. Webb
 
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:45 pm
Location: Central Oklahoma Hills

Re: Burleson's Motion Referred TO IMB

Postby David Flick » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:44 am

T. D. Webb wrote:The Convention Messengers voted to refer Wade Burleson's Motion to the IMB for their response which will be considered by the SBC in San Antonio, next year. Wade, who said he would support the referral, was his customary gracious self, in lauding many of his fellow Trustees, as he addressed the Convention, even earning the compliments of Bobby Welch for his attitude (as compared to those who appeared to be heckling Burleson when he spoke. . .William can verify if that was the case). Surprisingly, no one from the Executive Committee made any statement regarding the move to refer the matter to the IMB BoT. Curiously, Bobby Welch, who as Chairman is supposed to be neutral in hearing motions, came out in favor of the motion. Wade's only additional suggestion was that the entire BoT select the committee rather than having the Chairman (who may likely have a direct conflict of interest) choose the participants. Regardless what procedure is followed, we can be sure of one fact. The eyes of the SBC will be on the folks at the IMB BoT, and focused on their every move and motive.

In the meantime, look for Wade to follow through with his challenge of Dr. Tom Hatley's edict forbidding Burleson to attend any forum or executive sessions of the IMB BoT. The power players are going to have to find a new place to hide. As Bobby Dylan wrote, "The times, they are a changin' ".

Don't get your hopes up too high, Tom. Things aren't going to change much any time soon. Pressler & Patterson have too much power. Burleson's motion was referred back to the IMB BoT. Do you really think that the BoT will have a sudden change of heart after a year of studying this issue? I don't. The BoT will pick it to pieces and won't do a thing to change the direction they're going. Burleson and all the King's bloggers won't be able to put it back together again. After the dust clears from this convention, it'll be business as usual. It'll be the same ole samo. I've been watching this bunch work since Burleson was knee high to an Oklahoma grasshopper...

BTW, I just finished reading Wade's latest blog. He brags a lot about his own gracious spirit. Is bragging about one's own graciousness anything like bragging about one's own humility?... :)
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8431
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Burleson's Motion Referred TO IMB

Postby William Thornton » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:50 am

T. D. Webb wrote:
William Thornton wrote:Burleson is to be commended for going along with the recommendation to send the issue to the IMB. He did, however, do what looks like the standard Burlesonism - "I'll go along with the referral but you've gotta do something about the IMB who will not let me appoint who I want on the committee." Imagine that, a first year trustee doesn't get to run the whole board. Burleson is going to have to figure out a way to work within that group or get out. I have no sympathy for him at this stage.


Respectfully, William, what is your basis for the assertion that Burleson wants to personally appoint the entire committee or wants to "run the whole Board? The fact is that there appears to be an entrenched group of folks within the BoT who have been practicing the very things you are suggesting that Burleson wants to do.


The fact that Wade Burleson has just finished his first year on the BoT does not mean that he should sit still as a second class Trustee, quietly watching the "good ole' experienced boys" ramrod their personal theologies and control agendas through the Board without hearing any objection from him. His constituency (the SBC Messengers representing the rank and file Southern Baptists) elected him to represent them just as much as they did the "seven year" veteran of the IMB BoT. The fact of the matter is that several of these "experienced" Trustees have betrayed the initial trust placed in them, and demonstrated a gross lack of responsibility in the coercive manner which they have utilized in stifling dissent on the controversial actions they have pursued in controlling the IMB.

Let's face it. These folks are not used to being held accountable or having to explain their actions. As a consequence they have, for the past six months, pursued exactly what you are suggesting: Put this newby, Burleson, in his "novice place". There is a day coming, hopefully sooner than later, when the SBC will no longer tolerate these power players making the IMB BoT their personal "Good Ole' Boy Club", where submissive "initiates" warm seats in filling their role of simply rubber stamping the actions of their "elders".

Burleson does not need, nor does he want our "sympathy". However, he does deserve our respect and appreciation for subjecting himself to the abuses and calumnies of the "establishment" to which he has the "audacity to stand up to and call to account" (my words).


In His Grace and Peace,



Tom, you call it a power play, good ole boy club, rubber stamp, and all that. There are eightysomething imb trustees. B is one. He can make his motions and vote. Apparently, he hasn't enouh votes to do what he wishes, whether it is to gain the floor, get on subcommittees, change policies, or appoint folks to committees. Too bad. What we've seen from B is that he knows how to isolate himself and then appeal to his sbc 'constituency'. Apparently, his constituency isn't sufficiently large for him to by-pass his fellow trustees in getting his way.

My assessment of B seems not to be uncommon at this convention.
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12098
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Burleson's Motion Referred TO IMB

Postby T. D. Webb » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:21 am

David Flick wrote:Don't get your hopes up too high, Tom. Things aren't going to change much any time soon. Pressler & Patterson have too much power. Burleson's motion was referred back to the IMB BoT.


Be patient, David. This is a new day. Persistent, determined, and principled efforts are being exerted to pry away what has been an evertightening grip the power player politicos who are jealous of losing over the entities (and even the Auxilliary) of the SBC. The full focus and attention of the SBC under the auspices of a new leader (not handpicked by the aforementioned power players) is on IMB Trustee leadership practices and methods. Certainly, the IMB BoT is being given the opportunity (some say, enough rope :wink: ) to respond to Burleson's motion at the SBC's next annual meeting. However, it will behoove the leadership of the IMB BoT to honestly and forthrightly respond. To fail in that effort will be to the BoT leadership's own peril.


David Flick wrote:Do you really think that the BoT will have a sudden change of heart after a year of studying this issue? I don't. The BoT will pick it to pieces and won't do a thing to change the direction they're going.


Why does your pessimism not surprise me anymore, David? The BoT leadership had better re-examine their attitudes in the coming year, or they will personally suffer the consequences of inaction, parsing, or spinning the facts. The leadership of the SBC has been officially apprised of the charges. The ball is in the BoT's court. What the BoT leadership does will be scrutinized and reviewed with a fine-toothed comb. The "t's" had better be crossed and the "i's" had better be dotted. . .because any alternative will prove unacceptable and will be held accountable. . .not by Burleson, but by the SBC.


David Flick wrote:BTW, I just finished reading Wade's latest blog. He brags a lot about his own gracious spirit. Is bragging about one's own graciousness anything like bragging about one's own humility?... :)


David, this Okie read the same blog post (at least, I think I did :? ). Since when does "I tried to express clearly and graciously the issues involved." or "I tried to be kind, gentle and gracious, but at the same time, I let the convention know that I could not support a committee merely appointed by the Chairman of the IMB." or "I had several people tell me after the very brief debate that they appreciated my graciousness to the Convention." automatically translate into "bragging". Even the presiding Chairman of the meeting session, Dr. Bobby Welch, praised Burleson for his gracious words before the Convention, or did you miss his remarks, David. If you had been falsely accused of gossip, slander, loss of trust, lack of accountability, or betraying the confidences of the IMB BoT, would you not be encouraged by such affirming comments, David? You really need to have a cup of coffee with Wade, do lunch, or. . . something, anything. . . to get to know this person whom you seem ever so ready to condemn.


In His Grace and Peace,
T. D. Webb

"The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him." (Proverbs 18:17)
T. D. Webb
 
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:45 pm
Location: Central Oklahoma Hills

Re: Burleson's Motion Referred TO IMB

Postby T. D. Webb » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:03 am

William Thornton wrote:Tom, you call it a power play, good ole boy club, rubber stamp, and all that. There are eightysomething imb trustees. B is one. He can make his motions and vote.


Yes, yes, and yes, William. . .sooo. . .


William wrote:Apparently, he hasn't enouh votes to do what he wishes, whether it is to gain the floor, get on subcommittees, change policies, or appoint folks to committees.


William, are you implying that the strong-armed tactics of the former Chairman of the IMB BoT, such as prohibiting Burleson from expressing dissent on BoT actions, kicking Burleson off of committees to which he was originally assigned, or turning off his mic to prevent Burleson from questioning the false allegations of the aforementioned officer of the BoT, is a legitimate basis on which one can find fault with Burleson? The fact that in the past, both recent and distant, the BoT Trustees have been intimidated by a culture of power player domination of the Board does not mean the practice is fair or equitable. The BoT is not an entity unto itself. All of the Trustees, not just Burleson, are ultimately and directly accountable to the same constituency. . .The Messengers of the SBC (and in a larger sense, the rank and file members of the SBC).

Whether Burleson is personally popular or not, is not the issue. He is taking heat for standing on principles and propounding initiatives which should have been addressed and resolved long ago under the leadership of the SBC, as well as the IMB BoT. However, that is "water under the bridge". Fortunately, there are several, including the widow of Adrian Rogers (Joyce), Dr. Morris Chapman, Dr. Ed Young and others, who are joining those who previously stood alongside Burleson from the beginning of this controversy.


In His Grace and Peace,
T. D. Webb

"The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him." (Proverbs 18:17)
T. D. Webb
 
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:45 pm
Location: Central Oklahoma Hills


Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron