Tuesday, January 24, 2006

I have just finished emailing each of the International Mission Board Trustees a letter and the following questions. Though I will not post any responses without permission from the author, I want you to know that I have already received some encouraging replies. I strongly encourage each of you to email these men and let them know your viewpoint. Without sharing our opinions, they will continue to go unheeded.

1. What was the impetus for the policy changes? Have there been significant problems in the field with regard to speaking in tongues and baptisms? If so, can you offer any examples?

2. In “POINTS TO BE COVERED DURING THE APPOINMENT PROCESS” number 2, sub point b states: “A candidate who has not been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his/her Southern Baptist church as a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches.” How does this statement agree with Scripture, which states we are to be “baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” after repenting of sin and receiving forgiveness – accepting the message of the gospel?

3. Why was “the doctrine of the security of the believer” chosen over other distinct Baptist doctrines (such as the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the inerrancy of Scripture, etc) as a measuring rod for the candidate’s eligibility?

4. What deliberation occurred before seeking trustee Burleson’s removal from the board? Did this deliberation take place in plenary sessions, executive sessions or in private meetings with Mr. Burleson?

5. What other ways were explored as means “to handle the impasse”?

6. How is Mr. Burleson guilty of “broken trust” – did he share private information? Can you cite specific examples?

7. In what ways has Mr. Burleson displayed “resistance to accountability”?

8. To what accountability has Mr. Burleson been resistant – the board’s, the Convention’s, key leader’s, or all of the above?

9. Is a vote in opposition of the majority and speaking out against the majority viewed as “broken trust” and “resistance to accountability” – even when matters of personal conviction and conscience are at stake?

10. Why does the board feel Mr. Burleson’s removal “was absolutely necessary for the board to move forward in its duties as prescribed by the SBC”? In what ways will trustee Burleson hinder the board from fulfilling their duties to the Convention?
posted by Rick