;)
On Statistics, Censures, and Contextualization …
Posted by Geoff Baggett in Uncategorized
Our International Mission Board trustees met this week. Of course, everyone knows that. The meeting made all of the news in Baptist life and otherwise because the trustees censured trustee Wade Burleson on charges that he violated the trustees’ code of conduct. Burleson was suspended from participation in the board’s next four meetings, and his travel and reimbursement privileges for those meetings have been revoked. Burleson has vowed that he will still attend all of the meetings at his own expense.
I am not going to comment on the “rightness” or “wrongness” of Burleson’s censure. I’m quite sure that the opinions on that issue are quite diverse like most other things in Southern Baptist life. I’m sure that there are some who feel that Burleson “got what was coming to him.” And there are others who see this action as a gross injustice. Some will see this event as a new “log” for Burleson’s ego-maniacal “fire.” Others will add him to their list of SBC ideological “martyrs.” Probably most rank and file Southern Baptists will find themselves somewhere in the confused middle. I simply interpret the entire episode as sadly unfortunate and grossly distracting.
The overall report from the November Board of Trustees meeting was quite encouraging. We learned of record numbers of baptisms, church plants, and pastors in training. Southern Baptist missionaries are baptizing new believers at a rate of more than one person a minute. We discovered that one hundred people groups have been newly engaged with the Gospel. Increased giving has provided for a possible net gain of eighty missionaries on the field. The stats are good, if you’re into stats (and if you believe that they can be accurately gathered and reported within the context of missions). The report is excellent … our missionaries are doing incredible work. The Lord be praised!
But … and this is a really big “but” … that’s not what you’re going to hear about in the news. Instead, the lead headline yesterday at abpnews.com read, “IMB Attorney Says Trustee Board Has Power to Suspend Burleson.” So, there it is. Great strides in missions have been dramatically overshadowed by conflict. Great victories from our “soldiers” on the foreign fields of spiritual battle have been lost among the conflicts among the “generals” on the home front. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that conflict is something for which we Southern Baptists have become far too well known.
A fight is a fight, pure and simple. And it doesn’t matter if the people who are fighting are really nice people who wear suits and ties, or even that they are pastors of churches. Our culture is undeniably, uncontrollably drawn to the spectacle of a good fight. Especially when it involves the “suits.” And sometimes, when weighing the damage caused by conflict, it really doesn’t matter who is right or wrong. I’m quite sure there is plenty of “wrong” to share between both sides of this event. There always is. But I fear that in this case … like many others … no matter who is truly right and who is truly wrong, the conflict will merely be a distraction from the work at hand.
When you boil it all down, I say grown folk need to act like grown folk. That would solve the majority of such conflicts. There’s no call for “spittin’ contests” within this Body of Christ. But that’s just how simple life looks from my Kentucky hillside …
I believe there are far more important issues to be discussed, tackled, and solved by our International Mission Board than the interpersonal relationships of the board’s trustees. For instance, I found “buried” within the IMB press release this HUGE nugget of information that could have profound implications in our international missions efforts:
(The trustees) adopted a five-point statement of principles for contextualizing the Gospel in other cultural settings. The statement affirms the use of “bridges” from elements of host cultures to communicate Gospel truth and encouraged missionary vigilance that unbiblical concepts in a culture do not compromise “the whole unvarnished truth of the Gospel.”
Where is the text of this statement? Who authored it? Was it “informed” by missiological experts? How, exactly, will it be applied on the mission field? When will we, as Southern Baptists, be informed of this highly important statement?
Through it all, we Southern Baptists must remember our missionaries on the field. No matter what goes on in boards, meetings, or beyond, we still have over 5,300 faithful servants laboring in the fields of missions. Let us remain faithful in our praying, going, and giving.
;)
;){kind=logo}
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Geoff,
I’m not going to comment much on what you wrote. I’ve got extremely strong feelings about missions, the IMB, Wade Burleson, and the whole mess over the past couple of years. The reason I have strong feelings is because I absolutely love these people who are serving through the IMB. Our missionaries are incredible. I won’t go anywhere with any of the debate because of them. I want the focus to be on them. And, I’m also really fed up with Christians not acting like Christians. You can see what I posted tonight on my blog. I have a huge open door to talk with some lost people right now and most of what I’m having to do is to answer for professing Christians who are acting like total idiots.
Cyle,
I hope you see that was the essence of my post. I believe that we are in total and complete agreement.
Geoff
Brother Geoff,
I have been loathe to comment on all things Wade Burleson. It has taken up a lot of folks’ time in and out of the blogosphere and has distracted us from the real work that needs to be done.
It does remind me of the joke about the Quaker farmer who had an ornery mule. Having given up on the mule ever doing anything useful on his farm, he said to the mule, “Thou knowest I cannot curse thee. Thou knowest I cannot strike thee. But what thou knowest not is that I can sell thee to a Baptist.”
One of the most tragic things in the life of the church today is that people in the world know more about the interpersonal conflicts within the church than they know about the Gospel we say we proclaim.
Tony,
I know it has taken lots of time and attention. But it is “front and center” in SBC life right now.
But like you, I think the Gospel should be in the forefront, instead.
Geoff
Geoff,
Up to now, I have avoided commenting on the blogosphere about the latest episode involving Wade Burleson. I agree with you that interpersonal conflicts should not take center stage in our conversations and attention. However, what you have written here provides a good context to make the following observations:
1. Beyond the strictly personal issues involved, there are important missiological issues at stake that I believe can and will have an effect on the overall effectiveness of the SBC and IMB in the task of fulfilling the Great Commmission.
2. In almost certainly overly generalized terms, there are at least 2 conflicting visions “in the air” regarding what our approach, as Southern Baptists, should be towards world missions. One is the vision that Jerry Rankin and other key leaders at the IMB have been implementing since he came into the role of president of the IMB. And the other is a vision fueled by what I consider to be a denominationally narrow ecclesiology that believes that Dr. Rankin, and current IMB administration, have gone too far in their efforts to partner with other evangelicals and do “whatever it’s going to take” to reach the unreached people groups of the world and make disciples of all nations.
3. We can argue all day long about the various personalities on both sides of this “conflict,” but regardless of who the specific individuals involved may be, the basic issues are out there, and, in my opinion, should be discussed openly and in a civil manner, among Southern Baptists.
4. I believe that Wade Burleson has become the focus of attention, in large part, because he has had the courage to call attention to this underlying conflict, and bring it to the awareness of Southern Baptists. Almost certainly, at times, he could have been more circumspect in the way he has done this. But he has had the courage to address issues that, in my opinion, needed to be addressed.
5. The important thing, now, in my opinion, is that these differences of opinion regarding general approaches to missiology not get confused with a merely interpersonal conflict among several individuals. It appears to me that some would like to give this impression in an attempt to raise a “smokescreen” over the real issues at stake.
6. I agree that the issue of the contextualization statement could indeed have big implications. Since we still don’t know exactly what the statement says, though, many of us are holding off on making any comments for the time being.
Brother Geoff,
I am at present trying to get my hands on the same document. I have not seen it and have not said anything until now because, in reality, I do not know what it says. I do not mind and am not ashamed that I have commented on the situation with Brother Wade. However, this issue with Brother Wade taking center stage resulted because Brother Wade brought it to center stage.
Blessings,
Tim
Why do we have SBC boards meeting in secret?
Why do we not have the right to know what our BoT’s are discussing? Why was the censure done in secret when Wade asked it to be public? Why did they not read Wade’s proposal in the secret meeting? Why did they practice deciet/blindsiding in this matter pertaining to Wade?
This BoT does not inspire trust.
Geoff,
I think that your main point of our fascination with controversy is well taken.
As bloggers, I’m sure that we have all noticed what attracts people to our blogs. From my experience, when I post something biblical, edifying, and Christ-centered, I receive very few comments. If I continue to post Christ-centered material, the visits to my blog begin to drop accordingly.
However, if I post anything that is controversial, such as Wade Burleson, Ben Cole, Calvinism, BoT trustees, SBC politics, etc., the comments on my post go through the roof as do visits to my blog.
What does this reveal? IMHO, it reveals that we are mired in the grips of the “natural man.” When we are attracted to the ugliness of SBC life more than to the beauty of the glory of Christ in the SBC and everywhere else, then we, as a denomination and as individuals, need to repent of our sin. Until that happens, I believe we grieve the Holy Spirit and all of our pragamatic efforts will come to nothing.
Les
Geoff,
I have been saying the exact same thing over at my blog and everywhere I can find to comment on this subject. This contextualization statement could have huge implications for many places. But as they like to say here in the metroplex the favorite player on the football team is the backup quarterback. You’re right we tend to look at what is negative a lot quicker than looking at the good things that are happening.
A Simple Student @ SWBTS.
Geoff,
Your analogy and David Roger’s Comment are 100% on the Mark. I just wish the Powers to be would have been Gifted with this INSIGHT. Somewhere along the Way they have Lost Focus on Jesus Christ with all their infighting since the late 70’s.
Les your comment says it all as to what Southern Baptist are all About and Tickles their ears. We all need to be in Prayer that God will continue to Wake Up Southern Baptist.
In His Name
the “fighting” of the 70′ and 80′s needed to happen. our sbc was going down the tubes of liberalism like other mainline denominations. thank God for the courageous stand men like dr. adrian rogers and dr. page patterson and judge pressler and dr. jerry vines and others took to right the ship. wayne, for the life of me i cant understand some of your off the wall remarks.
david
Geoff: I am interested in the contextualization statement you block-referenced for us. However, I wonder why the questions you asked must be asked without having further investigated the answer to your questions. Perhaps I am missing something here, wonder if David R. could shed some light on where we might obtain answers to exactly what that means. It may not mean anything derogatory, but put forth as it has could be interpreted that something is afoot to hamper missional bridge-building.
Personally, I’d like to know more about the positives that went on at the meeting. How many missionaries were commissioned? Where were they sent?
As far as the BP putting forth the article regarding Burleson, I would suspect from my stint in journalism that they were simply heading off at the pass what they knew would be made publich via Burleson’s blog with an entirely different perspecitive for readers to view. selahV
Brother Geoff,
We have been able to get our hands on these 5 principles. We have them posted on SBC Today.
They certainly express theological truth pertaining to contextualizing. Make, certain you read the footnotes.
Blessings,
Tim
SelahV,
I do not know any more than you, regarding the “contexualization statement,” yet.
However, I have a hunch it may have something to do with the book “The Camel Method.”
thanks David, I popped over to SBCToday and read the statement. would love it if you would explain it as you understand it in lay-language when you post sometime. thanks. selahV
Hey Geoff,
I do not want to speak for Wade… but from what I’ve read (from his blog) I think you and him definitely agree this was “sadly unfortunate and grossly distracting.”
I agree with you both.
Lew
The Pursuit Online Store
Sorry, folks … I’ve been horribly, terribly busy today. Tomorrow will, most likely, be similar. But I’ll try to catch up on comments tomorrow night.
selahV,
I just checked over at SBC Today and read for myself as well. It is interesting to me that they are the ones that are breaking this story even before Baptist Press or “imb.org,” or the missionaries themselves get an e-mail report. I’ll have to wait until I have more time to give any explanation or commentary. However, upon reading it over, it seems like a pretty balanced statement to me. I don’t personally see a whole lot there that ought to be all that controversial.
David R. so glad you don’t see anything that could be controversial. As to why sbcToday wrote on it first may simply be because they dug in and asked first. who knows? that never even crossed my mind. I was just glad to see someone had posted it, since Geoff had brought up the snippet he had. blessings to you and yours.
I do look forward to seeing it in lay-terms though. hmmmn, maybe I’ll take a stab at it. selahV
David Rogers #2 above (post 5) is the crux of the matter.
I wonder if the competing visions don’t have to do with more than just ecclesiology though.
I believe we are seeing a rehash of the “fundamentalist vs. moderninst” controversies of the early and mid 20th century. Only in this version, ironically, the “evolution” in question is cultural evolution. The irony is that it’s the “modernists” (or “ecumenicals” if the label fits better in this instance) who reject this brand of evolution.
But to reject cultural evolution is to accept principles of indiginization. To reject cultural evolution is to acknowledge that churches don’t have to look like western, North American, evangelical, Southern Baptist churches in order to be either “real”, “true”, or “biblical” churches. To reject cultural revolution is to reject the inherent “better-ness” of western mores and values. To reject cultural evolution is to acknowledge that Christians in others cultures won’t necessarily come to look, think, act, and talk just like us as they mature as believers.
If it is the case that current conflict at the IMB could be categorized as being between those who priortize “Southern Baptist identity” vs. those who prioritize something broader, then I think beneath that is a more fundamental conflict of colliding missiological and anthropological worldviews.
Says me.
Good comments, all …
I’m sorry I’ve been away for most of the weekend. Let me respond specifically to a few-
David-
You reference to the two divergent visions of the IMB’s strategy is a point well taken. Those differing viewpoints were what piqued my interest in the contextualization statement.
SelahV-
I intended nothing derogatory within my question. But the simple public statement, lacking in detail, did cause me to wonder. Many thanks to Tim for posting the text. Like David, I see nothing that would hamper our missions work.
Stuart-
That is an absolutely fascinating analysis. But I’m going to have to read it later … slowly … with no football game in the background.
Geoff, glad you cleared that up. Sorry I saw it as possibly being interpreted that way. selahV