Painful Concern or Political Posturing: Rodney Hammer & The Open Letter to the Southern Baptist Convention

    Former IMB Regional Director for Central and Eastern Europe, Rodney Hammer, recently resigned his post citing two "extrabiblical" policies the Trustees put in placed which, according to Hammer, "restricted the flow of good conservative candidates." 

Questioning the policies, Hammer said:  “I am expected as a regional leader to accept, own and support the policies of the IMB trustees. I can do so no longer.” 

While, he and his family left the field for stateside assignment on May 5 and plan to be reassigned to a field assignment upon their return, one has to wonder how he can, with integrity, continue to serve for an entity which he can "no longer support." 

The larger issue, it seems to me, is Hammer's current "Open Letter to the Southern Baptist Convention" posted  on North Carolina's Biblical Recorder.   The "Open Letter" offers the standard kudos to all Southern Baptists for their cooperation and affirms the good people at the IMB.  In addition, Hammer makes it clear that he loves working for the IMB and the only reason he resigned his post was to blow the whistle on the erroneous policy at work: 

"I love working with the missionaries and people of CEE, but I resigned as regional leader in order to share my convictions about IMB missionary candidate policies. I am expected as a regional leader to accept, own, and support the policies of the IMB Trustees. I can do so no longer" (embolden original).

Hammer then offers his theological difficulties with new guidelines on Baptism and Private Prayer language concluding that "We've been led down a Landmarkist ecclesiological path by some influential IMB trustees." 

Consequently, he goes on to say,

"They used unfounded rationales to justify missionary candidate de facto policies that overly restrict and disqualify many good, conservative, God-called and otherwise qualified Southern Baptists from missionary service through the IMB" (embolden original).

And, just who are those being disqualified for missions service?  The "dozens and even hundreds" include seminary students who have been called to missions, are members of SBC churches, conservative, affirm the BF&M, are willing to abide to IMB policy and specifically go to the ends of the earth.

Upon trying to work through the process, Hammer claims he publicly spoke out against the policy but a single time and was formerly reprimanded.  Thus, as much as it pained him to do so, he resigned so he could speak out for all those disqualified, God-called Southern Baptists who could not speak for themselves. Hammer concludes: 

"I believe part of the reason for the decline in the SBC is the unnecessary narrowing of parameters for Great Commission cooperation...I am asking that all born again, bible-believing, BF&M affirming, otherwise qualified Southern Baptists who are called to overseas missions and desire to serve through the IMB be allowed to do so."

It cannot be overlooked that Hammer's "Open Letter" comes at a convenient time:  Southern Baptists are at the threshold of the yearly convention in June.  Now, I'm quite willing to grant Hammer's painful  concern drove him to write this letter;  however, I'd like the favor returned in granting that it suspiciously appears like the letter was strategically written and released to the public just in time to influence the thousands of Southern Baptist messengers meeting in Indianapolis.   

The policies Hammer charges as Biblically suspect have been in effect for two years now.  Before one could soberly accept Hammer's concern about the clogged arteries to the mission field he alleges the IMB Trustees caused with their  "extrabiblical policies," answers need to be addressed to the stellar condition of our overseas missions projects.  Consider:

• Candidate Conferences host record numbers of inquirers desiring to serve as missionaries with the IMB
• the number of active overseas missionaries is approaching record highs
• number of baptisms overseas is 609,968, a record high
• 567,000+  persons discipled--another all time high
• over 25,000 new church starts last year, once again, another all time high
• monies for overseas missions is steadily up
• the missionary attrition rate is presently at 5%, the lowest in the last ten years (and that, since the alleged "extrabiblical policies" have been in place)

With the healthy report from the IMB, one must question whether or not Hammer's analysis is flawed.  It certainly seems a high probability.

Even so, a larger and more significant question must be repeated: 

Does the open letter Rodney Hammer released and The Biblical Recorder published just prior to the Southern Baptist Convention constitute a matter of personal concern for the state of the IMB or does it stand indicative of political posturing going on among some of the former leaders of our International Mission Board?

Grace.  With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Todd B.]

Peter,

Influence the messengers to do what? To vote for what?

-- Todd

[Katie]

Hi Peter,

I’m an IMB missionary serving in CEE. We were surprised by Rodney’s announcement and disappointed in it, while recognizing that a person’s gotta do what a person’s gotta do. I applaud Rodney for resigning his leadership position, rather than continue to engage in questioning, fighting against, and being at odds with IMB leadership/trustees. That would have been insubordinate and inappropriate. I personally would love to see the two “guidelines” rescinded and Rodney back as regional leader for CEE.

But, instead of letting Rodney take up the sword and fighting from his new position as former RL, I wonder why our SBC churches don’t take a more active role in this. What if a member of a local SBC church was disqualified as he/she was going through the application process with the IMB because of one of these guidelines (baptism or PPL). And in response to this, the pastor and others from the applicant’s local church got together with their association to ask the associational leaders if this church’s policies and practices regarding baptism and PPL were acceptable within the view of the association. Then, after getting the agreement and support of the association, the association goes to the state convention. They present to the state leaders the problem the missionary candidate has encountered with the IMB process. The state looks into it and decides that, in their view, there is no reason that this candidate should be disqualified from overseas service because of the way he/she was baptized or prays in private. The state appears at the SBC and brings this issue before the whole convention.

Now, I’m not well enough versed in convention politics to know what “political maneuver” would be appropriate at this point. But, there’s got to be some way that a state convention or a group of states could get together to call an SBC entity (the IMB) into account for this behavior toward a member in good standing of a local church, association and state convention of Southern Baptists.

That’s just my half-baked idea.

Katie

[Camel Rider]

Since neither of us is Rodney...all we can do is speculate. I think it's obvious that his letter follows quick on his return from the field in early May. Most of us plan our statesides out 3-4 years in advance because of the scarcity of missionary housing and planning around kids school schedules. When we went on with the IMB in 2006 we already had our stateside planned out in 2010 for the reasons listed above. This would lead me to believe that it is highly unlikely that he planned all of this around a political agenda. Although it is possible.

I ask this question with a gulp because I'm afraid of what can of worms I may be opening but here it goes....

If it was political in motive what would be wrong with that?

Pastors do things all of the time that are political in nature. They run for things, speak at certain events to push through a political agenda. Is there anything wrong with an IMB missionary speaking out against IMB policies? If so, why is there a double standard? You have dedicated an entire post to questioning the motives of a missionary returning from the field. What if an IMB missionary dedicated an entire post to questioning your motives? I'm just asking.

I'm not sure what kind of proof Hammer has that would prove his statements but I do see a unspoken reality in his statement. There is a fear in speaking out against policies or decisions made by either leadership or the BOT. I've heard the same thing from leadership here that Wade Burleson (I hear the gasps as I mention his name) heard....you can disagree...but you can't talk about it....no public dissent.

When I read the blogs....across the board and regular SB's find out about the PPL and baptism policies they are shocked. They usually say they've never heard about these policies and they don't understand why we have them. But there is a substantial spirit of fear on the field that if you speak out against policies or those that make them that ones day would be numbered. I'm not sure if this is what Hammer was expressing but it's also a possibility.
::: Camel Rider

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

Thanks for logging on. I would only respond that, being who Southern Baptists are, and the spontaneity we so often embrace, one never knows what may be brought to the floor of the SBC.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Byron]

Why should the numerical and financial growth of the IMB in the two years since the enactment of the new policies be the measurement standard of validity of those same policies? Hammer's chief concerns are theological, not pragmatic, in nature. It stands to reason that Hammer's concerns, which I agree with, should be addressed within their given theological context.

[Todd B.]

Well, I certainly anticipate an interesting Convention. I hope an uplifting one as well.

See you there.

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

To the contrary, you need to reread Hammer, my brother. While he surely bases his rationale in a theological context, his purposes are purely pragmatic--to unstop the clogged arteries that prohibit potential missionaries from serving on the foreign field.

The way I'm reading Hammer, he's saying if it were not for the restrictive policies, we would not have clogged arteries to the mission field. That is, if A then B (or more technically, If Not-Not A, then Not-Not B:^).

My simple point is, given the obviously good health of the overseas mission field as I pointed out in the post, we can safely conclude not B, therefore not A. The pragmatic concerns are non-existent if we believe the evidence provided. The IMB is rockin' and rollin'!

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Katie,

Thanks for your comment. You ever bring a sobering thought to the table.

For myself, I am reluctant to commit on some of the more salient points of policy bodies of Trustees make. It is not that I have no desire to make a statement on a policy. Instead, I know only the conclusion and not the innumerable evidences and reasoning--both biblically and ethically--that led to it.

And, my respect for the trustee system we've developed disciplines me to trust until I possess such solid rock evidence to the contrary that I cannot trust.

Lord always guide you and yours. With that, I am...

Peter

[Byron]

Peter, thanks for the response, but I have to disagree. This is not about how many get to go the mission field, it's about WHO gets to go to the mission field. If rescinding the new policies allow fewer to go on the mission field, I'd be willing to live with that. If it truly allows more people to go, great. Either way, that's not the main point. The main point to me is the unhealthy (in my view) theological restriction of the new policies.

[Colin McGahey]

Peter,

In regards to your larger question, I think the answer is both. Obviously Mr. Hammer has both personal issues with the policies, and likely for the same reason is concerned about the IMB's direction and overall health.

But, I think it is a healthy thing he is doing. Whether or not he is wrong in his opinions I will leave to your always insightful commentary. Yet the fact that we are discussing these issues in larger and larger circles, so long as he doesn't, like our blogging brethren, fall into sin in his manner of dissent and discussion, helps us to discuss theology in larger and larger circles. I think the renewed education on what exactly a free-church model entails has been greatly beneficial for those who have seen "Baptist" as simply a tradition and not a theological position on the authority of the Word. Morevoer, I am posting some thoughts in view of baptist history and the direction of ecumenism in the SBC as we speak in order to influence people who will be voting at the convention. I think influence, done in the name of theological education, or even to spur one another to think critically is always beneficial to the flock, provided the subject does not tout or dabble in false teaching or embrace divergent (in a negative sense) theological streams of thought.

Hope all is well in GA. I have been informed that my anticipated trip to Indy is no longer, so my hopes of meeting all you blogging fellows will have to wait. In any case, I will looking forward to your thoughts during the convention.

[Jesse]

Katie has an interesting idea, just please don't try taking something like this up in the Missouri Baptist Convention, we've got enough going on already.

[Dave Miller]

Agree with him or not, Mr. Hammer's resignation seemed to me to be Christian, principled, and honorable - much more so than your questioning of his motives.

[Alan Cross]

What is wrong with trying to influence the convention? It seems that Dr. Patterson and Dr. Mohler did just that in San Antonio last year. Can you point me to your posts where you questioned their motives?

As for those numbers of baptisms, church plants, etc., someone needs to investigate that and report on what is really going on. A large number of that is the work of nationals that IMB missionaries are loosely associated with. We are claiming their numbers as our own, in many cases. I have heard this directly from missionaries on the field and it is becoming common knowlege. It is not totally a lie in that we are working with these folks, but it is disingenous in that it looks like we are doing that work ourselves.

It would be akin to our church supporting and training a missionary overseas and then we include all of his baptism numbers in our ACP. On the one hand, we are connected. But, on the other hand, that is not really our work.

[peter lumpkins]

Colin,

Thanks, Colin. I appreciate your worthy thoughts. And, I have to say, the way you've framed your response, I tend to agree with the "both/and".

Also, I think your point well made suggesting Hammer doing the right thing in stepping aside in order to criticize. Katie makes a tremendous contribution in drawing us into viewing Hammer a lamentable loss to CEE. Sometimes blogs are ever so cold in trampling down our humanity.

Grace, Colin. And, know I regret we cannot meet in Indy face to face. Yet I hold out hope that, prior to our passing or His Parousia, we shall literally shake hands in Christian union.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Alan,

Thanks for your words. I did not know I mentioned there was anything wrong about influencing the convention, brother. Nor will you scarcely find, even if you look with all your looking, where I questioned anyone's motives really.

And to be frank, if raising the question about the possibility of political posturing being an alternative explanation (or, in light of some good contributions here such as Katie, Byron and Colin have done, at minimum a partial explanation) is your genuinely best desert you serve me about my apparently horrid, hypocritical practice of "questioning Hammer's motives," know, my brother Alan, I shall count neither calorie nor fat but eat it in perfect bliss this fine day.

On the other hand, you appear confident the Trustees are cooking away in their secret kitchen on the books they offer us. You write:

"someone needs to investigate that and report on what is really going on...We are claiming their numbers as our own...it is disingenous in that it looks like we are doing that work ourselves" (italics mine).

Unless you have some hard evidence--evidence, not hearsay--to the contrary, Alan, there is no sober reason to insinuate the Trustees are spitting in our soup. Perhaps you can offer us some evidence when you return.

Finally, Alan, I must digress from your analogy. Granting for argument's sake, it would decidedly not be "akin to [your] church supporting and training a missionary overseas and then [you] include all of his baptism numbers in [your] ACP."

Rather, it would be akin, in my view, to your church having a revival with a guest evangelist who comes in and teaches a witness class with some folks from other churches mingling with yours and going out 2X2, with the result being 6 were saved, baptized and reported on your ACP.

I know of neither closest friend nor callous foe who would charge your church in being "disingenuous" because you included the 6 on your ACP.

Grace, Alan. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Dave,

Check out the comment I left for Alan. I deal with the charge you make about my less than "Christian, principled, and honorable" post about Rodney Hammer.

With candidness, I confess that you are perhaps coming around to actually liking me and my words now. For I presently only received from your pen the generic charge of being "less than" honorable and Christian.

For me, that stands a Hallelujah Chorus, brother! It is definitively a notch higher than the "blustering, hate-filled blogs" I allegedly post, being "the Baron of the Blogosphere" you appear to think I am, as well as an apparent ringleader in the "Baptist Bluster Brigade."

I feel like singing "Blest be the tie that Binds"!

Grace, Dave. With that, I am...

Peter

[Camel Rider]

Peter,
I just read your post to Alan and you said you didn't questions Rodney's motives...but indeed you did when you wrote...

"It cannot be overlooked that Hammer's "Open Letter" comes at a convenient time: Southern Baptists are at the threshold of the yearly convention in June. Now, I'm quite willing to grant Hammer's painful concern drove him to write this letter; however, I'd like the favor returned in granting that it suspiciously appears like the letter was strategically written and released to the public just in time to influence the thousands of Southern Baptist messengers meeting in Indianapolis."

Then Alan asked an excellent question ..."What is wrong with trying to influence the convention? It seems that Dr. Patterson and Dr. Mohler did just that in San Antonio last year. Can you point me to your posts where you questioned their motives?"

[volfan007]

Gifts to the Lottie Moon Christmas offering set a record this year. A record!

David

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Camelrider and others,

It seems that many who are in disagreement with the IMB guidelines fail to understand something. While NAMB does not have the baptismal policies, their policy on tongues and PPL, have been on their books since 1987.

Blessings,
Tim

[peter lumpkins]

Camel,

You've been on SBCTomorrow close to a month now. Of your first time logging on I wrote:

"Camelrider adds an entirely other dimension to the discussion while making one grin through a pinch of spicy humor. I like that...In fact, we all need that. Stop by anytime, Camelrider."

I honestly wish we could go back to the qualitative content you posted then and the bit of humor with which you appear to have a natural niche.

Unhappily for us all, virtually your entire quantitative repertoire now obsesses itself in attempting to nail me with a bona fide inconsistency. Not that inconsistencies aren't nice little trophies to display. I look for inconsistencies in both posts & comments myself and have a few trophies of my own about which to boast.

Nonetheless, I hope, under God, the inconsistency toward which I employ my pick and shovel is genuinely gold and not pyrite.

I'm not sure what happened. It could be you're bored or even inflamed with the way I write or it could be a 'get-che-back' stemming from your verbal meltdown toward Dr. Vines. I haven't the faintest idea.

One thing is for sure: I'm through on blogs--including my own--tit-tatting back and forth with no substance in play. My last and final tit-tat was with David Rogers. I plan now to retire (from tit-tatting, that is).

That said, go back and read my answer to Alan. I cannot improve on it. Do not accept it? Cool. Accept it? Cooler still!

I trust your day well and ministry filled with grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Camel Rider]

Peter,
One of my chief struggles is that I start to take stuff too seriously. I deeply care about the SBC and the IMB and there is a reason I am a Baptist...I believe in the identity.

As far as the sense of humor...you would be right. When I move to the strong opinion side I have a tendency to sideline the humor. I actually like you also....I even said so on a blog...somewhere...don't ask me for proof....just believe me.:-)

So I will stick around....I check your blog everyday.....I like the punishment. I may still point out your inconsistencies time to time but I hope to make you laugh while I do so.

Maybe one day we can actually talk....this is a weird and difficult season of life and maybe that is showing through also.

Blessings!

[Debbie Kaufman]

Tim: And if that would have been known, I personally would have been vocally just as against the NAMB policies. I believe them just as wrong. There are a lot of things we didn't know that were done behind closed doors. Now we know. Now we are speaking out.

[Debbie Kaufman]

david: The Lottie Moon offering is something I will not quit giving to no matter what. I will support financially our missionaries regardless. Evidently many others feel the same way. So don't take that as a sign that all is well.

[Tim Rogers]

Sister Debbie,

The NAMB policies were implemented sometime around 1987(?). It was during the time of heated exchanges between moderates and conservatives. This policy made it through without as much as a question. Why? Southern Baptist have always believed this way.

Also, this is not something that just came about. Brother Bob Pearle former IMB Trustee spoke about this in November 2005. See http://texanonline.net/default.asp?action=article&aid=4275>this press coverage and read what Dr. Pearle has to say.

Blessings,
Tim

[volfan007]

The NAMB policies were well known for years and years. But, I never heard a big deal made about them. Everyone just accepted it as the way Southern Baptists believed. Then, all of a sudden, the IMB makes similar policies, and shazzam....they're bad and their bad and someone's trying to do something sneaky and underhanded.

David

[Debbie Kaufman]

Tim: And I am telling you that I did not know about them. Wade didn't even know about them. A lot of people did not know about them. I would not tell you something that was not true. If I had known, I would have been against those policies as well. I don't know how to be any clearer than that.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Everyone just accepted it as the way Southern Baptists believed

And missionaries didn't say anything for fear of their jobs. Many didn't say anything in those days for fear of their jobs. Would you like me to name three people right now and also a fourth that is the subject of this post that were brave enough to say something? BTW Where are they in their jobs? Come on david.

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

Thanks for logging on. You make many unproven assertions. I suggest you offer some bit of proof or stand down.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: Proof? It's been all over the blogs and SBC news? Missionaries have written posts on Wade's blog. Come on Peter. Wade himself being one who has resigned. Missionaries write all the time anonymously for fear. Please don't try and bully me. You can ask me for proof and I will be glad to give it. To bully me, well let's just say that's gonna be hard to do. Even in person.

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

I asked for a bit of proof and the only evidence you offer is Mr. Burleson's resignation?

As for "bullying", Ms. Kaufman, I haven't the faintest idea to what you refer. I do know if you make me an issue again when all I did was ask you to offer evidence for unsubstantiated assertions, you will do so only once.

I for one am dead serious about perpetual 'drive-bys' on blogs with no real contribution to offer but AK47 accusations entirely absent of any valid evidence.

Grace for this evening. With that, I am...

Peter

[David Phillips]

Peter,

I will offer proof, though I will not give you names (which you may consider to be the only reasonable proof).

I was in Spain in February with the regional leadership of Western Europe of the the IMB. There were approximately 80 missionaries and their spouses there. I had the privilege of having meals with and walking around Barcelona with about 2/3 of them. I heard the regional leadership talk of a great deal of turnover they had in the past year. In addition, at least half of those I talked with were considering leaving the IMB. They have a lack of trust with the BOT. They gave me specifics of the information being put out by the BOT they know to be false. Moral was incredibly low.

After I came home, I was contacted by the strategy coordinator of a major city in Western Europe. Last month, that missionary, his family, and the entire team in that city resigned. In all, more than 20 missionaries met in a home to plot out a new strategy for missions in Western Europe that did not involve the IMB.

In the past 2 weeks, I have had one missionary, a strategy coordinator for a country, call me on the phone and vent for 1.5 hours. It was re-iterated to me the low moral, the distrust of the BOT, and that many in WE were considering resigning. They wanted the BOT to leave them alone and let them do their jobs and to do it they way they knew it needed to be done. There is a great deal of tension between the missionaries and BOT.

In addition, I had another strategy coordinator in another region last week email me with the same information: low moral, he and his friends were considering resigning, distrust of the BOT, and seeing numbers they knew to be false put out by the trustees. He and I have since skype'd and he has shared with me more information.

Following that email, the same day I received another from a former missionary in a third region. Same information.

The next day, I received an email from another missionary in a 4th region. Same information.

Finally, Alan Cross conveyed to me a phone call he received from a friend of his who is in a 5th region...he conveyed the same information to Alan.

The reality is that we are getting our information from the people on the front lines - actual missionaries, on the field and their networks. I've looked in their eyes and seen the tears flow at the frustration, tension, and angst caused by the BOT. I have heard it in their voice and sensed it in their emails.

As I said above, I will not give names. I will not put them in a position to loose their job by giving names. And if you do not believe me, that's fine. But I have proof.

Now then, I am done.

[Byron]

I'm going to have to confess to standing corrected about the NAMB policies; I did not know. Now I do, so I have to disagree with them as well.

I must confess something else. I'm not entirely comfortable with PPL, and I'm not entirely sure how to respond to some of the (hopefully rare) baptism scenarios. I'm not a cessationist, but at best I am a soft continuationist (open, but skeptical in most situations). My main fault, however, has been speaking lately when I should have been quiet and listening. And, like usual, this realization comes after I needed it.

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

Thanks. Often times I have forged opinions about matters that I do not share for the simple reason I am uncomfortable doing so apart from being so doggone ignorant of enough of the relevant facts. Even with that as a 'rule of thumb' sometimes I do not live up to it.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

David,

Thanks for your sincere rehearsal of apparent troubling morale difficulties on the field. This perhaps cannot be denied.

All said, though there is no 'getting to the root' of the problem, as I see it, until more than anecdotal messages are conveyed. Genuine demonstrable evidence must be garnered to make the case.

I spoke recently with someone on the inside of this issue and he/she expressed concern that as stellar of a report we have from the mission field, there is a sense of "low morale".

What cannot be missed from Hammer's letter--and I may post on this--is the obviously similar language he uses that Enid used for 2 years.

I want to think this through carefully, but, at minimum, at least some of the discontent or "suspicion" toward the Trustees coming from overseas may be attributable to their dependence on Wade Burleson, as a trustee, whose endless river of dissent, criticism and open questioning of our trustees flowed freely from Enid.

That Wade Burleson was/is a chief source of information to hundreds of missionaries cannot reasonably be challenged, it seems to me.

Grace, David. With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

This policy made it through without as much as a question. Why? Southern Baptist have always believed this way.

Tim: I don't agree that this is why the policies made it through. I was not around during this time, so I could be wrong.

David: I was speaking of the IMB, so your story is right in line with at least what I was saying.

Peter: David Phillips has given more than sufficient proof. I believe there are more stories yet to be told. I read my post and see where I kind of meshed the two into one. If I confused then I do apologize. But you may always ask me for proof, I never say anything that I do not have substantial proof. I am not afraid of being asked... [the rest of this comment was unpublished due to unnecessary insults]

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter you said: What cannot be missed from Hammer's letter--and I may post on this--is the obviously similar language he uses that Enid used for 2 years.

Because what has been coming from Enid for two years is the truth. To deny this as it seems you are doing, boggles me.

[Tim Rogers]

Sister Debbie,

I really do not care whether you agree with me or not, and I do not mean that in a harsh manner. Truly, I want you to understand, but whether you agree or not is not my concern. I am presenting to you the facts. As a famous TV show of the past would say; "Just the facts Ma'am."

Please do not speak past me and allow me to express to you facts. When the NAMB trustees passed these policies the missions board was known as the Home Mission Board. I am trying to tell you that in 1988 the first of the entities, SEBTS, had a majority of conservative trustees. The trustees at the HMB did not enjoy a majority of conservative trustees. When these policies were put in place, the divisions between the trustees were very deep. Thus, these policies went into place without as much as a question. Why? Because both moderate and conservatives agreed glossilalia was understood as both PPL and speaking in tongues by SB.

You said that Brother Wade did not know about the policies. I do not doubt that. There were many things that he did not know about. But that does not negate that the policies were already on the books and the reaction by other IMB trustees should not have surprised him. However, because he did not know about the policies, I understand his surprise regarding the reactions of the various trustees. But, he had to know about them after the vote of the IMB, because if you notice the date of the article I linked to above it is 11/2005 when fellow IMB trustee Brother Bob Pearle revealed this information.

Not knowing the bridge is out is not an excuse for driving into the river. You still drove into the river. Thus, not knowing the NAMB had these policies is not an excuse for saying I am wrong when I say most SB do not agree with tongues.

Blessings,
Tim

Blessings,
Tim

[peter lumpkins]

Tim,

Thanks my brother for the rehearsal of the historical record. Facts are aggravating little rascals...

Ms. Kaufman,

Why, of course. How stupid of me. Everything Enid has ever released, reviewed, rehearsed, recorded, etc etc has been the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. No skewing going on there. I'll try to remember that in the future.

Grace for this evening. With that, I am...

Peter

[Alan Cross]

Peter,

Regarding Rodney Hammer, you used the term "political posturing." That is universally seen as derogatory. You are not stupid and neither are we, even though you treat those who disagree with you as though they are little children.

Peter, in every exchange we've had, I've tried to treat you with respect and courtesy, even when we've disagreed and even when you have not returned it. I even came to your defense once when everyone was tearing you apart. Yet, you respond to me and others who dare disagree with you here with great condescension. Why would anyone want to discuss anything with you? I know that my desire to do so has disappeared.

I will trouble you no longer.

[peter lumpkins]

Alan,

I answered you honestly and forthrightly, offering a serious response to your comment, Alan. Instead of staying on point, you come back with comments about me.

For the record, though, it is definitively not universally "derogatory" in speaking of political posturing. In addition, I made it clear in the thread that I personally do not see politics as inherently bad.

As for your decision to come back here or not to comment to me in the future, I can accept that Alan. It saddens me but I can accept that.

I wish you well, brother. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I just picked up my email before retiring to bed and I received this note with permission to post it here.

Please know that I will tolerate absolutely no negatively inspired personal comments toward this Trustee. Period.

Hi Peter,
You are welcome to add these comments in the blogstream of your current post. However, I will not respond to any follow-up questions. As I said on my post "Both Sides of the Aisle", I am probably through with inter-active political blogging.

Regarding Debbie's "proof" of the missionary dissatisfaction with the IMB Trustees, may I make a proposal?

Since the missionaries are truly in contact with one another frequently,

And since there is no security (anonymity) problem letting the Trustees know "where" they are,

And since, "apparently" some Trustees support Wade Burleson's perception, shared by Rodney Hammer,

And since the Richmond Senior Staff can know where they are,

And since the President of the SBC is an ex-officio member of the Board of Trustees,

And since, "apparently", against the favorable statistics, the Trustees are ruining the morale of the missions enterprise of the Southern Baptist Convention,

Perhaps the missionaries could all write independent emails to every Trustee, and every member of the Richmond Senior Staff, and the President of the SBC, all within a two or three day period.

IF their real names were attached to their emails, then the problem could be undeniably established, and the "choke hold" a few trustees in leadership have could be by-passed.

They are not powerless. Might I also suggest that they attach the information that they have received from Richmond Staff regarding the issues enumerated in the Hammer letter?

Our missionaries are among our best and most dedicated Christian people. They will draw reasonable conclusions based on the information they have received. What are they being told? And by whom?

If the IMB Board of Trustees were to find that half of Debbie's assertions were true, then there would certainly be an internal uproar that would not subside until the very bottom of this bucket of worms was scraped clean.

Debbie's sincerity cannot be denied, and she has never struck me as a liar. But her characterization of the frequency and depth of missionary dissatisfaction is so alien, and so exaggerated, in regard to what I have been told, that I find it unbelievable.

The missionaries themselves will have to take a stand, by name. Should that not be a common courage?

Your brother in Christ,
Jerry Corbaley

Thank you, Dr. Corbaley, for your contribution to this thread. Also, I appreciate both your concern for and understanding of our SBC missionaries in the field.

Grace always. With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Dr Corbaley and Peter: Thank you for the kind words Dr. Corbaley. However, I don't believe what I have given is my assertions, but those who have either spoken to the missionaries themselves such as David Phillips gave in this very comment section or those missionaries who have spoken for themselves, albeit anonymously. I don't think we can ignore Rodney Hammer's resignation nor the reasons he has meticulously given in this letter. Those should be investigated. Yet it seems that they are ignored.

By saying that my "assertions" are unbelievable concerns me in that it mean no change will be forthcoming. There is nothing I can do but give a voice, however, I do not believe that I am the one ignoring the facts. The facts I am giving seems to be backed by this letter by Rodney Hammer alone.

[selahV]

Dr. Corbaley, what a wonderful idea. I do hope missionaries take time to do exactly as you've suggested with their dissatisfacion regarding conditions. It would be good to know exactly the difficulties they are experiencing on the field that are keeping them from doing the work churches have commissioned them to do.
Thanks for offering that suggestion. It is so sad to hear the account from David Phillips. It really is. I don't know who they are but I do pray God's grace will be sufficient to meet their needs at this very moment and abound. May wisdom and discernment flood their minds and may peace abide where confusion and discontent reside. May hope in Christ be their sustaining strength and may God's Spirit draw all men to Himself as they lift up our Savior. selahV

[Camel Rider]

Wow, this is hilarious.
Ed Stetzer presents research that shows a slight decline in numbers and ....it's not our fault, our scriptural purity is cleansing the SBC. {those evil emergents}

A significant leader in the IMB resigns and ...he must be doing so purely for political reasons.

Maybe our lack of pure motives forces us to see everyone else the same? Why can't we just investigate things and allow truth to be truth?

David P. gives you several examples and we broadly say that those are not proof, probably people from Wade's church.

If there are trustees out there reading this....want to know the truth? Why not create a survey for all IMB m's to respond to. You could survey {anonymous} on a host of subjects, which would be useful, and could help provide insight into the true feelings of those on the field. Possible?

BTW, if a bunch of us did speak out with our pure feelings, I'm afraid I'd be home drinking Mt. Dew and eating ribs by the weekend. And we would spin it as a cleansing of the IMB.

:::Camel Rider

[David Phillips]

Dr. Corebaly,

For some reason you are missing what I am saying. The trustees ARE the problem. The missionaries feel their hands are tied and that anything they try to do that will be creative in reaching the people will either get them sent home or at least cause fecal matter to hit an air-circulating device.

One team in one region was intentionally hidden from trustees because of their creative ministry. They were not improperly contextualizing. They weren't associating with non-baptists. They were just being creative. But they had gotten flack over it from trustees. So they were hidden whenever trustees came over, which was rarely.

When the trustees did come over, the missionaries in at least two regions were constantly criticized and nit-picked about what they were doing. So while they don't lie to trustees, they don't reveal anything either. Many try to avoid the trustees altogether.

They know the stats put out by the BOT are bogus, it's all a public relations move.

Again, if I don't trust you, if you are the problem and I've been told to not complain or question, and it has been demonstrated that if I do question I get a one way ticket home...do you really think I'm going to contact you and give you my name and tell you how much I dislike and distrust you? Are you serious?

[selahV]

Gee, do I feel stupid. selahV

[David Phillips]

SelahV...You are a bright, intelligent lady, and I do hope you don't feel stupid.

I don't come over here much, simply because I don't like getting into the SBC talk any more. I take a stab at things every once and a while. In addition, I am probably on the other side of the aisle than most who comment here. No personal attacks from me.

But I got to look into the eyes of hurting, tired, and frustrated missionaries. I heard one of the missionaries in charge of the business side of Western Europe tell about the great amount of turnover they had in the past year. Some of it was frustration with the BOT. Some who left had been there for less than a year and came back home. These missionaries in that room in Spain, after hearing the struggles and frustration, then stood and sang songs about the greatness of God, and the cost of obedience - they sang it with all they had in them. And I broke down.

These missionaries face loneliness, depression, anger, and have left everything to be obedient and serve their Lord. And yet they get told how to do ministry by people whom never have walked in their shoes, don't know their struggles, don't know their context and whom they do not trust. Their motives are questioned by people they have never met.

It breaks my heart...So when people say there is no proof of dissatisfaction or turnover, etc, I have to speak up. I've seen it, I've heard it, I've touched it, and I've read it.

For some reason, they trusted me. And they opened up. And now others are telling me the same thing from other regions. Every time I see where they have hit my blog, I try to pray for them. By name.

I've shared all I'm going to share on this.

I pray you all have a blessed day and weekend.

Now then, I am done...

[peter lumpkins]

David,

You begin with "For some reason you are missing what I am saying. The trustees ARE the problem" Please, my brother. At least be reasonable. The trustees are the entire problem? The trustees are putting out bogus numbers?

Unless you possess more than anecdotal evidence, that is simply not going to cut it--not with me, David, and not with, I'm willing to wager, the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists who embrace the Trustee system. You're asking us to believe 90 Southern Baptists from across our nation have conspired together to dupe 16m Southern Baptists.

Dr. Corbaley was kind enough to offer a possible scenario where hard evidence could be assembled and it is responded with "you are the problem, Dr. Corbaley...You and the other 89 trustees!" Incredible but understandable given the theory of misinformation, contention, rabbling, skewing of information, etc coming out of Enid with which I've personally wrestled over a year.

I say again, thanks to Dr. Corbaley for being one of the few trustees who attempt to share his soul on the blogs. Baptist blogdom, as most of us experientially know, can be a cold, hard place.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Bart Barber]

I'd love to know what the "creative" missionary activity was that needed to be "hidden."

Trustees exist to supervise our entities. It is entirely natural that the people being supervised would feel a bit nervous upon encountering those who supervise them. It is entirely dishonest to be "hiding" ANYTHING from the trustees. I'll bet these "hiding" missionaries are easy to find on payday.

[Ka\]

Dr Barber,
I have a lot of respect for you and think that yours is one of the best SBC blogs out there. But I must take exception to your last remark. I don't know anything about the team doing "creative" ministry. I hadn't heard about it until reading the comment here. But I would bet that their regional leadership made the decision to "hide" their activity from the visiting trustees, not the missionaries themselves. These missionaries probably would have loved for the trustees to see what they are doing to impact lostness where they serve. For you to hint that they are happy to be "hidden" except on payday is extremely disappointing.
Katie