IMB finds consensus; board rejects allegations of impropriety

ONTARIO, Calif.–International Mission Board trustees meeting Jan. 29-31 remained convinced that they have responsibly governed the Southern Baptist Convention entity, rejecting charges of impropriety leveled by one trustee last summer.

None of the 75 trustees present for the meeting voiced objections to the point-by-point response of the board’s executive committee to a call by IMB trustee Wade Burleson of Oklahoma for an investigation.

Board chairman John Floyd of Tennessee noted that the statement carried with it the counsel and concurrence of IMB executive staff.

The response answered Burleson’s complaint about exclusion of an individual trustee from forum and executive sessions without SBC approval as well as the purpose of such closed-door sessions. It also answered charges of narrowed doctrinal parameters for missionary appointees and suppression of dissent.

Another charge–that the trustee nomination process had been manipulated–was deemed beyond the board’s authority to evaluate.

A final allegation that one or more outside SBC agency heads had coerced IMB staff prompted only limited response.

“The Board of Trustees of the IMB, which consists of 89 trustees elected by the Southern Baptist Convention, is convinced that it has and will continue to discharge its responsibilities and fiduciary accountability to the SBC in cooperation to accomplish the board’s ministry assignments of evangelism and missions,” the Jan. 31 response from trustees asserted.

The statement acknowledged: “[T]he diversity of personalities, backgrounds and churches represented invariably is reflected in different opinions in giving oversight to the work of the IMB.”

And yet, the trustees said they viewed such diversity as a strength, stating, “This diversity is necessary in arriving at consensus and determining the leadership of God in making decisions within the board’s assigned responsibilities. We contend that any controversies have been dealt with according to appropriate Biblical guidelines and in line with democratic processes and approved board polity.”

Burleson’s call for an investigation of alleged impropriety among IMB trustees was offered last June at the annual meeting of SBC messengers in Greensboro, N.C. The pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Okla., initially asked for the SBC Executive Committee to handle the matter, claiming the IMB had reached an impasse in addressing “sources of controversy.”

When the matter was discussed at the SBC June 13, Burleson yielded to SBC President Bobby Welch’s suggestion that the EC not take up the matter until IMB trustees addressed it.

Near the close of their meeting Jan. 31, after IMB trustee chairman John Floyd of Tennessee repeatedly offered an opportunity for questions or discussion, trustees moved forward to approve the response without debate or opposition. Most of their time was devoted to prayer, reporting of missionary advances around the world and approval of new missionary candidates. Burleson did not attend the trustee meeting.

Regarding Burleson’s charge that the nominating process for appointment of trustees had been manipulated, IMB trustees stated they lack the authority to speak to or investigate the work of a committee elected by the SBC.

As for Burleson’s claim that one or more SBC agency heads other than the IMB president had attempted to influence or coerce IMB trustees, staff and administration to take a particular course of action, trustees reiterated that the board is not in a position to question or investigate actions and motives of heads of other SBC entities.

“It is assumed that any and all heads of SBC entities are concerned about the effectiveness of all entities in order for the SBC to fulfill its kingdom task in the world,” the statement read.

The board next responded to the point in Burleson’s motion related to closed-door forum sessions in which all trustees meet informally with the president. Prior to the board voting on the entire response, Floyd interjected, “I might say that our counsel suggested to us that it would be good to have these things stated as they are, in order that they might be referenced–especially in our situation here–the forum that some of the other trustee boards do not have. This speaks to that–the purpose of it.” Floyd then added, “It is good to have this as a foundation.”

The section of the response related to the forum reads: “The IMB does not allow formal business to be transacted in its closed Trustee Forums, but uses this time for prayer, personal testimonies and preliminary questions, and discussions regarding issues of mutual concern between senior staff and trustees,” the trustees stated in their Jan. 31 response.

“Official executive sessions are limited to matters dealing with sensitive personnel actions related to staff, missionaries and/or trustees, or those in which public exposure would result in detrimental consequences for personnel serving in sensitive and restricted locations around the world,” they wrote.

Furthermore, the board response stated, “Any actions that may be taken to exclude any trustee from participation in closed board sessions by the chairman will have been made with support of the board as a last resort and in order to avoid disruption and distractions to the board fulfilling its assigned tasks with unity and appropriate decorum.”

Regarding Burleson’s contention that trustees had legislated “new doctrinal requisites for eligibility to serve as employees or missionaries of the IMB beyond the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” trustees dismissed any notion of the BF&M as a maximal parameter.

“While the Baptist Faith and Message represents a general confession of Southern Baptist beliefs related to Biblical teachings on primary doctrinal and social issues, the IMB retains the prerogative and responsibility of further defining the parameters of doctrinal beliefs and practices of its missionaries who serve Southern Baptists with accountability to this board,” the statement read.

Lastly, in response to Burleson’s charge of “the suppression of dissent by trustees in the minority through various means by those in the majority and the propriety of any agency forbidding a trustee, by policy, from publicly criticizing a board-approved action,” trustees reiterated their established process for discussion, debate and approval of actions in order to fulfill the missions task.

“All board-approved actions result from a process of committee, and sometimes multiple committees, consideration before they are brought to a plenary session for adoption,” trustees stated. “All trustees have opportunity in the committee process and plenary session to express and advocate minority opinions. As in any democratic body, once the majority has determined the action to be taken, the board feels that the action should receive the unified public support of all trustees for the sake of effectively moving forward to fulfill our mission task.”

In his Internet weblog and other public gatherings, Burleson had challenged IMB trustee actions during his first year on the board, opposing a guideline to exclude missionary candidates not baptized in a church that teaches eternal security and a policy barring candidates who practice a private prayer language.

While agreeing to follow a policy the board enacted last March that prohibits trustees from publicly criticizing IMB policies once enacted, Burleson’s blog provides interested observers opportunities for discussion and debate of such issues.

Former board chairman Thomas Hatley of Rogers, Ark., recommended in May 2006 that incoming chairman Floyd continue to restrict Burleson from holding committee assignments and additionally restrict him from trustee-only sessions. Hatley told the TEXAN that Floyd concurred with his proposal as recommended by board counsel at that time.

According to a July 27, 2006 report by Florida Baptist Witness reporter Joni B. Hannigan, Hatley said Burleson showed up at the pre-meeting forum in Rockville, Md., despite being asked not to, but was not asked to leave. She quoted Hatley as saying, “He came seeing if we would throw him out. We didn’t. As it turned out there was nothing of that high security nature and I’m sure our chairman didn’t feel like it was worth the controversy.”

The Witness quoted Burleson as confirming his attendance at the forum, along with a pledge to attend all such meetings at which the entire board gathers “unless the SBC determines I am not to do that.”

Burleson has since contended that he was never barred from a trustee forum, though of the 12 Texas IMB trustees the TEXAN contacted, 10 responded that they thought the chairman had restricted Burleson from forum attendance, one was unsure, and one could not be reached. The transcript of his July 2006 interview with the Florida Baptist Witness confirmed that Floyd had followed Hatley’s recommendations. In a Jan. 31 interview with the TEXAN, Floyd clarified Burleson’s current status. “He’s not restricted from the forum, but I have not put him on any committees.”

Floyd told the Florida paper he did not have a problem with Burleson showing up at the forum, having instructed the Oklahoma trustee on how to have a good relationship with the board and expressing “a lot of confidence” in him. Burleson has praised the manner in which Floyd has conducted business as chairman, noting an improved spirit and camaraderie over the previous year.

Several Texas trustees agreed with Floyd’s expressed desire to bring closure to the dispute. IMB President Jerry Rankin also told Baptist Press the Burleson motion “has caused us to examine several facets of our meetings and process. But we’re working hard to see that this would not be a distraction from our primary focus on international missions.”

Once the SBC Executive Committee addresses the referred motion, their response and the statement of IMB trustees will be presented to SBC messengers at the June 12-13 annual meeting in San Antonio.

–Earlier reports in the Florida Baptist Witness and Baptist Press provided background for this article.