Related articles and links |  1 of 2

After a long battle over his blog, Wade Burleson resigned from the International Mission Board (IMB), the overseas mission wing of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The trustees had censured the Oklahoma pastor from involvement in four meetings, beginning this week in Gainesville, Florida.

Burleson has clashed with trustees since joining the board in mid-2005 because he has reported on board business on his blog. The Georgia Baptist Convention passed an anti-blogging resolution in November. Many trustees were angered by Burleson's harsh criticism of policies passed in 2005 that forbid missionary candidates from speaking in tongues and require them to be baptized in an SBC church. Burleson and IMB trustee chairman John Floyd spoke with Christianity Today about his resignation.

Interview with Wade Burleson :

You have been in a battle with the board for almost three years. Why did you decide to resign now?

I made a promise to myself that if I ever felt that I became a distraction to missions and the work of our missionaries, I would resign. I did not believe, as far as the board was concerned, that I was a distraction, until the last meeting, when it was evident that there would be no reconciliation over the issues over which we are divided. The impasse could not be bridged.

What was unacceptable to the IMB about the apology you read at the meeting?

Only one thing: They continued to insist that I apologize for violating a new standard of conduct, which they passed in March of 2006. It states, "A trustee must publicly affirm a board-approved action, even if he cannot privately support it." In 161 years of Southern Baptist history, there has never been a worse policy passed by any agency.

In essence, that new standard of conduct stifles dissent completely. Nevertheless, the bridge that could not be crossed was the demand that I apologize for my public dissent of the two new doctrinal policies that the board passed in 2005.

But you admitted you violated that new standard of conduct?

When they passed it, I did violate it intentionally. But I had to, because there were motions coming before the board that I had to address. One of those motions was made by me. So I had to speak about those board-approved doctrinal policies.

The International Mission Board has not been given the authority by the convention to narrow the perimeters of our missionary cooperation. That is a responsibility assigned to the convention only. The trustees have violated the convention mandate, and I have sought to bring accountability to bear.

I could not, in good conscience, apologize for what I believe to be a higher moral good, which I followed because my conscience demanded it.

Other trustees said your blog would hinder unity because they didn't know what would get posted on it. What was your purpose in reporting on board discussions and conversations?

I've never broken any confidentiality or executive rules. The only conversations I placed on my blog were answers to questions that were being asked of me. Frankly, those [doctrinal] discussions should never have been conducted behind closed doors. The purpose of my blog was to bring the missions ministry to the average layperson in the pew, so he could understand what was going on.

What are your plans for the future?

I can't share those at this time.

You have talked about how controversy has stemmed from your blog postings. How many people read your blog? Did you anticipate this kind of reaction?

I've had over 2 million unique hits in the last two years. I think it's in the top 10 evangelical blogs in the world. I didn't anticipate it. Folks in control of the SBC are afraid that they would be losing power and control and all I can say is, it's probably a well-placed fear.

next page... |  1 of 2

share this page

February (Web-only) 2008, Vol. 52