I have a few problems with the new guidelines for IMB trustees.
First, there is a clear implication that all public disagreement is inherently harmful. Disagreement isn’t harmful. Harm comes in how we handle disagreement. It is possible to respect and love the person while believing you are right and they are wrong. It appears the majority of IMB trustees have confused criticism of an action/policy with criticism of the mission of the IMB or with disrespect toward those who supported the action.
Second, there is a paternalistic attitude toward members of SBC churches. We (members of SBC churches) are not to be trusted to discern between “the greater good of our mission force (and a trustee’s) own personal opinion”.
Third, as noted in yesterday’s post, the outcome of the new policy, if followed faithfully, will be either complete silence or complete harmony. I’m not buying zen-like harmony from 89 different people. Either way, trust is damaged.
Fourth (or 3a, if you prefer), one infers from supporters of this policy that intentions matter more than outcome. They don’t. We’ve all heard the analogy of good intentions as paving stones. The intention is to focus on Kingdom building and missions and not be distracted by side issues. The practical result is yet another side issue that distracts us.
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
