Wednesday, September 27, 2006

More Truth about Drs Eitel and Patterson and the IMB

I have received requests that I post Dr. Rankin’s response to Dr. Eitel’s paper. In fact, some have claimed I would be biased if I did not post it. I hesitated because I felt it could be detrimental in some ways to the IMB administration. I have even e-mailed Dr. Rankin and he was very kind to respond. He expressed no desire to re-live the past by my posting it, however, I have pledged to continue to put out truth as long as blogs continue to imply error with Dr. Eitel’s paper.

Recently Wade Burleson referenced David Rogers’ Blog in response to Dr. Eitel’s second paper…so in fairness to all, we shall continue down this road. Hopefully as more truth comes out, bloggers will stop the false implications and allegations toward Drs Patterson and Eitel.

First let me set the timeline of the papers and responses. Dr. Eitel’s first paper was written and sent. Dr. Rankin’s response (which will be posted soon - I leave for El Salvador Saturday, so I'm not sure when I will get to post it - but it will be soon) was sent back to Dr. Eitel. Dr. Eitel then responds back to Dr. Rankin (I will also post this soon) and finally Drs Patterson, Eitel, and Hadaway sent the second paper (it is actually more insightful to read the correspondence in chronological order while recalling that the original paper was written by Dr. Eitel without Dr. Patterson's knowledge as preparation for an interview).

Allow me to respond quickly to the very insightful and thoughtful post by David Rogers. He is an excellent writer and brings great insights, however, some things need to be made clear:

1) The implication that what was found was not systemic, does not take into account that Dr. Eitel’s observations were drawn from multiple individuals from different regional areas for over a decade (I doubt they were all wrong about what they were seeing in the IMB). Furthermore, Robin Hadaway was a RL and had worked in three different regions over a 20+ year period. Moreover, to cite more examples may have been very costly to M's (personally, I have received numerous e-mails from M's claiming Dr. Eitel's concerns were valid and systemic (actually, there are still "field" concerns) but they have requested I maintain their anonymity because of possible repercussions).

2) The systemic nature was further confirmed when over a ten month period 3 student units at the MLC were apparently fired simply for asking questions or refusing to participate in things they felt were unbiblical (Women in the quads leading the "mock" house church services & deciding to preside over the administration of the Lord's Supper).

3) David did an excellent job of cross-examining Dr. Eitel’s paper but the paper can not respond. It would have been a totally different post had he cross-examined Dr. Eitel rather than his paper. I feel confident in saying Dr. Eitel will be more than glad to answer any questions from anyone who seeks truth here.

4) No one has shown…let me repeat: NO ONE HAS SHOWN where either paper erred in anything it asserted!!!

I honestly feel there are times I must post Truth and have even stated time and again I will remove and admit error publicly if I post anything erroneous (in fact I told Dr. Rankin in the e-mail exchange that I would be glad to correct anything I have posted erroneously). I will try to maintain this blog as one that presents the Truth without spin and allows the chips to fall where they may.


Bro. Robin said...


Thanks for keeping up with this.

I will look forward to the responses to your post.

God Bless

Bro. Robin

brad reynolds said...

Bro Robin

I just finished reading some of your posts on your blog. Very insightful...thank you my brother.

volfan007 said...

it makes me very upset that a missionary was fired for standing on his biblical convictions about women leading in pastoral roles. this man should have been patted on the back....not fired.


brad reynolds said...

the three student units were not M's yet they were at the MLC preparing to be M's, but the concerns are still valid either way.

David Rogers said...


My post was primarily in response to you, not so much to Drs. Eitel, Patterson & Hadaway. You posted their paper publicly. They, as I understand it, sent it out, if not altogether privately, at least "semi-privately." If Drs. Eitel, Patterson & Hadaway have additional information to back up the charge of "systemic problems" at the IMB, I would be open to consider it. However, I readily admit that I am probably not who they might think to be the most ideal recipient of this information. If they indeed have this information, and have chosen to not make it more public, I respect that choice.

My reply is directed to the claim that silence in response to the charges made in the Patterson, Eitel, Hadaway paper infer tacit acknowledgement of the validity of the claims made therein.

I remain open to being convinced, by way of further documentation you may produce, that the charges are indeed substantive and indicative of the need for across-the-board changes at the IMB. What I have seen so far, however, leaves me unconvinced that such is the case.

In the meantime, if indeed, as you say, "3 student units at the MLC were ... fired simply for asking questions or refusing to participate in things they felt were unbiblical," I share your concern about this. In regard to this, you add the word "apparently" as a caveat. I would say to you that the "apparentliness" (is that a word?) of this charge is not a minor issue. I would think it would need to be demonstrated that the real cause for their dismissal was indeed simply "asking questions" and "refusing to participate," and did not have more to do with the way they went about asking the questions they asked, and the way they expressed their refusal to participate. It would also be important to know if there were perhaps other extenuating circumstances involved.


brad reynolds said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
brad reynolds said...


I really am not understanding your concern so please forgive me...but if it is because I posted their papers publicly let me note:

Dr. Eitel's first paper was picked up by ABP. The response back to Dr. Eitel was acknowledged by Dr. Rankin (in an e-mail to me) to have already recieved public attention. The second paper was sent to the Trustees and Admin as the first one was but interestingly the ABP did not pick the second one up.

My purpose for posting them (with the full knowledge of Dr. Eitel - the author) was to address the misrepresentations of Dr. Patterson and Dr. Eitel and their paper by bloggers. The most objective way I could respond was simply to post the papers without editing

The reason I chose to use the term "apparently" in reference to the fired student units is because I have not spoken to the administration about it; although the student units who claim they were fired for these reasons would probably balk at the term I chose.

I appreciate you and am confident we are on the same team...moreover Scripture tells us the Father is for both of us because we are His children. While we may have (and do have) disagreements we are still brothers.

David Rogers said...


I do not mean to chide you for posting these letters publicly. If you have permission from the authors to do so, that is good enough for me. I was merely wanting to explain why I direct my answers specifically to you, rather than, as you seem to suggest, directly, by way of other means, to Dr. Eitel.

Regarding the "fired" students, I do think, in all fairness, it would be good to hear the other side of the story, before coming to conclusions.

There may well be certain things that we will end up disagreeing about, due to basic philosophical differences. But, I want to reiterate, I am open to changing my opinion about things, provided what I consider to be sufficient justification for doing so is given.

brad reynolds said...

You did not come across at all as chiding. I had to read it a couples of times, because of my subjectivity. I felt you were saying what you were saying - nevertheless I did want to make sure.

Concerning the "fired" students I doubt that the administration can or would speak to it for obvious legal reasons...thus we can state the student units claimed they were fired for these reasons...3 in 10 months certainly raises some questions.

Ultimately, I think you and I seek the same end...perhaps we started from different vantage points but our goal is truth.

Thank you for your example through all of this.

sbc pastor said...


Thanks for the post, it is truly informative. BTW, I have posted my "Personal Reflections on the Joshua Convergence" in case anyone is interested. God bless!!!

In Christ,

Anonymous said...

Dr. Reynolds,

Did I read your blog correctly? Did Dr. Rankin give you permission to post his reply to Dr. Eitel's White paper?

Post it man. Please post it. Lets put these rumors to rest. Post it.

Peter Coleman

brad reynolds said...

No he did not gice me permission. I did not ask. He did say he would prefer I not. I told him I would not if other bloggers would stop posting errors...but if they continued then I would be forced to continue to correct with more truth.