The IMB, Eitel’s letter and the Blogs

Marty Duren has questioned me concerning my timeline of events at the IMB as posted here under “The IMB, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Eitel, and Truth.” I will now respond to him. Let me state, up front, I believe Marty to be a man who loves Jesus and seeks Truth with a pure heart...for that we are grateful. However, I think he is still Hoodwinked:)

1. He is correct in stating that I said “Dr. Eitel sent the letter to the IMB Trustees.” I was wrong in saying that and I apologize to all. He is also correct in stating it was unintentional on my part as evidenced by other comments I have made. He is further technically correct in saying, it wasn’t Dr. Eitel that mailed it, but Dr. Patterson.

This however, does not change the fact that Dr. Eitel wrote the paper WITHOUT Dr. Patterson’s knowledge or input and that he sent it to Dr. Patterson to send to the Administration and the Trustees on his behalf.

2. Marty claims I took a miss-step Chronologically. And points to the committee not looking at résumé’s until January of ’04. However, he also makes a miss-step here:)

- Dr. Eitel was contacted in May ’03
- August ’03 - A trustee TELLS Dr. Eitel the Administration is slowing the process in an effort to make sure Dr. Eitel won’t be looked at.
- September ’03 – Dr. Eitel has heard nothing from the committee.
- Dr. Eitel and Dr. Patterson conclude he will not be interviewed.
- Dr. Eitel sends Dr. Patterson his paper to send to trustees on Eitel's behalf.
- He wasn't interviewed.

SUBSTANTIVE CONCLUSION: 1) paper written in June/July by Dr. Eitel for an interview; 2) it was viewed in August by Dr. Patterson; 3) Eitel and Patterson conclude he will not be interviewed; 4) Paper sent in Sept.



Out of courtesy, I will also do my best to honestly answer Marty’s questions, even though I believe the questions belong in a gossip column on SB politics rather than on my blog where I desire to deal with substantive THEOLOGICAL ISSUES. Marty, there is no harshness intended here…I’m just not sure this has anything to do with the substance of Eitel's paper or with happenings in the SBC.

Marty: - 1. Is there a little greasy spoon cafe in Wake Forest known as The Border?

Actually Wake Forest does have a restaurant called The Border, it also has many other restaurants where we professors like to eat: Over the Falls Deli; Havana Jax, etc.


Marty: 2. In the first half of this decade was it a common practice for students, faculty and employees of SEBTS to eat lunch there between 11:00 and 3:00 on most, if not all, days of the week?

It is still common practice for those of us on tight budgets to eat at the Border on many days of the week. EXCELLENT FOOD – MINIMAL PRICE:)


Marty: 3. Was it common for the attendees at this almost daily get together to discuss any and all activities, personalities and politics of SBC life?

It is very common for me to discuss things in the SBC, no matter where I eat or who I am eating with – I love the SBC and am concerned about all facets of it…I even pray for it (i.e. – I talk to Father about it also). The implication that my “shooting the breeze” with colleagues has any power to influence decisions in the SBC is most fallacious. I wish we did have that type of power (If we did, I would like to believe we would not only solve the SBC problems but most of the world’s problems too).


Marty: 4. Was part of this ongoing conversation the situation at the IMB, which was of such concern to Drs. Eitel and Patterson?

To this day, part of my conversation with colleagues, students and friends still involves the SBC, the IMB, our seminaries, churches, etc – Our conversations at the Border is by no means limited to the IMB or even the SBC for that matter.

HOWEVER, I DO RECALL A PRAYER REQUEST BY DR. EITEL IN WHICH HE STATED THAT HE HAD RECIEVED AN E-MAIL FROM THE IMB ADMINISTRATION CONTAINING A THREAT TO REMOVE OUR 2+2 PROGRAM IF EITEL CONTINUED IN HIS PRINCIPLED DISSENT. In other words, we will not work with SE students (but we will work with Great Commission Christians of other denominations) unless you stop dissenting from our practices.


Marty: 5-8

I have NO knowledge of a discussion about a Trustee vote to oust Dr. Rankin. However, even if it did occur and some profs theorized on how many Trustees were needed…this does not imply anything but seminary faculty “shooting the breeze” (we are just not as powerful as you assume).


Marty: 9. Was there an offer made to Benjamin S. Cole, as he alleges, “to go on payroll at Southwestern Seminary in February of 2004 when a job was offered to [him]. The proposed job was to listen to audio-recordings of Jerry Rankin and to cull them for suspicious charismatic theology”? If so, would this be considered a proper use of Cooperative Programs funds?

Ben is in a position to answer that, not me. He could probably further explain why he was dismissed at the ILC and the theological concerns he had while he was there.


Marty: 10. If the answer to most or all of these questions is “yes,” does it not demonstrate a “behind the scenes, underhanded, manipulative effort to undermine the IMB administration or to influence policy”?

NO – There are a few reasons we may conclude NO. First, to my knowledge Dr. Patterson has NEVER eaten at the Border. He did not participate in any “back-room” discussions because he was not there. Second just because faculty get together and discuss happenings in the SBC does not mean there is a “behind the scenes, underhanded, manipulative effort to undermine the IMB administration or to influence policy?” - In other words, just because guys get together over a meal and discuss problems in the SBC (something that happens everyday across the convention, especially over the GREASY SPOON of BLOGS) does not imply a Great Deceptive Conspiracy, which will doom the IMB administration.

Now, if I contacted a group of colleagues and said “I want to get with you in Memphis and discuss a plan on how we can change the leadership of the SBC”…then maybe some could conclude a conspiracy, but this isn’t what happened at The Border.


Yet this leaves us with some real substantive ETHICAL and THEOLOGICAL issues.

1. No one has shown where Dr. Patterson, in any way, influenced Dr. Eitel’s Paper – to imply so without evidence is not just wrong it is intentionally deceptive and unethical.

2. No one has demonstrated, in any way, where Dr. Eitel’s concerns were invalid. Some have tried to imply that the Leadership Development Sub-Committee’s Report has shown Eitel’s paper to be erroneous. Yet, it has done nothing of the sort. In fact one Trustee met with both Dr. Rankin and Seminary Leadership over two years ago to address the problems at the ILC after the IMB Trustees had received numerous complaints of teaching at the ILC.

The man overseeing the curriculum at the time has since resigned (but Ben Cole has demonstrated some of his non-BFM2K Theology on Ben’s latest post).

Ron Wilson began making immediate changes and has continued to make excellent changes over the past two and a half years. Moreover, the guidance of Dr. Tom Elliff for the past year has further contributed to this correction. One Trustee I spoke with basically said: with the changes provided by Dr. Elliff and Ron Wilson in tandem with more and more seminary professors teaching at the ILC there has been drastic improvement “both in the teaching and the curriculum.” Of note, a Trustee also told me: the input of Dr. Eitel’s paper was, in large part, the impetus “that helped make these changes!”

I was further informed, that the latest report dealt with the CURRENT standing of the ILC, NOT the happenings when Eitel wrote his paper!

I want to Praise God for the IMB administration’s wisdom in making these changes, I want to Praise God for the impetus (however great or small) Dr. Eitel’s paper provided for the changes. And most of all I want to Praise God for the changes!!!

To those interested I will soon post both of Eitel’s papers and Dr. Patterson’s cover letter. However, I felt I owed Marty a response. Marty, may we keep digging for Truth.

However, I am trying to not post much of what I know, because I am not convinced that it will enhance the Kingdom of God. And yet, I will correct false allegations made in the SBC blogworld, for the sake of truth.

Which leaves us with two lingering questions: HAS ANYONE SHOWN DR. EITEL’s PAPER TO BE ERRONEOS IN ANY OF ITS ASSERTIONS OF THINGS OCCURING IN ‘02 AND ’03? And if not, do the Bloggers who have asserted its error not owe Dr. Patterson and Dr. Eitel an apology?
BR