It’s kind of ironic, considering that in the current Anglican Unpleasantness I and my compatriots are labelled as cultural Neanderthals somewhat to the right of Genghis Kahn, that in this Baptist controversy, I’d probably be labelled as a backslidden apostate liberal wus. 😉
Funny old world.
(Relevant bit here for those who don’t want to click the article):
Many trustees were also angered by Burleson’s harsh criticism of policies enacted in 2005 that require missionary candidates to be baptized in an SBC church and forbid them from speaking in tongues.
The board first moved to unseat Burleson, then withdrew that motion and moved instead to prohibit public criticism of the board and disclosure of its activities in closed sessions.
Calling the baptism and tongues policies “horrible,” Burleson said the tactics used to stifle debate on the decisions compelled him to go public. He believes the dispute revolves around whether the IMB will cooperate with believers from other denominations.
“The issue is narrowness of doctrine,” Burleson said. “Basically [the two policies] are saying, ‘We’ll tell you who a true Baptist is and what [he or she] looks like. That’s fundamentalism with a capital F. Fundamentalism must be stopped in the SBC.”