Outcries Are Offbase
Here is the headline: Trustees appoint 89 missionaries, adopt $282.5 million budget, set new personnel selection but some of our more "open-minded" brothers are all upset about it. Look here and here.
But I would like to say that I support the IMB's decision. The SBC is the largest and most effective missionary organization of its kind. An organization of this size must have a strong, solid set of personnel policies. These policies should be a reflection of the majority of the SBC churches. That is only ethical. And don't be mistaken, many SBC churches also support missionaries that do not go through the IMB. So, if a person cannot adhere to all of the IMB policies but some SBC'ers still feel that they are qualified for the mission field, then those SBC'ers can support them. We do that at our church even now.
Here is an excerpt of an article concerning the decisions that were made:
The IMB trustees adopted the personnel criteria after over two years of extensively studying how missionary candidates are evaluated regarding the practice of tongues and baptism. The debate ended Nov. 15 with the majority of trustees approving measures to assist staff in assessing missionary candidates.Here is a quote from one of the trustees:
While a few trustees appealed to the board for latitude regarding claims to a private prayer language and the use of tongues—what theologians term glossolalia—the majority voted by a 50-15 margin to regard those practicing a prayer language or tongues as unqualified for missionary service with the IMB.
One trustee cautioned against a ruling that would appear to judge the legitimacy of private prayer language while another insisted that defending subjective, “non-verbal, conceptual” prayer falls outside biblical parameters.
The call to examine a candidate’s baptismal experience resulted from concerns that some candidates might be commissioned without ever having been immersed in what Southern Baptists and other like-minded congregations view as “believer’s baptism.”
Two-thirds of the trustee body voted in favor of requiring greater scrutiny of a candidate’s baptism, allowing more flexibility by calling them “guidelines,” while the board’s action regarding prayer language and tongues is considered “policy.” Both measures include an exception clause so that staff and trustees can review appeals.
“There is no need in leaving with any kind of spirit of pride. It’s been a humiliating process to go through, but I’m grateful to the Lord for finally reaching conclusion on some things.” —IMB trustee chairman Thomas Hatley
Posts
25 Spoke Up:
I think my problem with it is that they did not appeal to the BF@M2000 for support but because the vast majority of Southern Baptists oppose private prayer language. Using that logic could mean 5 point Calvinists are not allowed since,the vast majority of Southern Baptists oppose Calvinism.
I also thought the qualifications on Baptism were slightly "landmark baptist" leaning. I agree that all IBM missionaries should receive believers Baptism but what does like-minded congregations mean? Would Assembly of God baptism be valid? or say one was believer's baptized by immersion in a conservative reformed paedobaptist denomination like the PCA be valid?
God Bless +T+
So now we contend with others "without even debating the theological issues?" In the words of Bugs Bunny, "Something sounds screwy around here."
"Even without debating the essence of the theological issues that are being addressed, I contend that Steve McCoy and Duren and Burleson are just on the wrong side of this decision."
Why?
Wisdomofthepages, right on.
I expected that question and the answer is simply that we probably do not disagree theologically. Several of those I am opposing have stated that they too have problems with non-cessationist views of "prayer language." And I know these men believe in believer's baptism or they would not be fellow baptist. So the issue is not a theological one in its essence.
The issue is how does an organization like the SBC handle policy issues that contain the given theological issues. I am saying that I do not believe that those in question are right about how it should be handled. Open letters slamming the trustees are just ineffective and unwise. I have not judged anyone's character or sincerity, but I am judging their approach.
With that said, let me add the following. I believe the wisdom of the trustee's on this matter to be sound. Talk of "landmarkism" is absurd. Doctrinal clarity is important and has made the SBC a constant doctrinally conservative voice in a world of "emerging" and converging philosophies.
Concerning the missionaries, they have options. I know because I have done mission work for the IMB before and have been around SBC missions for the twenty years of my ministry. If they don't feel comfortable with the SBC's doctrinal position on tongues then they don't have to go on the SBC's payroll.
And concerning Calvinism, I would warn you not to fall prey to the trap that so many have fallen into of thinking that the SBC is not Calvinistic -- you are just reaching for straws.
Finally, the trustee's in their wisdom made clear God-honoring policies based on a desire for doctrinal clarity and high ethical standards. They also clearly left room for all voices to be heard individually so that such things as "like-minded" can be discerned. Is that so wrong? I think not.
I dunno... speaking as a non-IMB missionary sent by a strong conservative SBC church in Oklahoma, I'd say that these things are pretty plain-vanilla, solid Baptist schtuff. Am I missing something?
So Jason-
If the trustees "in their wisdom" voted in "God honoring policies," does that mean the 40 and 20 % (est) were not exercising wisdom and were not honoring God in opposing the policies? Doesn't seem like you can have it both ways.
Both here and at MBB you have sounded like there is "a" Southern Baptist position on these issues; this couldn't be further from the truth--try Mohler and Patterson on election or Iorg and Akin on missional. Their are wide, wide variances within those who hold to the sufficiency and infallibility of Scripture.
It seems that your concern about "emerging" has caused you a skewed vision on this obviously wrong-headed move. Just because I'm against this doesn't mean it was the right thing to have happen.
For 20+ years I supported the conservative leadership, almost without question. When I did start having questions, I quickly realized the much of the "resurgence" has degenerated into the most pathetic legalism imaginable. Forgive me if I have offended you; I haven't only written an "open letter," but I've also made phone calls to individual trustees and what I'm learning in no way relects "God honoring" anything.
Have a great weekend dude!
Would Assembly of God baptism be valid? or say one was believer's baptized by immersion in a conservative reformed paedobaptist denomination like the PCA be valid?
No, and yes, respectively, because the Assemblies of God does not affirm eternal security / perseverance of the saints, but the PCA does and will baptize you by immersion if you request, because they accept Reformed Baptists in many areas with no Reformed Baptist churches.
The IMB statement reads: The guideline establishes that candidates must have been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church of another denomination that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone. Also, the baptism must not be viewed as sacramental or regenerative,and the church must embrace the doctrine of the security of the believer.
Is this merely the sending church or the baptizing church? According to the statement, it is the baptizing church.
John wants to be a missionary. (Check)
He affirms the new BFM and has been to seminary.(Check)
He believes in eternal security, though he didn't when he was saved, which is not unusual. (Check)
He is a member of an SBC church (Check),
but he is honest too, and says that he was baptized in the Assemblies of God, by a church that believes you can lose your salvation. (Oops!)
His current church (FBC Anycity, USA) has accepted him as a member in good standing and is recommending his candidacy as missionary, where he has been serving for at least 3 years. (Which all the SBC churches I have ever served would do, so "Check" on that one).
According to IMB policy, he must be rebaptized, not because he professes Christ, but to serve as an IMB missionary. Scripturally, his baptism is valid. His church has agreed, and he was accepted by their common consent by his deacons, the pastors/elders, and the congregation. For the IMB, however, institutionally, it isn't valid.
The BFM 2000 lays out no such qualification for baptism. The prospective missionary must affirm the BFM anyway. However, according to this statement, which is from the IMB, they are going to look at the church that performed it, not his own confession. Why? If he personally already affirms eternal security by virtue of affirming the BFM Article V, and he has already been baptized as a believer, then why examine the church that baptized him? Since when did baptism come to include an affirmation of eternal security? The IMB needs to give some biblical justification for that."According to the guidelines, baptism should take place in a church that holds to these views and embraces eternal security of believers. A candidate who has not been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or a church that meets these doctrinal standards is expected to request baptism in his or her SouthernBaptist church as testimony of identifying with such beliefs."
Where is there scriptural warrant for requesting rebaptism, if the form of the original baptism was accepted by a local church, for the purpose of being a "testimony of identifying with such beliefs?"
I have no problem with them having to affirm the BFM, etc., but if this would mean that John would have to be rebaptized, even though his baptism is, itself Scriptural, if the church that first baptized him did not affirm eternal security, that exceeds both Scripture and the BFM. If so, then doesn't that put the IMB over the local church where he is now a member, contrary to the BFM on the local church?
Moreover, having corresponded with some those involved or close to this situation, the apparent aim here is to target those who affirm private glossalolia. The rationale in attaching it to baptism is that most churches that affirm glossalolia disaffirm eternal security. If that is so, as these individuals have told me it is, the case then this policy still doesn't work.
(A) the BFM 2000 lays out no such statement;
(B) there are churches in the SBC that affirm both eternal security and this doctrine by leaving it up to the right of private, informed, interpretation for their members, so it is no guarantee said candidates will be culled out by the policy on baptism.
(C) The IMB already has a policy in place for removing missionaries who publicly affirm glossalolia, correct? Why go further? Because one can't enforce much while flying the flag of local church autonomy? Yes, it has been abused in the past by many in the Convention, but that's no reason to find new and, shall we say, innovative ways to circumvent it...particularly when it seems to compete with the BFM which the IMB at least says it affirms.
The IMB's policy supercedes the BFM and that of the local church in this case. It's one thing to require missionaries to affirm the BFM; it's quite another to examine the confessions of the churches who baptized prospective missionaries. If it was the commissioning / recommending church, I would have less problem, but it's not...its the baptizing church or denomination.
The baptism of the prospective missionary must be in an SBC church or another church that affirms believers baptism (no problem) and eternal security. Most SBC churches do affirm eternal security, but some don't. Many denominations that practice credo-baptism do not affirm eternal security / perseverance of the saints. Thus, the test here isn't believer's baptism and its actual meaning; it is conformity to the doctrine of eternal security (which is not, in most of these men's minds "perseverance of the saints" on top of that), not by the prospective missionary (who should do so already via affirming the BFM Article V, but rather by the local church that baptized him, not by the church recommending him of which he is a member, even if that church is SBC and affirms eternal security. If the issue is tongues, then why attach make the test for valid baptism eternal security not simply tongues? For that matter why isn't the person's own affirmation of the BFM good enough? Why look to the baptizing church, not the commissioning church?
The issue that those of us opposing this have isn't the requirement that the candidate affirm the doctrine of eternal security...it is the way that this is said to be determined, not simply by his confession that he believes this through his affirmation of the BFM and the interview process and the recommendation of his church, but by whether or not his baptism is valid. Not only must he have been baptized as a believer, but he must have been baptized by a church affirming you can't lose your salvation. That's what makes this problematic, for it makes baptism into something it isn't: a guarantee of dogmatic orthodoxy, not an ordinance depicting idenfication with Christ and saving faith alone. Why pick eternal security? If they do this, will they later affirm their brand of Arminianism and seek to exclude Calvinists? What about excising Calvinists by declaring amillenialism and historic premillenialism off limits, since Calvinists tend to gravitate toward those eschatological views? Orthodoxy is not guaranteed by succession, to parrot the Ante-Nicene Fathers, it is determined by conformity to the rule of faith in Scripture, which the prospects must affirm through affirming the BFM 2000, our common confession, which includes Article V. One might say that orthodoxy is not determined (or disaffirmed) by believer's baptism. Under this policy baptism becomes effective "by the doer" (opus operantis).
Would you rebaptize a person requesting membership in your church if it was a Reformed Baptist church, if they met points one through five, but their baptizing church was fully Arminian on this point, but they had themselves renounced their Arminianism and were joining you because they believed the doctrines of grace? Of course not, that's absurd.
You're correct, Jason, the policies should reflect the majority of SBC churches and the trustees should set high ethical standards. However, (A) only 25 of the trustees voted for it; 18 voted against it; the other 43 abstained or were at their state conventions; so really, the majority of the trustees didn't vote for it and (B) one sincerely doubts the majority of SBC churches believe that valid confessional orthodoxy for missionaries is determined by their being baptized opus operantis by a church / pastor who believes in eternal security, since the majority do not affirm that baptism signifies more than conversion itself.
Marty, your comments are well taken. I do believe that the decision was God honoring. That is why they took so long in the decision process, so that their decision would be right and God honoring. I say to them, "Way to go, good job." And did I understand you right? Did you suggest that I am taking a position that the trustees are right because of your position against them? Surely you don't think that. I don't even know you which is why I said nothing personal about you. But if you think that well I just don't know what to say... really. But I wish you a great weekend as well. And I hope that the trustees that you have publically said are "an embarrassment to Christianity" and who's wisdom has "made a mockery of the work of God" also have a good weekend inspite of your opposition to their honorable efforts.
Gene, good to hear from you again. I understand there are a thousand hypotheticals to every decision. But I believe the most wise decision was made in this case. Doctrinal clarity should be the hallmark of SBC missions. It is important to the many pastors that I met in other countries who are fighting intense spiritual battles (all of which are doctrinal battles at their core). I still do not see what is wrong with stating clear guidelines and as the missionaries go through their interviews and training each of your hypotheticals can be dealt with privately and with prayer and wisdom.
And to call such doctrinal clarity as baptism policies legalism causes me to shake my head with unbelief.
I thought the only requirements for being Southern Baptist was adherence to the BF&M and giving to the CP.
It looks to me like this sets up classes of SBCer's.
You can give to our missions, believe what we believe confessionally, but you cannot participate in our missions.
IMHO, This is way over the top.
A better way to have implemented any change would be to amend the BF&M.
I'm not advocating that, but saying that it would be a much better way to implement a change such as this.
Doxoblogist, we aren't talking about church membership or SBC cooperation. We are discussing the standards and policies by which we send forth the most qualified, trained, and equipt missionaries. There are many policies and requirements our missionaries must meet in order to be approved by the IMB. And thank God for such standards of scholarship and moral character. Thank God for the bar that must be surpassed concerning one's family, finances, integrity, health, etc. to become a SBC missionary. Again, if one cannot meet those standards they have numerous other options even within SBC churches, But friend, we do have different requirements for becoming a member or becoming a missionary. Is that wrong? no. Is it "way over the top"? no. Does this type of double-standard apply elsewhere? yes. We have different standards for becoming members or becoming pastors, for becoming a member or becoming a SBC seminary professor. The issue here is what is best for the health and strength of our missionary efforts. These men have been entrusted to make these decisions, and they have done so with wisdom.
But you didn't deal with the obvious theological issues that Gene raises. You say this is a wise decision because it isn't a theological decision (though oddly it touches on two theological issues). There is no theological justification for baptism being linked with a particular doctrine of eternal security and there is especially no Biblical justification for rebaptizing someone as a statement of those doctrinal beliefs. That, my friend, is theological...though it is theological error of the most obvious sort.
Besides, no one has yet to clarify what exactly was wrong with the policies currently in place. If your concern is tongues the IMB already has a policy in place for that. Baptism is already covered in the BF&M. This is obvious overstepping.
Doctrinal clarity is extremely important in missions. In fact, when I was planting churches in Siberia some years ago, one of the main concerns that I found among the Siberian pastors was their fear of un-biblical doctrines being taught by missionaries. People in places like that are already confused and are being bombarded with all sorts and shades of heresies. Doctrinal clarity is essential to effective mission work. I remember going into towns and being interviewed by the local Baptist pastors before being allowed to teach. These guys cannot afford the doctrinal ambiguity and "open mindedness" of Western Christianity.
You read about this kind of stuff and you start to get why some people are going "emergent"! (and, no, I'm not emergent) I appreciate Doxo's term: Overstepping. It makes me wonder (and I really don't know)...do SBC churches have open communion, or is it only for SBCers?
Curious also, is the restriction on those who profess to speak in tongues currently, or on individuals who have ever spoken in tongues? I've read that it was the latter. Meaning, if someone spoke in tongues 20 years ago, but doesn't now, they still couldn't serve according to IMB rules. Just want to keep the facts straight.
Come on, Jason!
You're telling me that something as minor as where someone is baptized (upon profession of faith and by immersion, we agree on that) is worthy of being a prerequisite of the IMB for mission work?
I don't think so. I have been involved in mission work as well, in the states and internationally, and there is no way I would let someone require me to do what is not required in Scripture (rebaptism)in order to do that which is required (missions).
The issue is not whether there are different standards for Missionaries, but the essence of those standards. Yes, they must meet those requirements you stated, but the issue isn't ethical or educational standards. The issue that is at stake is not even an issue of theological standards. It is an issue of where (not mode) a person is baptized.
A person who is baptized by immersion upon their profession of faith in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who is currently a member of a Southern Baptist Church in good standing and meets the other criteria of the IMB should not be marked off simply because the church they were originally baptized in did not align perfectly with the BF&M.
Congrats to Genembridges He recieves the coveted Abanes Award for the longest comment of the month.
Jason-
Thanks for your response...looks like you have a lot of them!
I'll need you to point me in the direction to where I've publicly, or privately for that matter, said that the trustees are an "embarrassment to Christianity." I honestly don't remember saying that. Was it in my open letter? If you can't find it, please retract that part of your comment.
Second, by your line of reasoning, only the trustees who voted "yes" are approving God honoring policies, the rest actually went against God. You say, "Way to go," but several on the board did not believe and still do not believe that this was God's will and further, are severely troubled by it.
One trustee who voted yes told one trustee who voted no, "If you were in my association, I'd move to have you and your church removed." Others skipped the commissioning service (trustees mind you) and went to eat because Dr. Rankin was to preach. Not only do I not see God all over this, I don't see God in this at all.
Jason-
I found the quote to which you refer, but I didn't write it, rather it is in an email that was sent to me and I posted in it's entirety. I do not agree that the vote is an "embarassment to Christianity," but is detrimental to the SBC. Thanks.
Now let's denounce some Roman Catholics for needless traditions.
did i read that right? half the trustees (43) were absent or abstained?
if that's true, they should either let their voice be heard now or resign. if they don't speak out now, they're simply preventing people who might actually do something good for the kingdom from being there. and if i were one of the 25 that shoved this decision down the throats of faithful, God-fearing southern baptists around the world, i'd be embarrassed that i railroaded a decision like this through, against the very design of the number of appointed trustees, and the trust which they have been given! those 25 should either repent or resign.
grr8wing-
The initial IMB online report had the vote at 25-18, which would mean 43 present and 44 absent.
However, that figure has been removed from that report, and I haven't been able to confirm any other large group vote number. Likely, however, it was higher for this reason--one of the Personnel Committee votes was 19-18, so undoubtedly the full vote was higher.
I agree with the Fide-o's on this one - it certainly is an integral part of the six solas.
uh...I thought there were five solas. Is there a new one? And how does it fit with the two issues at hand in this debate, er, civil discussion?
We sound like a bunch of Landmarkers in this. Pretty soon, any time you want to move membership you're going to have to be rebaptized. Is this how we're going to get a million this year -- by requiring anyone who wants to be a missionary to be re-dunked?
Post a Comment