The self-imposed blog sabbatical regarding Southern Baptist Convention issues is over. I have accomplished the goals I established when it began last spring, and I will blog on Convention issues as the need arises.
Baptist Identity
There is a movement within the Southern Baptist Convention called "Baptist Identity" (sometimes the synonym "Baptist Distinctives" is used) that is pushing for a doctrinal conformity among all Southern Baptist on doctrines not addressed by the 2000 BFM. This doctrinal "Identity," at least from the perspective of its proponents, defines who it is that is a 'true' Southern Baptist and can thus mandate who it is that can serve the Convention as missionaries, trustees, and denominational leaders. Initially, the 2000 BFM was used as the club of accountability, and missionaries who entered Southern Baptist service by signing the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message and refused, on matters of principle, to sign the 2000 BFM, were dismissed from missionary service for not being "one of us." Unfortunately, the club of accountability is now being carried by well-placed trustees who are arbitrarily deciding who is, and who is not, a genuine Southern Baptist.
This "Baptist Identity" movement within the Southern Baptist Convention is similarly patterned in leadership (not theology) after the Christian Identity movement, working as a loose network of extremely conservative Christian churches and religious organizations that revolve around the writings or speeches of well known national leaders. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Professor Malcolm Yarnell, Professor Keith Eitel, the Caner brothers, and a handful of others form the face of the theological leaders and spokesmen of this Baptist Identity movement. All of these men are gospel-believing, conservative, Southern Baptist Christian men. The problem is that they are articulating a Baptist Identity and postulating Baptist Distinctives that go well beyond the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. If you disagree with Baptist Identity leaders on closed communion, praying privately in tongues, elders, the qualifications of the baptizer, the recipients of the Great Commission, moderation, eschatology, and the like, you are labeled as either liberal, psuedo-Baptist, or the catch all "not one of us" (as in the nomination speech for SBC Vice-President Jim Richards where it was repeatedly stated, "He's one of us!"). And, Baptist Identity leaders have successfully vetted SBC trustees to ensure that the vast majority of new trustees think like they do.An Illustration of Baptist Identity Among SBC Trustees
When the trustees of International Mission Board adopted new doctrinal policies that exceeded the Baptist Faith and Message on November 15, 2005 (the day Adrian Rogers died), the Baptist Identity movement had successfully excluded from the mission field hundreds of otherwise qualified Southern Baptists that they did not consider being "one of us." The outcry across the Convention against the trustees adoption of these policies, including the passage of the 2007 Garner Motion, did little to stifle the attempts of Baptist Identity advocates to continue to push for doctrinal conformity on things that exceed the Baptist Faith and Message.
As an IMB trustee between 2005-2008, I asked repeatedly for the "rationale" behind the new doctrinal policies. I had not been given one single piece of paper, not one shred of evidence that the adoption of the new doctrinal policies would help our cooperative mission work. On the contrary, the President of the International Mission Board, the administrative staff of the IMB, and the Candidate Consultants of the IMB, and the Regional Leaders of the IMB all told me our cooperative mission work would be harmed by the adoption of these new doctrinal policies by ripping the fabric of cooperation. Eventually, trustee John Floyd told me that trustees had the right to establish any doctrinal parameters of cooperation they desired - particularly if it involved Baptist Identity, regardless of whether or not the new doctrinal policies exceeded the 2000 BFM. Then, six months after the new policies were adopted, Hatley and trustee leaders issued a paper giving, for the first time, the rationale for the new "doctrinal" policies - Baptist Identity.
When IMB trustee chairman Tom Hatley released to the press the rationale for the passage of the new doctrinal policies at the IMB, a rationale distributed only after a Convention uproar over the new policies, the very phrase "Baptist Identity" was used as the reason for the passage of the new doctrinal policies. The May 20, 2006, paper entitled Rationale for Guidelines Regarding Tongues and Prayer Language stated, "The heart of these issues (the new doctrinal policies) is the candidate qualification known as Southern "Baptist Identity." There are two key phrases that speak directly to Southern Baptist Identity: "The majority of Southern Baptist churches" . . . and "the majority of Southern Baptists." The (new doctrinal) policies . . . reflect the practice of the vast majority of Southern Baptists. IMB trustee leadership's Baptist Identity rationale for the new policies is defective in logic on at least three fronts:
(1). The only consensus doctrinal statement is the 2000 BFM and the new "doctrinal" policies do not reflect a consensus opinion. In fact, a Lifeway survey released in 2007 showed over 50% of Southern Baptist pastors believed the praying in tongues was a legitimate spiritual gift. Regardless,
(2). The new policies exceed the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, and thus, the demand for cooperating Southern Baptist churches to conform to the ideology of a select group of "Baptist Identity" IMB trustees rips the fabric of Southern Baptist cooperative mission work.
(3). If our Baptist forefathers would have ever been told by people claiming to be Baptist that the test of "orthodoxy" would have been "majority opinion," they would have assuredly told those claimants they themselves were disqualified from being considered "true" Baptists. Throughout history, Baptists have been known as "dissenters," which by definition means, dissenting from "the majority." To reach a point in the 21st Century that some actually believe Baptists must "conform" to a majority opinion, rather than cooperate with dissenters, is to deny our Baptist heritage.
The Baptist Identity Movement Must Be Overcome by Gospel Cooperation
Giving to the Cooperative Program in 2008 is down. Receipts for the 2007 Lottie Moon Christmas Offering were $15 million dollars short of the goal. The trustees of the International Mission Board voted at their last meeting to tap $3 million dollars of reserve money just to meet the annual budget. Young Southern Baptists are searching elsewhere for gospel missions cooperation and conservative values. There is much at stake. If the Baptist Identity movement is allowed to define who we are as Southern Baptists, we will eventually be so split and fragmented that the number of Southern Baptists will resemble the numbers in membership at the local Landmark, Fundamental, Pre-Millenial, Closed-Communion, KJV, Cessationist, Male Leadership Only, Culture Hating, independent Baptist Church down the street.
At some point there will be Southern Baptist leaders who will arise and courageously stop the Baptist Identity train by leading our Southern Baptist Convention into a gospel resurgence through personally resisting the forces that would lead our Convention into separatist oblivion by demanding doctrinal conformity in areas that have absolutely nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ and everything to do with their narrow, ideological views of what it means to be a Baptist. I just hope our Convention can survive until that happens.
In His Grace,
Wade
76 comments:
There is a movement within the Southern Baptist Convention called "Baptist Identity" (sometimes the synonym "Baptist Distinctives" is used) that is pushing for a doctrinal conformity among all Southern Baptist on doctrines not addressed by the 2000 BFM.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but they ain't gonna get it, y'know?
Dan,
Eventually the hardest shell crumbles under repeated pressure.
They will get it eventually.
Sad to hear about the death of your former pastor. I plan on attending the funeral.
Blessings,
Wade
You are indeed an optimist, judging by the hope reflected in your last statement. The evidence suggests otherwise, to me.
UNLESS ... you think God can straighten it out. BUT ... that would require the presumption that He actually WANTS to do that. And THAT presumption, I do not make, judging by the evidence.
The deal was sealed in my mind, when the IMB trustees spat on God's word and His sovereignty in distributing gifts, and the SBC's refusal in June 2006, to deal with the issues.
I recall telling the convention, in Greensboro, what might happen if they didn't do what it turned out they didn't do.
So .. Wade .. have you seen anything since then that would cast doubt on my statement?
I'm no prophet, nor a prophet's son, but even a blind hog finds a turnip now and then. And some things are pretty obvious.
To me, at least.
Bob,
I honestly believe that when people like you pay the price by speaking out, spending money to participate, and pointing out what the issues are and possible solutions, eventually, the SBC will turn around.
I honestly do believe that the new doctrinal policies at the IMB will be rescinded at some point. Sooner, rather than later.
Inmost cases the SBC receives their monies from state conventions who receive theirs from the churches. There are a few churches who bypass the state level and send directly.
After reading your blog entry I began composing a letter to our state convention which when completed will ask questions I expect to be answered and share my concerns.
I am prayerfully considering asking our church to escrow our CP dollars until these issues are rightly dealt with.I am willing to seek this same level of stand among our association, if needed and beyond, if the door opens and God allows.
Will it hurt our entities? Sooner or later, yes. You share that the IMB dipped into its holdings and brought out 3,000,000 to meet budget. I wonder how many churches who give money have a reserve anywhere near this?
We have had a rough financial summer and are looking at ways to move forward without the level of monies coming in. I can't make money appear but I can work towards making sure we don't go under while keeping something afloat which is becoming theologically distant from us.
Eventually the hardest shell crumbles under repeated pressure.
It's also true that even the nicest people eventually have enough and do something about it. It's impossible to say which until it's all over.
Sad to hear about the death of your former pastor.
Aye, Tom was a good 'un. You never know; depending on how things play out, I may actually be able to go myself.
Jon,
Thoughtful approach.
Escrowing mission dollars until churches like yours are once again told you can send called missionaries to the cooperative mission field and those missionaries will at least be ensured the ability to go through the process without being excluded before the process begins - based upon their disagreement with arbitrary doctrinal policies that exceed the BFM 2000 - is definitely an option for your church.
And one that should open a number of eyes.
Wade,
Thanks for the kind words; I do hope you're right.
I'm too old to go dig up some new denomination to join. And you babdists have already spoiled my ever being a Presbyterian or Methodist again.
Welcome back! I see not much has changed during your "break".
Is this the year for OU?
Welcome back Wade.
Why would younger ministers want to be involved when no one wants to listen to their point of view anyway? What I've heard is "we are right just trust us." Trust has to be earned.
What I would like to see is a change but not what we saw in the ugly 1990's. I don't want to see firing and power plays. I would like to see open dialogue and working together to bring people to Christ. I'm praying your optimism catches on with the leadership. If it does then we can see a true cooperative effort not one in name only.
Tim G.
Absolutely!
OU wins the National Championship. I'll be at every home game.
And, since you did not express whether or not you liked the fact nothing that has changed during my break, I'll take your words as a compliment!
:)
I can say that I’m torn. I’m convinced that the change you say we need is in fact what we need in the SBC. But my fear is that instead of working together on the issues, this will (and already has been) be approached as a war. And I can understand that, too. These issues are not matters of carpet color where there can be compromise. These issues are matters that are spiritual and held deeply by men on both sides. Please, for those of you who are fighting (in a good sense of the word) for your cause, remember that love for one another must prevail. Tread through this carefully.
Robert
Kevin,
Amen, and amen.
Unfortunately, good solid, conservative men and women like Curtis Sergeant, Sheri Klouda, Wendy Norvelle, Jack Smith, and a host of others are "not conservative enought" for Baptist Identity people, or do not qualify as Southern Baptist leaders and are thus refused promotion or terminated.
That kind of thing must stop.
Robert,
Agreed Robert.
Difficult issues indeed.
But love for the brother in Christ who disagrees is a must.
Including the leaders of Baptist Identity.
The question of whether or not there is love is best answered by asking who desires to exclude whom.
Cooperating Southern Baptists don't desire to exclude: Baptist Identity people do desire to exclude.
I'm not sure you can have it both ways.
You cannot advocate peace and cooperation, then lambast many Southern Baptists with a statement like, "local Landmark, Fundamental, Pre-Millenial, Closed-Communion, KJV, Cessationist, Male Leadership Only, Culture Hating, independent Baptist Church down the street."
Many of us are Pre-millennial, and many of us believe in male leadership at home and in the church, and still believe that the IMB policies were wrong minded.
I am familiar with your distaste for all things premillennial, but I don't see how condemnation works your stated goal of cooperation.
Wade,
You mention the following names...
Curtis Sergeant, Sheri Klouda, Wendy Norvelle, Jack Smith. I know about S. Klouda but not the others. I have a dear senior friend in ministry, Jack Smith, who I have not seen in years. I pastored a church in western PA that he spent years at. Great man of God. I am just wondering if this is the same Jack Smith and if so, how does he fit in the group you name?
Jack Smith was the Associate Evangelism Director of the Home Mission Board. Jack was promised, and should have been given, the Director of Evangelism for the Home Mission Board, but phone calls were made by leaders in the SBC questioning Jack's conservative credentials, and a man who had been appointed to the committee to reorganize the SBC was brought to the Home Mission Board and given the job promised to probably the most well connected, highly respected evangelism leader in the nation - who happened to have written his dissertation on "Evangelism in the Local Church" at Southwestern Theological Seminary, but was deemed in the mid 1990's as being "not one of us." His story is just an echo of dozens of others that could be told. Curtis Sergeant's story is told in an upcoming book. So is Wendy Norvelle's, the acting Vice-President of the IMB who was, according to staff, the most competent employee of the IMB, but was passed over the permanent job because Baptist Identity trustees refused to consider her for the position.
Dave says, "Many of us are Pre-millennial, and many of us believe in male leadership at home and in the church, and still believe that the IMB policies were wrong minded.
Dave, I sometimes feel your emotions outdistance your logic. I, too, believe in historic premillenialism. I too, believe in male leadership in the home and church (pastors), but the BFM is silent on female youth ministers, female worship ministers, female staff members, female missionaries, female . . . (well, you get the idea).
The issue is that people like me and you should not be FORCING other people to agree with us on matters that exceed the 2000 BFM and then devise back door means by which they cannot cooperate with us.
Wendy Norvelle was not a pastor, she was VP for the IMB. Sheri Klouda was not a pastor, she was a professor at SWBTS. Nobody, at any time, made their home life an issue. The issue has been whether or not a woman can be in a position of leadership over a man in an organization other than a church. Baptist Identity people say no.
Blessings,
Wade
Wade,
Thank you. This is the Jack Smith I know, though I did not know this. There is none better who live for the kingdom than Jack. I have had him speak for me when I was still in PA.
This is wrong but Jack would never be ungracious.
Thanks for the update.
Wade,
Once again you prove that "nothing has changed" :)!
I agree fully with your statement that none of these issues should be points of fellowship.
In my over-emotionally tinted logic, it seems to me that you were the one excluding people from fellowship with that statement, and that seemed incongruous with your stated point - one with which I generally agree.
Dave,
Can you show me where I wrote anything that would imply it is my desire to exclude anyone? I would be happy to correct it when you point out where it is.
I am not attempting to exclude the excluders, but rather to exclude from the Southern Baptist Convention the spirit of exclusivism that pervades the hearts of excluders who desire to exclude anyone who does not conform to their doctrinal demands that exceed the 2000 BFM. For if the spirit of exclusivism is not exposed and resisted in the excluders, then the excluders will eventually be able to exclude anyone who is not in the excluders exlusive camp.
How's that?
:)
Welcome Back, Wade. You have been missed. I look forward to your postings as always.
I have no quarrel with that last statement.
I am not attempting to exclude the excluders, but rather to exclude from the Southern Baptist Convention the spirit of exclusivism that pervades the hearts of excluders who desire to exclude anyone who does not conform to their doctrinal demands that exceed the 2000 BFM. For if the spirit of exclusivism is not exposed and resisted in the excluders, then the excluders will eventually be able to exclude anyone who is not in the excluders exlcusive camp.
Dave Miller responds: "I have no quarrel with (the above) statement.
Wade Burleson responds to Dave Miller: "Dave, we are kindred spirits."
Interesting post.
I think it is fine for people in any quarter of the convention to propose what they think being a Southern Baptist means or should mean.
I do not think that efforts to define true Baptists as only those having some of the certain practices or perspectives that you mentioned will be successful. SBC history has already rejected some of these proposals. Church history does not go backwards.
It may be possible that 50% plus 1 can be cobbled together for some of these proposals, but for any organization to remain unified and growing, it takes healthy majorities to support directions like this.
The amount of debate that would occur and the fall out from that debate on many of these issues would be detrimental to the SBC. Outside of academic circles, don't look for it anytime soon.
Other than the IMB policies (one of which I don't mind as much - the so-called prayer language policy), I have not seen any action undertaken to enforce these views into other areas. So far, those are personnel policies only at one SBC institution. They are not being employed for trustee selection.
One issue which you did not mention is being enforced already, much to the detriment of the convention, in my opinion. The issue of CP giving percentages.
This year my pastor was contacted by the committee on nominations (I think that is the name) to see if he would be interested in serving on the IMB board. We are very active and supportive of the IMB.
He was a fine candidate and was looking like someone who would get approved.
Interestingly, he OPPOSES the new personnel policies. He was never asked about that, to my knowledge.
We also have elders. That was never counted against him or us.
Some would consider our church more "reformed" than other Baptist churches. That was never counted against him or us.
We don't have "Baptist" in our name. That was not counted against him or us.
We have a more contemporary worship service than many churches. That was not counted against him or us.
We have open communion. That was never counted against him or us.
We accept people into membership so long as they have been baptized as believers. The issue of the doctrine of the baptizer is not a consideration. The committee never counted that against him or us.
But then - he was asked to give the CP giving percentage. This is where the legalism kicked in.
He explained that we give a lot of money directly to Nashville, and not through our State Convention. We also fund a lot of SBC missions directly (through trips overseas, regional conference attendance etc.). We are a young church, having been started in 1992. We are still paying for our first building that we moved into 3 years ago. We give away 10% each year, but not all of it goes to the State Convention, and some small amount goes to local ministries and some non-SBC work. Probably 8% or so goes to SBC causes, but again, not all of that goes through the state convention.
When our giving came out, our pastor, who is considered a leader in our city and our convention (and one of the "younger leaders" so sought in some quarters), was told by the committee member that even though all the issues mentioned above were not an impediment to service on the IMB board, our CP giving, method and therefor amount (much of which is to the SBC, just not through the State) was an issue. As a result, our pastor would not be recommended by the committee to the convention to serve on the IMB board.
If the percentage amount and the method of CP giving had been the test many years ago (as many moderates during the CR insisted) Adrian Rogers, Jerry Vines, Charles Stanley and a host of other conservative leaders would have never served on Boards or been elected.
In our case, it boxed out someone whom the SBC would be proud of - not from employment, but from Board service.
I think that the things you have mentioned are genuine concerns and should be watched. But I fear that the most legalistic of all tests - judging the church and the church budget priorities from afar without consideration to context (and ignoring the fact that the church, not the pastor, sets the budget), will rob the SBC of some of its best leadership and will reward blind loyalty to a program, regardless of its effectiveness.
This is a practice that is being enforced NOW. It is not theoretical. We are not dealing with a slippery slope that might happen some day.
We are dealing with whether the SBC is already eliminating from the pool of trustees some of its best and brightest for the worst of all possible reasons.
I hope this issue is given some serious consideration.
Louis
Louis,
Your perspective is equally valid. Simply add the extra-biblical shibboleths you and your pastor experienced to the growing list.
And, by the way, though you pastor may not have been asked whether or not he supports the policies, that has little or nothing to do with the fact that they are ALREADY policies - and the FIRST question on the missionary candidate survey is "Do you have a private prayer language?" It is not are you saved? Do you know Christ? Are you a born-again believer? But, "Do you have a private prayer language?" If the answer is "yes" they are disqualified on the spot from proceeding in the missionary interview process.
What is the difference between what I just described and the scenario you explained regarding your pastor? Both the missionary and your pastor were disqualified by people in authority who had extra-biblical, extra-BFM, extra-Convention approved parameters for cooperative ministry.
So what you (Louis) if you have little or no problem with the private prayer language policy? THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
The issue is one of principle. Will you stand by and allow trustee leaders, nominating committee members, and other denominational leaders exclude otherwise qualified Southern Baptists for adopting shibboleths that have not been Convention approved. If you will not speak out regarding one that does not affect you, then it will be too late when a parameter is established that DOES affect you.
One leader's shibboleth is to another person (outside of leadership) his disqualification.
When our Catholic brothers were adding all their qualifiers above and beyond what the Scriptures teach - an insistence on periodic confession, penniless and unmarried clergy, Immaculate this and annunciation that, sprinkling, baptising babes, an inprenetrable bureaucracy - were they also doing it in the name of figuring who best adhered to Catholic Identity?
zing.
Good one Steve.
Aside from your own example, could you provide some proof for your allegations. Not saying that I disagree. All I am saying is that without concrete evidence, and not just speculation (however good it might be), you are not going to be heard.
I often disagree with you. And sometimes I agree with you. Just giving some friendly advice. Leaving this as anonymous even though you might be able to figure out who I am.
Wade,
Thanks for the thoughtful and quick response.
I am surprised that the PPL question is the first question on the application, assuming that is accurate (and I am not implying that you are lying).
Here are my thoughts that I have expressed before in various forums, but would probably be good to express again. I will do this in no particular order of importance.
1. The IMB has for many years had employment policies that exceed the BFM. That fact, in and of itself, is not the problem for me. It is a question of what the policy is and the degree the policy exceeds the BFM. For example, the IMB prohibits charismatic practices on the field. That is not in the BFM, but most people recognize that SBC churches are not charismatic, so that rule seems to be consistent with making sure the IMB reps on the field look and practice the faith like the folks back home. I have seen the PPL issue as an issue connected to the charismatic issue. I am glad that it is looked into, but I agree that it should not be a complete bar. If PPL is practiced by only 5% of the people in the SBC (I think that is what the survey showed), one would expect only about 5% of the people applying to the IMB to practice that. And I am for the IMB looking into that and verifying whether the PPL has further ramifications for the candidate. I think that is the way it used to be done before all of this started. It just seems like a logical employment practice.
2. My father and mother in law were on the field with the IMB for almost 30 years in a country in South America. A fellow named "Canute" (sp?) had come through the country some 40 years before they arrived. He was charismatic and weird and gave protestant, biblical christianity a really bad name. To the extent that when my inlaws served, the local Baptists, and most people in the country, did not want to have anything to do with "Canutos". There were charismatics in this country and the Baptists were very careful to be completely separate from the charismatics for this reason. Sending missionaires with PPLs (if that ever became public) would have been a disaster. So, I can see in some contexts that giving more thoughtful consideration to PPL would be a good thing.
3. I understand that when the PPL policy was first announced people were asking, "if this is to address problems on the field, show us where the problems are." I do not subscribe to the idea that for a policy to be adopted a problem must occur first. It seems reasonable to me to adopt policies to avoid potential issues as well as to address on-going problems.
4. I agree completely that the Baptism issue is one that I have never observed in all of my christian experience since I was 16 (31 years ago). I am aware of the arguments made by the proponents and the arguments relating to closed or close communion. But again, I have never been in a Baptist church in 31 years that practiced either of these. I believe that this position is so much in the minority, that open discussion of it will result in a change of the policy. But I do not advocate addressing the issue the way that has been done to date for the reasons stated below.
5. When the policies were first adopted, the information that I had was that they were already guidelines and had been for some time. But that some administrative staff and some trustees, unwisely in retrospect, attempted to have them removed as guidelines, and through all of the debate they became policies. Whether that history is correct is not important per se. What is important is that this was an internal trustee debate that could have been and should have been handled through the trustee process - even if it took a few years to iron out. I still believe that this is the way to handle this matter. Even you agree that the trustees will evetually change these policies.
6. Remember that my friend was about to be selected for trustee service at the IMB. And He OPPOSED the policies. If my friend could have been approved, he would be one more vote against the policies. Right now, these policies only apply at one agency and they are only prospective toward employees (that's my understanding). So long as trustees who hold differently can be appointed (like my pastor) these type things can be corrected.
7. Trying to correct most trustee actions at the convention level is not effective. Talking about it is fine, but the best thing the Convention can do to address this is to approve good, level headed trustees. I suspect 2 or 3 years of new appointments will correct this. However, if good people are kept off because they are not seen sufficiently as "company men" because of the giving of their churches, that will only impede the process.
8. Resolutions, motions and changes to the BFM are not effective for this type of thing. The Garner motion was an example of this. It simply does not say what the proponents say it says.
9. Some of the best leadership, in my opinion, in the convention would be kept from serving because of the CP financial restriction that has now become an uwritten rule for trustee selection. I believe that there may be many SBC churches that give less to the CP that are actually more progressive and more likely to bring change than churches that have high CP giving. It seems logical to me that if a church has a variety of missions giving, that its people and pastor are more open to various ministries and Christian expressions and are therefore LESS likely to buy into the Baptist Identity thing.
10. Finally, the legalism of CP giving has nothing whatsoever to do with scritpure or doctrine. At least one can argue about the parameters of the BFM and such when we discuss doctrine. The CP giving legalism is not part of the SBC documents at all. In fact, full representation (up to 10 messengers) can be obtained with very little in the way of CP giving. So, it seems completely inconsistent with the SBC governing documents to have participation in the SBC dependent on giving the most money. Doctrinal issues are different because they are a staple of denominational expression and existence.
11. The CP giving legalism is actually preventing serice on the Boards - NOW. Because it is currently restricting trustee service, I think that it is the greater priority to address. If we elect good people and eliminate policies like CP giving legalism, then we can have good trustees who will deal with the problems. If we have rules that eliminate good people from election, that is an issue of greater importance because the issues at the agencies cannot be fixed.
11. So, my efforts, with all due respect, will be to vote for good presidents and do what I can to see that good people are put on boards and that weak candidates are kept off. I will speak my convictions about various policies, as stated above, but I do believe that the trustee system is the way to address them. Keeping serive as a trustee open to as many people as possible is the best way to keep the system working well. And as you seem to believe, I believe the trustee system will bring change on these issues. I do think in the meantime that we do not need to turn the heat up on this. Let's talk about it respectfully, and watch what the trustees do.
Thanks, again, for your response.
Louis
Wade,
Sounds like you've run into a few "Stepford" baptists, eh? :)
Les
BTW, "Baptist Identity" has been replaced by "Convictional Baptist." You really need to keep up.
Les
Anonymous:
Were you talking to me, Wade or someone else?
Other than my own example, proof of what?
I'll be glad to partcipate further if you meant to talk with me, and I understand what you might need.
Louis
Wade,
You are absolutely right in everything that you say and I agree with you 100%. But, I have one question: Where are those leaders within the SBC who are willing or able to bring change?
Louis,
Here we had the IMB operating quite well for a very long time .. It most likely was, as folks in the SBC referred to it as the "crown jewel" in God's plans to reach the world. THEN ... without any evidence of problems arising from any charismatic practices, other than those which were dealt with effectively under the old guidelines, people want to institute new guidelines. Ones which would exclude otherwise eligible people from service.
Ditto for the baptism deal.
Trustees respond by saying the overwhelming majority (as I recall) don't think that unknown tongues is a valid gift, so they're right after all. So Lifeway does a study and finds that most SBC pastors think it is.
Result: Lifeway's methods are attacked.
I don't know that pornography or sexual addiction is a problem on the field, but it might be some day, so maybe we'd better....
Like I said in San Antonio ... we're all frogs, swimming in a pot of water, whether we know it or not.
Louis,
I shall respond to your comments and questions in order.
(1). There is a HUGE difference between agency policies (weight, age, children, etc . . . ) vs. "doctrinal" policies that become the standard of cooperation. The first can be as lengthy and exhaustive as trustees feel. The second is ONLY limited to the majority consensus of the entire Southern Baptist Convention (the Garner Motion states this clearly).
(2). Classical charismatic theology is much, much different than a belief in the continuation of charismatic gifts. The first often denies God's Providence, eternal security, etc . . . all of which is dealt with in the BFM. A belief in the continuation of spiritual gifts is not necessarily charismatic theology, and if Lifeway is to be believed, 50% of Southern Baptist pastors believe this.
(3). Anecdotal evidence from the field that there was a "Charismatic" problem was simply the FIRST question that was being asked by trustees like me. Once that it was shown there WAS a problem, then the NEXT question would be, "Why don't we take this doctrinal problem to the entire SBC for the Convention to add a doctrinal parameter to the 2000 BFM?" We didn't even get past the first question to go to the second. And, by the way, I agree that "doctrine" is not dependent on experience - but the SBC has not yet determined that praying in private with the gift of tongues is cause for exclusion from cooperative mission service, much less the qualifications of the person who baptized you.
(4). Louis, with respect, you argue against discussing "doctrine" in terms of the experiences of people in the field in number 3, and then do that very thing in arguing for a reversal of the baptism policy. The baptism policy, as well as the private prayer policy should be reversed because they are both anti-biblical, extra-BFM, and totally erroneous.
(5). Whoever told you this was dead wrong. There were NEVER any such guidelines for the qualifications of the baptizer of a Southern Baptist missionary candidate or a prohibition of a private prayer language until AFTER I came onto the board in June 2005. They went into effect in the September 2005 meeting, and I forced a vote on the Personnel Committee guidelines at the November IMB trustee meeting where they became official "policy." The "guidelines" for two months, according to every single Candidate Consultant who spoke were treated by trustees as strict policy (between September and November) and if they had violated these "guidelines" by bringing a missionary before the trustees during that time who had a private prayer language or was baptized by someone other than a Southern Baptist minister, they risked termination. I will details all this in the book.
(6). The policies that the IMB passed had already been passed by NAMB trustees a few years earlier. I did not know this, neither did most Southern Baptists, until trustee leadership at the IMB used this as an excuse to pass them (i.e. "NAMB trustees did the same thing).
(7). I wholeheartedly agree.
(8). I wholeheartedly disagree :).
Simply ask the man who made the motion (Rick Garner) or listen to the DEBATE about the motion (both pro and con), and nobody comes away confused about the Garner Motion. It is the 'losing' side that shouts "We don't understand."
(9) through (11). I mostly agree
Alan Cross,
You and others who choose not to give up in the face of withering criticism.
In time, Biblical Christianity will prevail
Anonymous,
I have no idea who you are. Examples ad infinitum will be given in the book (Hardball Religion) coming out in January.
Blessings,
Wade
Wade,
Welcome Back to Blog World. I don’t believe these Implanted Trustees have any or all of these attributes and they are what has been called Stepford Baptist on another Blog.
Title: Holy Bible The New Living Translation
WISDOM
The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 1:7)
To find wisdom, first find God (Proverbs 2:6-12)
Wise people accept advice (Proverbs 13:10)
Wise people boast not in their wisdom but in knowing God (Jeremiah 9:23-24)
The wise understand God’s ways and follow his guidance (Hosea 14:9)
Wise people build on the solid foundation of God and his Word (Matthew 7:24-
27)
God’s wisdom is different from the world’s wisdom (1 Corinthians 2:1-16)
God will give us wisdom if we ask for it (James 1:5)
Wayne Smith
Sometimes this B.I. thing sounds so much like a gang initation with secret decoder rings. In business, (in sales especially) but even in education and the armed forces, the professional has one eye out for the person who he/she can train to replace him, and the next after that. One is forever acting as if working oneself out of a job. The successful person makes his group deeper and wider.
In the B.I. world, however, the proper Landmarkist is practically trying to narrow and narrow, as if only wanting there to be a single hierarchy, a single person, who is the most vetted and agreed-upon. By the time he gets there, of course, he's ready to retire.
If all we're doing is figuring out who can be top dog, we already have Catholics and Mormons and who knows what else for that. Looking at this process, as opposed to simply developing pastors and disciples and believers, how can these ultimate insiders fool themselves into thinking they are doing God's will?
I would like to respond to the use of the term CP legalism by Louis. I think a better term would be CP consideration or CP standard of giving. There has certainly been no history of legalism on CP giving in the SBC. In fact in the early days of the pseudo-conservative resurgence just the opposite standard was in place. When we were electing the series of SBC presidents you named whose church’s giving to the cooperative program was abysmal, they would often reject candidates whose giving to the cooperative program was above the average. Their rational was that they were obviously supporting liberalism by giving to the cooperative program so generously and therefore might be suspected of being liberal themselves. This was another way to say “they are not one of us” as Wade has pointed out.
I suspect this was just the feelings of your states representative on the committee on nominations. I know for a fact that there are still many people serving on trustee boards whose churches give far less than the average church to the cooperative program either through their state convention or directly to the SBC. There is no basis for saying there is a spirit of legalism about CP giving in the SBC today.
On the other hand, even though I would not say cooperative program giving should disqualify someone from serving as a trustee it would certainly be a strong consideration in my willingness to appointment someone a trustee or vote for someone as President of the SBC. Why would a person want to serve as a leader in an organization they are not willing to support financially? Why would we want them to serve if they are so unconcerned about the SBC or its institutions?
This brings another question. Why does your church not give to the cooperative program through your state convention? Is it because your state convention is liberal and doesn’t believe the Bible. Somehow I doubt that is the reason. Perhaps the reason the committee on nominations member didn’t support your pastor was because he didn’t feel it was right for your pastor to occupy one of the slots on the IMB given to your state convention when your pastor and church do not support the state convention. What state are you in?
Ron West
Ron West,
Cogent, respectful and clear rebuttal.
My own personal experience is similar to yours.
As I reflected on Louis argument against a standard of giving to CP, I couldn't help but think that the person (or church) that gives between 10 to 20% to CP SHOULD have a great deal of say on how their money is spent - at least a great deal more than the church that gives 1 t0 2%.
Blessings,
Wade
Wade,
I hope you enjoyed your time away from blogging. It was nice to finally meet you in Indy.
It saddens me that you have not come back more congenial. Really... still upset about the "New" IMB Policies?
I found this quote from Spurgeon the other day concerning creeds and confessions, and personally found it very applicable to today. Mr. Spurgeon said... "The objection to a creed is a very pleasant way of concealing objection to discipline, and a desire for latitudinarianism. What is wished for is a Union which will, like Noah's Ark, afford shelter both for the clean and for the unclean, for creeping things and winged fowls."
I wish you had take the "High Road" like Mr. Spurgeon did in the "Down-Grade Controversy". Mr. Spurgeon refused to name names, choosing for the issue to be one of theology rather than personality. Of course, by not writing a tell all book, Mr. Spurgeon has all but been forgotten. :)
He who rows the boat doesn’t have time to rock it. I’m really trying to see the oar’s here…
Joe,
I have Mr. Spurgeon's entire collections of writings, including his Sword and Trowel newsletters, Lectures to My Students, etc . . .
I assume you have not read the volumes of Sword and Trowel or else you would have not made your statement "Mr. Spurgeon refused to name names."
Not only did he name them, he precisely pointed out where they had "Downgraded" the Gospel by emphasizing teaching not found in the sufficient, inerrant and infallible Word of God.
Thanks for stopping by. It was nice to meet you as well. I trust you will find me as cordial and congenial as I ever next time we meet.
Blessings,
Wade
Bob:
Thanks for your comments.
My understanding was that both the PPL and Baptism issues were part of the personnel policy matters at the IMB for many years when the IMB was working well. I just think it should go back to that. Let the IMB look into the matters, but not make them a complete bar.
I am not as pessimistic as you about these matters because I believe they will be corrected over time.
Louis
Louis,
Your understanding is wrong.
There was NEVER any prohibition of PPL in IMB personnel policy. That is until John Floyd and trustee leaders pushed the Personnel Committee of the IMB to adopt "guidelines," which were de facto policy, that went into effect at the September 2005 IMB Board meeting. I pressed Chairman Hatley and John Floyd on the violation of bylaws that occurred when the Personnel Committee passed "guidelines" (i.e. policy, since legally there is no difference) without full Board approval. The attorney for the IMB agreed with me. The bylaws of the IMB did not give authority for the Personnel Committee to establish policy, and their alleged "guidelines" were in fact practiced as policy. Therefore, the full board of trustees voted on November 15, 2005 to adopt the Personnel Committee's "guidelines" as official policy.
This was the FIRST time there EVER was a board approved prohibition of PPL and the requirement that the baptizer of a missionary candidate by "approved" by the IMB board of trustees - regardless of whether or not the candidate's church had received the missionary candidate's baptism as biblical (i.e. "by immersion, after having come to faith in Christ, etc . . ")
I don't know who is telling you what you've been told, but they are either deceiving you or misinformed themselves.
Blessings,
WAde
Wade,
While I do not personally own all of Mr. Spurgeon's writings, I have read many of them here at www.spurgeon.org.
I will concede that it is possible he named names in articles I have not read, however, I find it interesting that the Council passed this resolution if indeed he was naming names:
"The Council recognises the gravity of the charges which Mr. Spurgeon has brought against the Union previous to, and since, his withdrawal. It considers that the public and general manner in which they have been made reflects on the whole body, and exposes to suspicion brethren who love the truth as dearly as he does. And as Mr. Spurgeon declines to give the names of those to whom he intended them to apply, and the evidence supporting them, those charges in the judgment of the council, ought not to have been made."
"Brief Notes," The Baptist (Feb. 1888), 85.
No matter really... the truth of his statement concerning creeds, confessions, or policies is unchanged. Namely that the objection to them "is a very pleasant way of concealing objection to discipline, and a desire for latitudinarianism."
Wade and Anon:
Wade, thanks for the response.
We had a missionary candidate at the IMB many years ago - about 10. He accepted Christ as a teenager, and was baptized. He was a member of a Church of Christ. When he applied to the IMB this came up. We re-baptized him in the local YMCA swimming pool (We did not have a building and it was in the winter season).
I personally believe that his original baptism was legitimate, even though his understanding as a teenager in the Church of Christ was not correct. But he was a confessional believer and was baptized as such. Our church accepted his testimony and baptism when he and his wife joined.
That's why I believed that the baptism policy (or something like it) may be older than you suspect. True, it was not an absolute bar to his service, but the personnel committee was looking at it and advised him it would be better if we rebaptized him. We did not like it, and thought that it was meaningless, but did it.
Wade, the Garner motion and all the argument about it is a curious thing to me. Why has it not been applied to the IMB policies? Here's why - it doesn't say what it needs to say.
As a lawyer, when I ask the court to apply a statute etc., the court is to look to the text of that statute. So, too, when a business or organization adopts a resolution or rule, one looks to the text of what has been adopted.
The intent of Mr. Garner or the comments of the few who get to speak during the debate that occurs are not proper subjects of consideration. That's because we cannot get into the heads of all the other people who voted for the motion to see what they were thinking. We have to stick with the text as the only legitimate expression of what the convention did. I concede that Mr. Garner believes as you say he does. I was there. I concede that many who spoke in the debate expressed the ideas that you have said that they did. The problem is, however, that the motion itself does not say what many people (including Mr. Garner) may have intended. In my opinion that motion should have been more carefully drafted. It would then have the teeth that many people wanted it to have. As it stands, however, it is simply an expression of the sufficiency of the BFM. The motion does not go on to say, "Therefore, all agencies of the SBC are specifically prohibited from adopting any rule, policy or practice not specifically addressed in the BFM." That portion is left out. It may have been intended, but it's not in the motion.
The motion proved to be useless in the Klouda lawsuit, for reasons related to the court abstaining from interpreting SBC documents. However, even if it had been examined, the court would not have enforced it against Dr. P and SWBTS (because there policy toward Dr. K was beyond the BFM). The motion is not that explicit.
Anon, our church does not give to the State Convention because of the unique history of our congregation and our church emphasis. When we started our congregation in 1992 many of our people were not from SBC backgrounds. They were excited about the IMB, the NAMB and the soundness of the seminaries etc. When we discussed the fact that the State convention keeps about 65% of the money before it is sent to Nashville for the IMB, NAMB, Seminaries etc., that was not an exciting idea for most of us. Our church really wanted to maximize our impact on international and national missions. Most of what the state spends its money on is not "missions." Its colleges (some of which have religion departments that lampoon all of the SBC seminaries, and encourage students to go to schools that have no doctrinal confession), self perpetuating programs and the like. As an example, recently our State convention spent a whole lot of effort trying to stop the enactment of a State lottery that would fund college education. I understand the arguments against the lottery, but about 80% of our State voted for it. The State convention looked really foolish to most people, even most Christians.
Also, our state convention people are really not that impressive to be honest with you. Most of them are very limited in terms of education, theology and experience. They are behind the times culturally for the most part. The State newspaper is really terrible and so embarrasing, I would not recommend it to anyone. The editor recently wrote an article against "Calvinism." It was so bad that he did not even display a working understanding of Calvinism. I am not trying to be unkind, just honest. You can see why I respectfully decline to name our State.
My own personal belief is that if the SBC were started today, the need for State conventions would be greatly debated and possibly junked.
So - with that background, you can see why a new church would want to see that most of its contributions get to the mission field, where our heart really beats. So, instead of only 35% going to Nashville, 100% of our gift goes to Nashville. Our gift has a much greater impact on the IMB and NAMB that way. And our people feel really good about that.
We lead worhsip and our pastor preaches regularly at IMB regional conferences. We have had many of our members serve with the IMB, both on long and short term projects.
We do give to our State convention, but far less than the average church.
We do not attend the State convention and do not participate in most State convention activities.
We are much more active in the local association.
I believe that there is a basis for suggesting that there is a spirit of legalism when it comes to CP giving. Not only was my pastor excluded on that very basis (when the SBC operating documents allow full participation with minimal giving). But also at Greensboro someone actually moved to restrict participation as a Trustee at any SBC institution unless there was a 10% threshold of CP giving from the church. Jerry Vines spoke passionately against this. Again, he could remember how CP giving had been used as a club against more progressive baptist churches that supported things like independent missions projects, FCA, Campus Crusade etc.
One pastor recently told me that his church sent a $100,000 contribution directly to the IMB. But because of the way it was given, that will not count as CP giving.
And just think, if we continue to trend toward CP legalism, Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley etc. may have never qualified to be trustees at SBC institutions.
Even people on this blog have advocated for holding back giving to the IMB until the policies are reversed. Under the CP legalism practice, no member from that church could serve as a trustee at an SBC institution, when those are the very people who might make the best trustees.
So, those are my thoughts for what they are worth.
Louis
Wade:
A recently departed person from the IMB told me that if a person had any charismatic practices or charismatic "light" practices, including PPL (my word, not his) the personnel committee looked into those matters. They were not a complete bar, but they were examined and they were areas of concern when they came up.
Louis
Welcome back Wade, I enjoyed the post. I do, however, find one small problem with your post. Not all who are involved in the "Baptist Identity" movement can be lumped together. I attended the first conference at Union University where I heard many excellent papers read by, David Dockery, James Leo Garrett, Greg Thornbury, and Sam Shaw. I unfortunately was not able to attend the second conference at Union, but my point is, those involved in Baptist Identity dialogue come from various perspectives.
There are those who are more separatist in their theology and then there are those who are less sectarian and more inclusive. This past year I have read several books dealing with Baptist Identity and the books themselves are an example of the problem. Some see our Identity flowing through a strictly Reformed vein and others see a mixture of Reformed and Arminian theology. Some believe our identity is Confessional while others see Confessionalism as tantamount to Creedalism.
A "Baptist Identity" conversation is a must, and you are indeed part of the conversation. Until we determine who we are, we cannot move forward.
Ray:
Your comment is really helpful. I have a hard time keeping up with all of the theological trends and issues and it is easy, especially for me, to lump folks together and end up with some misperceptions.
Sounds like the BI crowd may be a mixed bag. I guess like most stuff, huh?
Louis
Ray,
I agree with your assessment. Thanks for offering a clarification for me if not correction
I think my post is just a caution that all of us be careful be careful to put more emphasis on following Christ than Baptist Identity.
Wade, Thank you for those kind words about us despicable Independent Baptists.
Jim Sadler
Jim Sadler,
Independent Baptists are not despicable.
Blessings,
Wade
Jon,
"I am prayerfully considering asking our church to escrow our CP dollars until these issues are rightly dealt with."
BINGO!
I have said this very same thing on different blogs before... and I continue to believe that this is the only option that has any chance of succeeding.
Someone should compile a list of Churches who are committed to doing just this and keep a running total of the amount of missions giving that is being withheld until these issues are "rightly" dealt with.
Grace Always,
Wade,
Eric Moffett here. We had lunch in Indy. Glad to see you back.
As a young SBC pastor, I think many of us are weary of the entire mess the convention has become. Out of about 12 or so of my closest friends that I studied with for my undergrad Theology degree, I am one of two that have remained in the SBC. There is a great sense of exclusion. This mentality of fear has been quickly translated to even local associations, where I have been 'excluded' for support of changing the IMB policies. My wife and I often stop and think: There has to be a better way. Why don't we just go where we are wanted and let the SBC just become a landmarkist denomination. Our big question is: Why stick around? I want to have hope, but each day seems more discouraging.
Eric
By the way...
Our church gives 30 % of our budget to CP. This makes it all the more difficult.
Eric
Wade, concerning your comments about the SBC being split and fragmented, I cannot say I know enough to actually disagree. But my impression (at least based on my limited local experience) is that an "us vs. them" separation is occurring. You have everybody who fits in with BI, and then you have all the misfits like me which mostly do not, but show up at church anyway. I think many (if not most) BI folks in my local area honestly mean well, but their version of the SBC and mine already settled in divorce court a long time ago. I hope the Lord will be merciful to all of us (on both sides) and bring about unity on the essentials, liberty on the non-essentials, and in all things, charity.
I find it interesting people who claim to be followers of Jesus push other followers of Jesus to identify with some "thing" when Jesus lost His identity - Philippians 2 - and identified with nothing but the Father. I just want to be more like Jesus and I don't see more of Jesus in someone just because they baptize a certain way, dress a certain way, have communion a certain way, do missions a certain way, etc. and so on. I see Jesus in taking up the order of the towel - removing everything to put on the servant's heart that washes feet.
Oh that our hearts would break like the Father's heart breaks to see a people who will seek first His Kingdom and righteousness, who will really believe that the law is summed up in loving your neighbor as yourself, who will seek justice for the poor and needy and not trade them off for a second (twenty-second?) pair of shoes, who will cry out for wisdom and peace and unity and love and compassion and truth and grace.
Why do we squabble over a religious practice like the Pharisees and Saduccees 2000 years after it was finished? Why are we still finding it easier to decide which multi-million dollar building to go spend an hour in on Sunday than living a life of love and sacrifice that we are called to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? I'm glad Jesus didn't make the focus of his ministry something like whether he should separate from the synagogues or not.
Wade, welcome back. May God direct your every word. I look forward to being back in the States for a little while.
I find it interesting people who claim to be followers of Jesus push other followers of Jesus to identify with some "thing" when Jesus lost His identity - Philippians 2 - and identified with nothing but the Father. I just want to be more like Jesus and I don't see more of Jesus in someone just because they baptize a certain way, dress a certain way, have communion a certain way, do missions a certain way, etc. and so on. I see Jesus in taking up the order of the towel - removing everything to put on the servant's heart that washes feet.
Oh that our hearts would break like the Father's heart breaks to see a people who will seek first His Kingdom and righteousness, who will really believe that the law is summed up in loving your neighbor as yourself, who will seek justice for the poor and needy and not trade them off for a second (twenty-second?) pair of shoes, who will cry out for wisdom and peace and unity and love and compassion and truth and grace.
Why do we squabble over a religious practice like the Pharisees and Saduccees 2000 years after it was finished? Why are we still finding it easier to decide which multi-million dollar building to go spend an hour in on Sunday than living a life of love and sacrifice that we are called to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? I'm glad Jesus didn't make the focus of his ministry something like whether he should separate from the synagogues or not.
Wade, welcome back. May God direct your every word. I look forward to being back in the States for a little while.
Byroniac,
I answer your questions by simply pointing you to the two posts above you by my friend Eric Moffet. This articulate young pastor leads a church that gives 30% to the Cooperative Program and HE is being excluded by Baptist Identity people.
Call it what you will - identifying of "us vs. them" or "BI vs CP" - it does not change the fact that one group wishes to COOPERATE and the other group wishes to EXCLUDE.
IF there were no exclusion of people who disagree there would never have to be any categorization of groups in the SBC. The "us vs. them" begins when some exclude missionary candidates for values that go far beyond the BFM, when some exclude pastors who wish to point out how exclusionary the policies are, and when some forget that the CP stands for Cooperative Program, not Conformity Program.
Eric,
I would encourage you not to leave the SBC, but to evaluate what our American forefathers understood that led to a revolution - "no taxation without representation."
Stay SBC, but for heaven's sake, don't give a third of your church budget to any one who says you or your church are not qualified to either cooperate in missions, serve on boards, or give oversight to cooperative program ministries.
Blessings,
Wade
He's Back
The SBC leadership is trembling
the Wadeformation marches on
I think the reason people are scared of Wade is because he writes well, doesn't make an *&*% of himself, and is pastor of one of the largest SBC churches in our entire Convention. I agree with anonymous above. They may not be trembling, but they definitely will pause before they shoot off at the mouth knowing someone out there is not afraid to hold them accountable.
Wade,
Ahhh…long time no hear, but the ‘rest’ has done you well…like a runner getting a second wind.
Over and over I hear, “One of us.” In this century, it stands out to me when Paige Patterson told Russell Dilday, “You’re conservative all right, but you’re not ONE OF US.”
‘One of us’ was used by the disciples complaining to Jesus. “One of us’ was/is reaching for a throne while Jesus was/is reaching for a towel.
Dilday, as president, led Southwester Baptist Seminary to be the top of our six Baptist Seminaries. Now Patterson has been ‘rewarded’ in being its president, like the king taking the poor man’s vineyard, but the vineyard has diminished just like the attendance of the Southern Baptist Convention and the shortage of Lottie Moon giving.
Remember ONE OF US saying, “We’re right because look at the money being given”? What are they saying now?
As ‘money talks’, the lack of it talks also.
‘One of us’ is a foundation built on sand just like the BFM 2000 advertised as “our doctrinal guideline”.
NOTHING BUT THE BIBLE IS OUR DOCTRINAL GUIDELINE. The old conventions of Texas and Virginia will not bend their knees to a paper made by men just like many missionaries fired by ‘one of us.’
To me, complaining about something exceeding the BFM 2000 is like complaining about something exceeding the bombing of the Twin Towers.
Wade, nice to have you back.
Rex Ray…Bonham, TX
Wade, I appreciate the post, but would like your take on a question I have. Please forgive me if someone has already posted this question, but I haven’t had the time to read all the comments.
My question lies within the consistency of the church’s conclusion #4 and #5. It seems to hold #4, you would have a hard time holding to #5. If one restriction isn’t universal, what makes another restriction universal?
Robert
Wade:
I am writing to correct something you said in your first post when you came back from blogging – Monday, August 25, 2008, “Self-Imposed Break Over: “Baptist Identity,” The New IMB Doctrinal Policies, and the SBC.” The statement that I wondered about at the time was something that you said to me when you wrote,
“And, by the way, though you (sic) pastor may not have been asked whether or not he supports the policies, that has little or nothing to do with the fact that they are ALREADY policies - and the FIRST question on the missionary candidate survey is "Do you have a private prayer language?" It is not are you saved? Do you know Christ? Are you a born-again believer? But, "Do you have a private prayer language?" If the answer is "yes" they are disqualified on the spot from proceeding in the missionary interview process.”
Now, the main point of your post and our discussion was not which questions were on the missionary candidate survey, but you introduced this issue to the discussion.
I replied to your response stating that what you said about the survey and a PPL being the first question did not ring true.
I have now reviewed the IMB surveys for missionary candidates, and know that what you said is not true. The IMB survey does not ask that as the first question of either career missionaries or Journeyman or other short term assignments.
The written survey for career missionaries (before the interview process) has at least two parts – two separate forms. The first form asks about marriage, family, church, education, experience, evangelism, evangelism training and other items.
The next form, Part II asks for additional information. The first questions relate to health issues, next comes financial issues (debt, bankruptcy, credit card information etc.).
After that, there is a series of 10 questions that call for a “yes” or “no” answer for the candidate (“Unit Head”) and the spouse. In order they are:
1. Were you baptized in a Southern Baptist Church?
2. Have you ever served as a deacon?
3. Are you a tither?
4. Do you speak, or have you ever spoken, in tongues or a private prayer language?
5. Are you currently exempt from the Social Security Program?
6. Are you presently employed by, or obligated to, the military?
7. Do you have any connection with or have you been involved in any activity on behalf of an intelligence agency of any government?
8. Have you ever been convicted of any violation of any law or ordinance? (parenthetical omitted).
9. Have you ever been discharged or asked to resign from any job?
10. Is there any other information, i.e., pending litigation, lifestyle issues, problems, etc. that the International Mission Board should know about? (parenthetical omitted).
Then, at the bottom of the form it states, “NOTE: If you checked yes to any questions 4-10, give details in the addendum area on page 2.
Following that there is a blank page(s) to fill in the details.
The form for ISC/Masters/Journeymen is similar with regard to the question on tongues or PPL.
In neither form is it the FIRST question, as you so authoritatively stated. This question comes well after many other questions, including some of the issues that you mentioned.
I understand that after these written forms are received that the IMB tries to clarify what the candidate may be calling a private prayer language, that the IMB asks them if they have read IMB guideline on PPL and sends (or offers to send) a copy so that the candidate can read it and discuss it with their pastor, and that the IMB follows up to make sure that there is a clear understanding. Then the IMB decides whether to continue the process.
This is all done before the consultant sets up the first interview.
This process does not at all look like what you discussed in your comment to me.
I know that you disagree with the IMB policy on PPLs, and I know why. It is certainly your right to disagree and to dissent.
But in so doing, it is so important for many reasons for us to speak accurately. I have no idea why you would have made the claims that you made to me in your comment. I suspect that it may be because you were truly ignorant on the subject and that you got ahead of yourself in the discussion and put some things in your comment that would support your position, but that you really did not know what you were talking about.
Regardless of whether it was for that or some other reason, this issue has been difficult enough in the SBC family on the facts alone. None of us need to be conflating our arguments or discussions with things that are not true, whether intentionally or by accident.
I appreciate your hosting this blog and allowing me to correct the factual errors that you made in your comment. An acknowledgement and correction on your part would be appropriate and consistent with what you strive to be in your comments on this issue.
My only hope and prayer for all of us is that we will be careful and accurate in all of our discussions.
Thank you.
Louis
Louis,
The survey you hold in your hands has changed in both format and questions. The survey to which I referred was one used by Candidate Consultants in the fall of 2005, shortly after the policies went into effect. I had several candidates tell me that the question on private prayer language was first.
Thank you for informing us that the questions have now changed to . .
1. Were you baptized in a Southern Baptist Church?
2. Have you ever served as a deacon?
3. Are you a tither?
4. Do you speak, or have you ever spoken, in tongues or a private prayer language?
5. Are you currently exempt from the Social Security Program?
6. Are you presently employed by, or obligated to, the military?
7. Do you have any connection with or have you been involved in any activity on behalf of an intelligence agency of any government?
8. Have you ever been convicted of any violation of any law or ordinance? (parenthetical omitted).
9. Have you ever been discharged or asked to resign from any job?
10. Is there any other information, i.e., pending litigation, lifestyle issues, problems, etc. that the International Mission Board should know about?
NOW the baptism question is FIRST, and the Private Prayer language comes before whether or not a prospective missionary is asked if he is a convict or a felon.
That is even more absurd.
Thanks for illustrating my point.
Blessings,
Wade
P.S. I'm not sure if you are attempting to call into my question my integrity or not, and I will assume the best of motives. I am not unfamiliar with those with worse motives. Regardless, there will not be, and there is no need, for any apology of a factual error in this case. For the survey form to change in the last three years is to be expected, but to continue to have both questions regarding the new doctrinal policies within the first four questions asked of prospective missionary is over the top.
Louis and Wade,
I have been away from my computer for 2 days and unable to answer you response to my remarks. With apologizes to Wade, I would like to do that now even though we are off the original subject of this blog and probably no one will be reading it now that another line has opened.
I am very sympathetic to you situation of starting a new church with new members not from SBC backgrounds and needing time to education them on what the cooperative program is as well as the need for a state convention. I have started a church in which the members were not from a Baptist background and in fact not from a Christian background and know some of the difficulties you might have faced. However, in 16 years you should have made some progress.
As you give your reasons for not supporting your state convention, one reason was that they “spent a whole lot of effort trying to stop the enactment of a State lottery” and they looked foolish to most people even Christians. Paul addressed this in II Cor2:14 when he said the things of the Spirit of God are foolishness to the natural man. I hope you are not saying that your pastor and church opposed this effort by the state. What you have done here is give a good reason why we need state conventions. They are necessary to speak out for Baptists on issues that affect the entire state. The associations and individual churches are not big enough and the SBC cannot do this for each separate state. We had this same issue in our state and my church not only supported it through our Cooperative Program giving but gave extra money. State conventions provide many other services that no other SBC entity is equipped to do. My state has two colleges. In the past they have provided a quality Christian education for many pastors and bi-vocational pastors who could not go to seminary and also better prepared those who went to seminary for what they would face. They also provide a quality Christian education for non religious professionals who go into the everyday world as witnesses to their faith. I think in most cases that money is well spent.
In addition we have an outstanding Baptist orphanage in our state that we support through Cooperative program giving. Our state has an excellent camp ground available to our churches and associations to use for their summer youth camps. Our state convention assists churches in starting new churches as well as training and equipping their own members for church growth. We have an active state missions program that partners with our NAMB missions efforts. All of these are programs that maybe a few super churches could provide for themselves but for which most churches need the help of the state convention.
One reason I am passionate about this is that I have served on the mission field for 30 years just as your in laws have. During that time I have traveled over much of our convention encouraging churches to support our mission boards but to also continue their support for the cooperative program. We will be weaker as a mission sending agency without the support we receive from our SBC convention, state conventions, associations and local churches. Every link is important. When I was young I learned about missions at my state RA camp, my state summer camp, my state Baptist college and in state youth meetings. They were important in my call to missions and the call of many of the people I serve with. I do not mind giving you the name of my state at all. It is Arkansas and I am proud to support our state convention and its staff. I am familiar with several other state conventions that also do an outstanding job. If your pastor did a better job of explaining the importance of state conventions, maybe your members would be willing to give more to their state convention.
Perhaps if I knew the name of your state and church I could better understand your reasoning. You church may have lead one of our regional meetings. You can email at rwest7747@yahoo.com if you wish.
I totally agree with your statement, “Trying to correct most trustee actions at the convention level is not effective. Talking about it is fine, but the best thing the Convention can do to address this is to approve good, level headed trustees.” You are wrong, however, when you say CP legalism is preventing service on the boards. It may be that your pastor was denied a chance to serve because one person on the committee objected to his lack of CP support. That is an exception and not the rule. You are a lawyer. Look at the evidence. Many if not most of the trustees now serving are from churches that give less than the average % given by SBC churches to the cooperative program. Of the 3 IMB trustees from my state last year 2 were from churches giving about 2% and the other not much more. Our current SBC president Johnny Hunt pastors a church that only gives about 2 or 3% if my memory is correct. Do you think he is going to require trustees appointed by his committees to be strong CP supporters?
You are correct again when you say, “If we have rules that eliminate good people from election, that is an issue of greater importance because the issues at the agencies cannot be fixed.” The rules that eliminate people have not been CP giving. For most of the last 30 years the rules have had nothing to do with theology, competence, experience or spiritual discernment. The only rule has been, do you support the pseudo-conservative resurgence and will you vote the way we tell you to vote. The problems causing our convention to need a Great Commission Resurgence will not be fixed until that changes.
Wade:
Thanks for the response.
In your original comment you said something that was manifestly untrue: that the FIRST question on the missionary survey form is whether the candidate has a PPL.
That was my only point.
I understand from your response that you probably repeated what some candidates had told you. That's fine. We all do that kind of thing. But you should have made that clear up front.
I don't understand the need you apparently feel to attempt to salvage your claim that the PPL question was first. That's not true under any scenario.
The questions that I outlined for you in my comment are the very LAST questions on Part II of the missionary survey.
The first part of the survey contains lots of questions, personal, education, employment an ministry related. It is hard to total the number of questions on that form because it depends on how you count the fields, how many schools one has attended or how many jobs one has had, one's ministry experience etc.
I would estimate that there are 50 questions on the first part of the missionary survey.
Part II follows the first part (funny how that is - two follows one etc.). So there are lots of questions that the candidate has to answer before PPL ever comes up.
And Part II has questions BEFORE one gets to the final 10. So, the question number 1 on baptism is the 8th question on Part II of the survey. The question on tongues and PPL is the 11th. Again, the 10I listed are the LAST questions on the survey form, however they are arranged.
I can tell from your reponse that you may not have reviewed the form. The IMB, or your state consultant can send you these so you can see these.
My purpose in all of this is to simply point out that what you said was not true. Again, I do not think you planned that, because it was so easily refuted that no one would plan that. I guess that you simply repeated something that you heard but did not really know.
Don't be too defensive about this. We all do this from time to time.
I know you well enough to know that you would not want to say things that were not true because that would eventually hurt the points you are trying to make. So, it is only to your benefit to learn that the first question on the IMB missionary survey is not about PPL.
The simple failure to recognize that you made a mistake is the toughest thing for you.
Trying to ignore part I of the survey, or ignore the questions that come before the last 10 on the survey, or claim that it was some old survey (when your comment doesn't complain about an old survey that's no longer in use) don't really do anything to salvage the error.
I do wish you the best, too, and sincerely recommend that you get copies of the missionary survey that is available (both parts) so that you can have an accurate understanding of what is being asked on that survey and in what order.
That will be helpful to you as you move forward.
Louis
Ron:
Thank you for such an excellent response. You write well and your points are well supported.
I agree that CP legalism has not been historically used to keep people off of boards. I do know that what my pastor has told me about his discussions with the contact from the nominating committee, and I have reported that. I also remember the motion that was made in Greensboro. I thought the level was 10%. If you were there and remember, let me know. I also remember Dr. Vines' statements against that motion.
I have absolutley no problem whatsoever with churches that want to support the state conventions as you suggest. The states do some good things, too, which I acknowledge.
I probably did not adequately explain that it's not just our pastor's failure to teach about the importance of the State Conventions. This is something that we have considered as a church. We have made a conscious decision to give most of our money to Nashville and the national ministries. It's not through ignorance, but through a voluntary, deliberate choice. In the early days, it was a question of people's ignorance. But after having traveled the road a while, we have decided to stay on the road we are on.
I have no problems whatsoever with other churches doing it the other way - forwarding all of their money to the state etc. I have just seen that more churches, especially the newer ones are not as interested in State work. It's not that State work is bad per se. It's all good. It's just a matter of what one's particular Baptist church decides to emphasize.
You are right about the elections. When it comes to electing a president, the SBC has not historically punsihed people for not being the biggest CP givers. (Ronnie Floyd may be the exception). I think that is good. The more diversity, the better. I just hope that continues at the trustee level. My point to Wade was that being strict about CP giving percentages (without recognizing the autonomy of the local church and the budget priorities it may have) in trustee selection would hurt, in my opinion, the trustee system. It would lock out a type of person who would be less apt to simply follow what everyone is doing.
On the lottery thing, I would tell you that I do not oppose a lottery as a form of raising state revenue. I know that many Christians disagree with me, and that many Christians agree with me, as well. We have not seen the horribles in our state that people said would come if we approved it. Poverty rates, out of wedlock births, employment, or any other significant measure has not been moved by the introduction of the lottery. Millions of dollars have gone to college education in our state, and that has helped needy families. I recognize the inflationary aspects this could bring to education cost, but that still does not cause me to be anti-lottery. I see it as a form of voluntary taxation.
As for the State baptist leadership, I am sorry to be so blunt, but it is simply poor in our state.
I realize that you and I might not agree on a lot of things, but again, I want to tell you how much I enjoyed your well-written and reasoned response. I will make an effort to remember your name, and will look you up one day if we are ever at the SBC together.
God bless you.
Louis
Our Texas town experienced severe localized flooding 1 1/2 weeks ago. About 150 families were affected to some degree or another--from some inches of water inside their homes to total losses.
We discovered: the SBTC has no direct financial assistance to offer to affected families; it passes along to the SBC's CP a huge percentage of its annual receipts. However, the BGCT provides direct financial assistance to affected families in such situations--and did, providing $15,000 to ones in need. The BGCT does keep at home in Texas more of the CP money it receives from affiliating Baptist congregations--but this is what it does with that money!
Me: I'll "identify" with the state Baptist convention doing the most relevant good for people in need in Texas. A state convention can be doctrinally sound AND sound asleep at the same time!
David
About 150 homes in the county, not the city.
David
From a non-Protestant observor:
It looks like the SBC leadership actually does want a schism within the Southern Baptist Church to take place. It is a little like watching history because, perhaps, they are creating a new denomination in real time. Can they do this?
Post a Comment