According to reports from Baptist Press and other sources, the International Mission Board (IMB) Board of Trustees voted to open new pathways of service by, among other things, removing previous restrictions that had been developed a decade ago. In 2005, the IMB BoT created restrictions to missionary service that included barring anyone from service who had a private prayer language (PPL) and anyone who had been baptized by immersion in a church that did not teach eternal security or that was not in line with the Baptist perspective on perseverance even if they were members in good standing of SBC churches today. These restrictions created a great deal of controversy in Southern Baptist life from 2005-2007 and were a major impetus for the growth of Baptist blogging and calls for reform among many. Today, those policies have been changed along with the removal of restrictions involving candidates who had been divorced and candidates with teenaged children.
From the Baptist Press article:
LOUISVILLE, Ky.(BP) — Citing urgency for reaching a lost world and unity with the Baptist Faith & Message, International Mission Board trustees streamlined guidelines for appointing new personnel to fulfill their missionary calling.
Trustees voted to approve the proposal during IMB’s May 12-13 trustee meeting in Louisville, Ky.
God is worthy of the worship of all people, yet billions have yet to hear the good news of the Gospel. In February 2015, trustees approved a simplified structure with the goal of empowering limitless teams of missionaries to make disciples and multiply churches among unreached people, explained IMB President David Platt.
Toward this end, IMB aims to provide multiple pathways in which missionaries may serve on these teams, and each will involve specific qualifications. The newly revised policy creates a unified statement of qualifications that will characterize every missionary serving through any pathway created by IMB to mobilize Southern Baptists to share the Gospel with unreached people.
“When you hear ‘pathway,’ think ‘possibilities’ — all the possible ways that people in the pews of Southern Baptist churches might serve overseas: as doctors, teachers, accountants, lawyers, fitness instructors, rickshaw drivers, students, retirees,” Platt said. “We’re talking about limitless possibilities that God has providentially arranged for His people to go around the world with the Gospel. And as the IMB, we want to send Southern Baptists through as many pathways as possible, which necessitates that we open up the pipeline for people to come through those pathways.”
Prior to the May board of trustees meeting, miscellaneous policies existed for career, apprentice, Journeyman, ISC and Masters program missionary appointees. Specific policy regulations covered issues of faith and practice such as levels of education, history of divorce, teenage children in the home, the practice of a private prayer language, and greater specificity around baptism than the Baptist Faith & Message.
“As we look toward the future and the limitless number of missionaries we want to mobilize from Southern Baptist churches, we want to give Southern Baptists a simple, clear statement of qualifications that unifies not only the missionaries serving on one of those teams on the field, but unifies the IMB with the whole of the SBC,” Platt said, noting the revised policy serves as the unifying standard for all IMB missionaries, regardless of what role they might play on a team.
I am also happy that the IMB reversed these policies!
But I have one concern. Us old timers can remember the blog wars of the old days. Let’s not go back to those.
But Dave, we were finally vindicated. Cannot we rub their noses in it a bit? 😉
No, you are not vindicated. The policy on tongues did not restrict someone with a PPL from serving. It asked them to keep it private and not to teach it to others as normative for the church. The reverse on the divorce policy is horrible also. You have no idea what you are talking about. And, you probably do not serve on a team in a forward area.
Common sense from an entity, refreshing ????
This policy did not just reverse the unfortunate policies adopted in 2005, it also addresses such issues as people who have been divorced and people with teenage children going to serve as missionaries.
Thank you to Wade Burleson, Dave Miller, Alan Cross, Steve McCoy, Joe Thorn, and others who worked to make these policy changes known back in the day and stood against them.
I am so glad to see these policies ended and the road cleared for those who wish to serve. Thanks to the IMB trustees and David Platt for righting this wrong after all these years.
If I were going to write an article about the IMB trustee action, I would write what you wrote which prominently notes the main impact of the change. Instead, the IMB editor who wrote the piece put the salient points in the sixth paragraph. I understand why, but anyone can see why blogs are the real Baptist press.
Still, we aren’t told if these things (divorce, teens, PPL, particular baptism details) are no longer in effect for any IMB position. Should have been a simple thing to state it as you did.
I know, William. I had to reach out to other sources, including a trustee, and ask if this meant what I thought it meant.
Yes, you have to lead with the big news.
One might observe that the Baptist Press put a noble spin on the reversal of an extremely unwise decision by the trustees in 2005. But, regardless of the tenor of the Baptist Press article, kudos to the IMB trustees for this action.
I think this had more to do with David Platt’s presence than with the blog wars of ye olde interwebbe. But those “wars” did get me into blogging, and somewhat involved in the SBC itself.
I am sure that it did have to do with David Platt’s presence. But, blogs were a place that this was all being hashed out. Just like any forum of conversation, it all works together. I doubt that David existed in a vacuum.
At any rate, I am very glad that the policies have been reversed. That is what is most important.
Exactly. The blog conversations back then shaped the discussion in the years that have followed.
The blogosphere has had a measurable impact on SBC life and decision making over the past decade. Whether one can make a direct connection to this policy change, there is no denying that our blog discussions have been an important part of the process of deciding what kind of Convention we want to be.
A decade of turmoil, bitterness and needless infighting. How many lost people groups un-reached because of some senseless, idiotic, restrictive and un-biblical policies? This is indeed a change for the better.
Does anyone know if the “baptism” must still be by “immersion?”
As you may know, at The Village Church, a SBC congregation, they accept SBC members whose baptism is merely by aspersion.
Will such individuals be permitted to become candidates at any of these IMB levels?
That’s actually a very good question.
Immersion is, I believe, spelled out in the BF&M. The point of these policies was that they established parameters which went well beyond anything that was spelled out in the BF&M.
^^^Bingo!!!
If the IMB begins to send missionaries who do not immerse, there will be a hue and cry from many quarters, just as there was when these policies were adopted.
Your accusation against the theological integrity of Village Church may or may not be correct. I don’t know. Here is their doctrinal statement from their website.
Believer’s Baptism by Immersion
Baptism is intended only for those who have professed faith in Jesus Christ and can give sufficient testimony to the basics of Christian beliefs. Also, we baptize by immersion because it is not only the original significance of the word, but also best symbolizes the reality to which baptism points—our death and resurrection in Christ.
In fairness, this details “there practice” when “they” baptize. It does not state they will or will not accept into fellowship those who were previously baptized in ways other than immersion.
For many people, that probably wouldn’t be a problem. I suspect for some it will be a problem.
I don’t assume that this change in policy is associated with any “drift” in theology or traditional Baptist polity. I also don’t assume it is not.
I do suspect that this will not create the kind of “unity” that Platt says it is designed to create. I suspect it will further galvanize divides that already exist.
For many (I am not one of them) the whole charismatic issue is a hill to die on.
I am not advocating for or against the decision. I am advocating that the idea of “gloating” over some perceived win not carry the day in the discussion.
I am not sure that the millions of souls that have gone to hell in the last decade have been because of the IMB’s policies. I would suspect other factors might have contributed.
for the grammar sensitive, “their practices” not “there.” I am not as fast as my auto correct.
The outline of their baptismal class clearly says that they practice only Baptism by immersion.
http://thevillagechurch.net/mediafiles/uploaded/b/0e1140329_1378473798_baptism-booklet.pdf
Though they do footnote it:
I rather suspect he was referring to this (in the “Baptism and Membership” section down further in the pdf):
So, they only immerse but will accept people into membership who have been baptized post-conversion by other methods.
I certainly don’t agree with that. Wouldn’t join a church with that practice.
And that (their standard for membership) is, I believe, what Rick asserted in the first place.
Rick & Ben,
Very interesting.
I’m one who would believe if a person can’t be immersed, he can’t be baptized.
Of course, if he believes in Jesus, he can still go to Heaven.
David R. Brumbelow
There you go, David. I have tried to stop referring to other modes of baptism. There is only one mode of baptism. Other practices involving water that are commonly called baptism are not baptism. And as you said, that has nothing to do with whether a person is bound for heaven or hell.
Yes, Ben. You are correct that this is the paragraph I referenced when writing about this.
http://sbctoday.com/a-sprinkled-baptist-convention/
And a copy of the policy that I have been sent CLEARLY defines that a missionary must be an “immersed member of a Southern Baptist church.”
Believer’s Baptism by Immersion is the clearly stated Baptist standard that everyone understands and is clearly stated in the BFM2000. Not sure why that was even brought up. There is no question there.
Alan,
It was brought up because quite a few of our churches—large ones—are accepting as members those who have not been immersed.
If such a church accepts a member by statement who has not been baptized, then this person is called to the mission field, will we at least immerse them at that point?
I am trying to protect us from having non-Baptized missionaries someday, which frankly is a distinct possibility in light of some church membership policies today.
http://sbctoday.com/a-sprinkled-baptist-convention/
I realize nothing can stop you from continuing to make this insinuation, but the IMB policy clearly states that missionaries must be immersed. There’s no subtlety in the policy.
seriously. Doesn’t it even go further than that, dave miller?
Doesn’t the IMB policy require not only believers baptism by immersion – but that the church/pastor that baptized them be exclusive in practicing that mode?
The new policy, which I saw today, only requires that the person be a member of an SBC church and that he or she be baptized by immersion.
I don’t know if the document I saw – an email from Platt – is the complete policy or just a summary of it.
I realize nothing will stop you from prefacing every statement to me with some kind of crack like that, just like you falsely accused me of having something to do with that conference the other day and falsely accused me of making an “accusation against the integrity of Village Church” when all I’ve done is cite their public policies, but can you please point out where the IMB clarifies that it is talking about “immersion” and nothing else?
Here is the article I read: http://bit.ly/1EG8Un3
In the policies, under the qualification for Southern Baptist identity, it reads:
“– Currently a baptized member of a Southern Baptist church”
I agree with every brother on this board who says there is NO other baptism BUT immersion. However, some of our SBC churches are no longer making such a distinction.
So my question is: “If a specific SBC church considers someone a member, and they have only been “aspersion baptized” then is this going to “count” as a “baptized member of a Southern Baptist church?”
And yes, Dave, it does so happen that Chandler and Platt are both Calvinists. Chandler’s openness to non-immersed membership is a matter of public record. Platt’s openness to the same doctrine when he was at The Church at Brook Hills is merely a matter of the Baptist grapevine, but according to reports, he did try to move the church in that direction, but the elders did not approve.
Since Platt has a history with the issue, I want to be sure that he is not trying to do at IMB what he could not do at The Church at Brook Hills.
Can you please show where the IMB policy clearly states that all of these missionaries at all of these levels must be *immersed* and not merely *baptized.* (Since the Village and others call aspersion a form of baptism–we need to be even clearer in spelling it out.
The email Platt circulated today to missionaries spelled out the qualifications. Here’s the section. I cut and pasted, just so there’d be no typos.
SB IDENTITY
· Currently an immersed member of a SB ch
· Commitment to and identification with SBs
· Conviction of truth as expressed in the current BF&M statement of the SBC
(He uses a lot of abbreviations – I’m guessing for security reasons?).
Not sure what he can do beyond that. It is unequivocal and straightforward.
Is sharing the “Baptist grapevine” an honorable practice?
Baptist “grapevine”????
I think the apostle Paul called that gossip.
Dave,
Thank you for sharing the contents of that email. By using the word “immersed” instead of merely using “baptized,” your email clarifies the issue in a way that the BP report does not. I wish it were more formal, as in some kind of press release we could all access, but if David Platt sent you an email saying they have to be immersed, then that’s good enough for me.
As for reports of Platt’s efforts to handle baptism in a manner similar to Chandler, I felt it was needed to explain my concerns about the possible impact of the new IMB policy. In other words, there is a bit of history creating a reason to question Platt’s view of the immersion requirement.
Rick: I agree with you and with several who have so commented. If they are not immersed, it is not baptism. And if they are bedfast or whatever, unable to be immersed, then leave it with the Lord until or if they are able. I had one hellacious set-to with a deacon who had been a Methodist. He objected to requiring immersion for every one, using those unable to have the act performed due to health, etc. I was bi-vocational at that time, indeed, for all of my ministry has been in churches where I had to work sooner or later to support my family, any way a teacher at the school where I was a counselor said, “Tell that fellow, they had to cut ice in the creek to baptize me in winter, and I never even caught a cold from it.” I don’t think he quite appreciated that. He also went after me for preaching election, something that the others knew the first founding pastor (who had served for 29 years) had preached (so I was not introducing anything new). One afternoon after working at the school as a counselor I had to ask him to handle prayer meeting for me. He was covering his Cadillac, anticipating a storm, and he started in on me about that doctrine as well as immersion about 7:15 and continued. I got home about five after 11. I never once raised my voice. I reasoned with him about the baptismal issues and the doctrinal issues, suggesting that his Methodism might have something to do with it, at least, with reference to baptism.
I don’t remember all of the conversation as it was about a quarter of a century ago, but I could have pointed out to him that Wesley accepted the fact that baptism in its original New Testament form was by immersion. Indeed, practically all of the Reformers, including Luther, and many Catholics know and acknowledge that the primary and original meaning of baptizo is to dip or immerse. The Catholics even have a baptistery in Florence, if memory of a course I had is correct, that displayed the works in bronze of one of the early Renaissance artists (I think it was Fra (?) Angelico but that course was 50 years ago this coming Fall) on its doors. And that baptistery was obviously designed originally to administer baptism by immersion.
These folks who are changing the meaning of the term or setting the stage, unknowingly or not, for a departure from our biblical principles. While I will hold Christian fellowship with people from the denominations who do not immerse, I cannot in good conscience go all the way with them on that issue.
I’m not sure how many times it needs to be said – no one is talking about NOT immersing.
The missionary policy clearly states that a missionary must a) be immersed and b) believe and teach within the boundaries of the BF&M.
Rick,
Also what about baptismal regeneration “immersions”? That is immersions done for salvific or sacramental reasons. Most Church of Christ and Disciples of Christ as well as some Pentecostal groups baptize this way? Can someone with that kind of immersion be an IMB missionary?
What about immersions that do not symbolize the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus? For example a Presbyterian church that believes baptism is by pouring to symbolize the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, but reluctantly immerses someone. Can someone with that kind of immersion be an IMB missionary?
If you are going to be an open baptism Baptist, just how far are you going to open the door?
Ben,
All of these are outstanding questions. I hope to see the policy that Dave’s email referenced. Perhaps it spells out these matters a little more clearly.
One of our church members is a retired coal miner from Virginia. For most of his life he was not a church-going man. Then his twin brother got terminal cancer. Both brothers got saved and were baptized together in a river by a minister from the Church of Christ. The brother with cancer died, and the surviving brother started attending our SBC church.
This man came forward for membership “by statement.” I had a discussion with him about his baptism. He didn’t have a clue about baptismal regeneration or the teachings of the Church of Christ about baptism. He had just wanted to believe in Jesus and get baptized. As I talked with him, he said that he understood my explanation that baptism was a symbol and public display of his faith in Christ.
I saw no need for this man to be re-baptized. I think it would be very confusing to him to say that he needed to be baptized again because the minister who performed his first baptism placed too much weight on the baptism itself. He was publicly baptized by immersion upon his profession of faith in Jesus, and that should be enough. If a man like this wanted to serve as an IMB missionary, I would say amen.
Jeff,
By that logic, you would accept someone who had been immersed by the Mormons, but was ignorant of what the Mormons actually taught. As long as that Mormon now agrees with what Baptists believe, let him join by statement.
Ben, If I am understand Jeff correctly (and please correct if I am wrong, Jeff) I disagree.
Jeff said the man came forward on a statement of faith stating that he believed in Christ and was baptized. Jeff, being his pastor “examined and believed” this testimony and since the new member was in fact baptized by immersion as a believer he chose to not force a re baptism in the Baptist Church.
Comparing that to Mormonism seems a bridge to far, IMO.
This man was never a member of the Church of Christ. He wasn’t taught their doctrine. He came to faith in Jesus apart from any church. Then he and his brother sought out a minister to baptize them. The minister was a family friend who happened to be in the C of C. At the time of his baptism, this man couldn’t have told you the differences between the C of C and the SBC. He wasn’t aware of the C of C teachings on baptism. But based on his testimony, he did understand the gospel. After his baptism, God led him to get involved with a local church, and I’m thankful God led him to us.
I’m no expert on Mormonism, but I think it would be unusual for someone who was not indoctrinated in Mormon teachings to be baptized as a Mormon. I do know that Mormons require the baptism to be performed by an authorized person, but I’m not sure if they require the candidate to go through some sort of catechism first. At least in most cases, I would expert the person baptized as a Mormon to have intentionally submitted to LDS teachings, which are fundamentally different than the true gospel. Our church thus would not accept that LDS baptism. Likewise, if this man had been brought up in the Church of Christ and had understood his baptism to save him, but later changed his beliefs, we’d be looking at a different situation — as we would with any person coming from a faith or denomination where a person is baptized in a way or for a purpose that is different than the Baptist understanding of baptism.
Ben: I agree with you as the Church of Christ has been teaching baptismal regeneration from the getgo, and the Mormons are not a bridge too far. It is to be noted that both groups arose in history about the same time which raises interesting questions: Who was behind them that we do not know about, people who had an axe to grind and were intent on doing Baptists and other Protestants harm?
Out of curiosity, however, Ben, do you require a Baptist to do the baptizing?
Jeff and Tarheel,
Does it matter if the Church of Christ preacher believed the baptism he was administering was salvific? 95% of the Church of Christ believe baptism at least completes salvation, if not full on baptismal regeneration. That is not New Testament baptism.
I am not talking about what the individual being baptized believed, but what the preacher preforming the baptism believed.
And yes this same thing could happen in a LDS setting. What if the individual being baptized by a LDS preacher didn’t submit or understand LDS doctrine? By your logic, this Mormon baptism should be accepted by Southern Baptist churches.
Well, I have no problem with parents of teens but the “private prayer language” is very disappointing.
By allowing private prayer language, it should follows that the IMB as well as the other institutions of the SBC must allow for women to serve in ministry…even to the point of preaching and teaching men.
I don’t understand the connection Dr. Willingham. I suspect the typical supporter of the Conservative Resurgence also might not understand the connection. Could you provide a little elaboration?
Greg: The connection comes from the past to the future. What seems little, a minor thing that can be accepted, has greater weight in the future than we can imagine. Consider how the folks who were enamored of Toy. I found two of them who became leaders in the Carolinas. Guess where some of the changes toward the Moderates’ position, small, incremental changes back then. Then came the fruition in the middle of the 20 century, and we had two decades of struggle to get the SBC back on course as far as believing the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God. And PPL is an incremental thing, among others, that will come to fruition. The folks who are making progress among the Protestants know what they are doing.
Additional comment: I have no objection to change per se. After all, the refusal to change is tantamount to becoming so rigid that one snaps at the slightest resistance. Our biblical theology, however, is not like that> I repeat what I have often said on this blog that the truths we believe are so constructed as to make us balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic. I would also call attention that I follow a different scientific method, one that takes into account the difficult (to some minds) problem of what to do when the null hypothesis is also true. In dealing with the issue of ministerial qualifications which involves education and/or illumination, one must have a twofold scientific method, something that might well fit in with our digital age, 01. It was this method which helped me to be able to understand how Sandy Creek Church could have eldresses; it also enabled me to grasp how they could allow for differences in theology. What most historians do not seem to be aware of is that Sandy Creek and the other Separate Baptist Churches were formed, generally, speaking on the basis of a covenant which was, as John Taylor, a Baptist minister of the period circa 1750-1825 (note figures are not exact but the period is generally speaking), called it, Calvinistic.
I do not say the above to be controversial. Anyone who thinks so will utterly miss my point, What I am talking about is the nature of the ideas involved and how they can allow for differences, while at the same time being able to discern when the views are truly off-base.
You all might want to consider John Wesley and Whitefield’s repulse of the prophets of Zwickau or, rather, those who followed the spirit of that outfit two centuries later.
Dr. Willingham: Oh the horrors! 🙂 We teach men already, you just don’t realize it. 🙂
Speaking in tongues is advocated and mentioned in scripture, whereas women teaching men is not. No connection
That would be up for debate Rose, even among Southern Baptists.
It is up for debate among Southern Baptists, Debbie, but not in the Bible.
Dave: Somewhere in the past few years, I came across an item on how Evan Roberts, the leader in the Welsh Revival of 1904, was invited to join with the charismatic folks of Azusa Street. He declined and ceased his own efforts, concerned that the movement in California would vitiate the Welsh Revival.
Rose: In Morgan Edwards’ Materials Toward a History of Baptists in North Carolina (circa 1771), he comments that Sandy Creek Baptist Church had eldresses who exhorted the congregation with the slightest hint of usurping authority over men (that last was his sop to himself and others who think because they have some clear statements and who forget to take in those statements in Holy Writ that might seem contradictory to the ones that are clear). After the union with the Regulars, the Separates let the practice die out, practically speaking (and Edwards was a Regular Baptist, being pastor of the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia, to which he was recommended by Dr. John Gill, no less).
While serving as chairman of the Historical Committee of the Baptist State Convention, I sought to address the issue of how Sandy Creek Church and Association could have eldresses in a day when they did not question scripture. As John Robinson, the pastor of the Pilgrims, declared, “Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God’s word.”
It was the attempt to recover the justification for such action in the 1700s that led to an understanding that there is reason for recognizing that Scripture does have depths to it that we have yet to plumb, depths I think that are designed for the future. In any case, the recognition that there are two sides to the teachings of the Bible, that they allow for exceptions and even another level of understanding.
Debbie: Teach them what? And how well do you know church history.
Reread my comment Dr. Willingham. Then think about it for awhile. 🙂
Well, Debbie, yes, I think I grasp what you mean. However, I was thinking in a more public way. The church is a body of chosen, called out individuals who are assembled together who are to be distinguished from other groupings such as the mob in Acts 19, and be it noted here that J.R. Graves made his best contribution to ecclesiology by distinguishing between the ochlos and the ekklesia, a contribution that K. Schmidt in Kittels (TDNT) needed to have seen in order to write a more perceptive evaluation of ekklesia. And just at this point it must be considered that even John Gill allowed for women to speak in a church as to give their testimonies or to give evidence in a church trial. He just never could quite make it to the point of allowing them to teach or preach. However, the ekklesia is a body of equality; every member has a right to participate in the actions taken as they are equals. Ministers lead by example, never as Lords over the flock (there is one Lord).
The use of the term eldresses by Edwards and the folks of Sandy Creek suggest that they must have known that the aged women in I Tim.5 were actually called by the feminine term that we would render eldress, that is, it is the feminine form of the same term that is used in I Tim5:1 where it says, “Rebuke not an elder.”
The Puritan writer, Matthew Poole, allowed for an exception in the case of women teaching and preaching men in his comment on I Tim.2, when he said, “except they be a specially called, gifted, and endowed person such as” and he named off all the prophetesses and other women of the Old and New Testaments who were named in positions of authority. A preacher once said to me that he would eat his words, if I could produce one instance where a woman was identified as being in a position of authority. I read Micah 6:4 to him, “I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.” He had conniption kitties, but would not eat his words. There is more, but I forbear.
I’ve never understood why a “private prayer language” is a problem to anyone. As long as I keep it private, how does it affect anyone how I pray? If I promote certain practices in public worship, that’s a different matter, but why would the IMB care how a missionary prays in private?
For clarity, I pray in English, when I pray. I should pray more – that’s my problem! Not what language I pray in!
My problem with PPL is that one does not know what one is saying, and the Bible says that we must give an account for every word we speak. The fact that the charismatic movement has had so many charlatans, people who pretended they were speaking in another tongue, another language, that it is justifiable that we be cautious on this matter. My professor in Bible in East Texas Baptist University (then a college), Mr. C.E. Roark told of hearing a woman speaking in a tongue in a church service, and he happened to know the language. All she was doing was reciting, if memory serves correctly, the Lord’s prayer in Spanish.
As to praying in an angelic tongue, Paul heard such things in his experience of paradise and said that it is not lawful for a man to utter the unspeakable words heard there.(II Cors.12:4). And being aware that perhaps someone is using the Charismatic movement to weaken Protestantism, I am very reserved on the matter. This is not to say everyone in that movement is of evil intent or that no one ever speaks in other languages by a direct gift. I had a friend who said words and gestures she did not know and was able to communicate with the Pygmies of the Philippines well enough to learn that they had been told by the Great Spirit to bring food to the unit of the Guerilla army with which she was associated. I have heard of another incident of this nature, but not being able to determine who, etc., I cannot make use of it.
Dave, I’d like to offer a conjecture on the question you raise. I think there may be a semantic problem–not you particularly but by what people mean by “private.”
Obviously, if by private one means “without anyone else’s knowledge,” there could not be a problem.
What most people I know who practice a private prayer language (I was called to ministry in a Pentecostal Church), really means, “personal.” I have a “personal prayer language,” which means I do not practice speaking in tongues in a public setting (which would be a different type of tongues).
My “personal prayer language” allows me to do precisely what you point out we all should do: “pray more.” I could not personally spend 45 minutes to an hour a time praying without the gift God has given me. Now, that does not prove the validity of a PPL. I have established that through my study and exegesis.
My point is: since my gift is “personal” and “not private” I share with people my understanding of the gift as I see it in Scripture. The only way I could keep it “private” is to never talk about certain passages of Scripture, or to mislead people when I do.
Calling it “private,” almost seems like one that has come to this conclusion exegetically needs to be ashamed of the gift. What other “truth” of God’s Word would one ever think should be kept, “private?”
I think if you look at this issue of “personal” vs. “private” it may explain why it becomes an issue in any discourse among brethren.
Does the IMB policy mean: if you do this you better not let anybody know you do it? If that is the new (renewed) policy, I don’t see that as much progress.
I have not read the new policy, but I don’t see how it could possibly be worse than the old one.
Again, I’m not debating whether one should or shouldn’t practice this gift as I’ve described it. I’m indicating a possible reason why something “private” has created such a public brawl.
Substitute the word, “personal,” and it becomes clearer how this could be an issue. In 1Cor. 14:28 that describes a personal application in regard to tongues in the church, neither the word “private,” nor “prayer” are used. The ideas for both are implied, but there is no doctrinal formulation, “private prayer language.” It is an exegetical conclusion.
Too bad, the history of these changes have not been traced back to their sources. This is sort of like the conspiracy theory in JFK, asking, Who stood to benefit, etc.? I forget the rest of the questions, but being a conspiracist in view point concerning political history I am also aware of the fact that conspiracy can be found in ecclesiastical history. The Puritans, for example, found out that their opponents had a school in another country training people to infiltrate them in order to bring to nothing their cause. The same was planned for all Protestantism and, now, perhaps, for Catholicism, too. All you have to do is read Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, page 1139 (one edition had page 1039) in which the religious views of the conspiracists who run things were stated along with the views they opposed. I could continue, but, hopefully, someone will be twitted enough to start thinking and researching along such lines. It might save us from a terrible debacle out in the future.
I’ll share a couple of thoughts:
1. As I defended the right of the trustees to set these policies when they did at the time, I defend their right to reverse them now. One idea I was jousting with a decade ago was the ridiculous notion that boards could have no requirements beyond the bare wording of the BF&M. Never was it my position, however, that boards were under obligation to have requirements beyond the BF&M—it’s a freedom, not an obligation. And, indeed, the IMB still has requirements beyond the BF&M; they are simply of a different theological nature than they were before.
2. I argued extensively at the time that such policies as the baptismal and PPL policies were only prudent if they were necessary to combat some problem that was actually a threat to our work. We all (who were not trustees) had to deal in hypotheticals at the time, for we knew of no specific problems that the trustees were trying to correct. Now we will see. Either we will have a charismatic takeover in the ranks or we will not. Either we will have a baptismal downgrade in the ranks or we will not. I choose to hope that we will have neither. If problems should arise in the future, I would be in favor of correcting them.
3. I wonder about the phrase “IMB missionaries are devoted to the vision, mission, values, and beliefs of the IMB.” I’m not alarmed by it or opposed to it; I just wonder what it means. Obviously, since there is already a separate statement about the BF&M and about identification with Southern Baptists, this is some additional requirement related to institutional beliefs held by the IMB. I confess, I don’t know what those are. I suggest that some of you, if a different personality in Southern Baptist life had authored such a statement, would be tempted to interpret it in a much different, harsher light. If you think that the IMB is making a mistake and you voice your concerns, does that mean that you are not sufficiently devoted to the vision, mission, values, and beliefs of the IMB? Again, I just wonder what this means.
4. I’ve no intention of re-inaugurating holy war over these policy changes. I’m too old for it. I’m more interested at this moment in writing about religious liberty.
Good thoughts, Bart. I was thinking to myself earlier that if anyone has a major problem with them, I will just tell them what you always told me years ago. “Trust the trustees and if you want to change things, then work to change the trustees.” I am glad to see you remain consistent. It took me a while to learn how Baptist polity actually worked and cutting my teeth on this issue was difficult.
I agree with you now, as I stated repeatedly back then, that if there are problems on the field with charismatic practice or with lowering baptismal requirements, that we deal with them as they come up. But, blanket policies on this eliminating groups of people seemed to be the wrong approach. I am glad that we put the decision making on this back in the hands of IMB leadership on the regional level.
As for not wanting a holy war over this, I agree. The dynamics have changed greatly in the past 10 years, both within the SBC and in the larger culture. In some ways, we are more fragmented now, but in other ways, we are more unified.
If this gets more qualified missionaries on the field, I am all for it. It if helps some to feel that they are welcomed in the missions arm of the SBC, then I am for that too. My guess is that the practice will remain the same on all accounts. Praying for unity here.
I’ve always appreciated your consistency and spirit in our baptist disagreements, Bart. Appreciate you, brother!
Well, Bart, it is possible that we will all be in concentration camps together where we can argue these points out. There we might well see people demonstrate a faith that truly glorifies God, In one of the pieces of Literature against Communism in the fifties, the writer told of nuns, mind you, who were put out of the concentration camp in the Siberian night. The next morning they were still alive, still praying, not frozen to death as the Communists had planned.
There are good people in these movements, even some who are the elect of God, but our problem is the use that some will make of the changes and the extent to which they will go or those might go who come after them.
Now that Miller is ready to gloat, suddenly I’m permitted to post comments again. Coincidence?
I must have slipped up
I do wish that you would be a little bit more oppositional here, though. You are taking the fun out of this altogether. I’m trying to figure out what a victory lap would look like on this and how I can run one and you’re being all gracious and what not. No fair. No fair at all. 🙂
There were a lot of us in opposition. Someone will be your Huckleberry for you.
Nah, I’ll let it go. Just kidding, anyway. Life moves on.
🙂
The rather young son (under 10) of one of my friends claims that things he doesn’t understand (think ‘grok’ in the sense of Heinlein and Stranger in a Strange Land) are “above his Huckleberry.” It gets an eyeroll from his dad when he does it and he knows that and it gives him glee.
I’m just sayin’…
Well, Alan, you can’t have everything.
To those who have asked for greater detail as to how these things will work, exactly:
Something Platt and his leadership team have consistently stated is the need to move from the large picture to the small. They began evaluating the organization with an eye on change, but at what he called the 40,000 foot level. They want to see the entire organization before recommending a 40,000 foot change. Once the global changes were suggested they moved down to 30,000 feet and remained.
Despite its impact on the lowest level, this changing of blanket policies regarding personnel is pretty high level. Give them time and they will work their way down to the nitty gritty. The changes are large (the last round was huge), but are thought through quite carefully.
I’m glad the policies changed back, but I sure have no desire to redraw the battle lines and return to this days
So a divorced candidate who lacks a seminary degree, has teenagers in their home, practices private glossolalia and was immersed in a non-SBC church disaffirming eternal security while practicing other forms of baptism is now eligible for appointment as some type of Southern Baptist missionary.
Well, okay, then. This seems to be important to a lot of people, and if you are one of them, congratulations.
It’s just hard for me to see how this will result in many more missionaries getting to the field. Appointments are hindered not so much by oppressive candidate qualifications as they are by inadequate funding.
Rick: Appointments were and are hindered by the former policies, where many could not be missionaries because they did not fit the former qualifications therefore they were turned away. And the number of people were and are significant.
I’m wondering where your misinformation is coming from Rick?
Debbie,
What precise information are you questioning: (a) my synthesis of the policy changes into one candidate with all the criteria addressed, or (b) my assertion that policy changes will not actually put more missionary boots on the ground since hundreds of qualified missionaries are already being held back due to funding considerations?
Debbie,
There is a waiting list of approved candidates, right? My point is that we already have more missionaries ready to send than we can afford to send.
Thus, they will still be held back by money, just not by rules.
Rick, you are correct in that sending more workers is not simply a function of changing qualifications. Money is pretty important.
Please understand that Platt and his leadership team are examining every single aspect of the organization. Qualification is simply one part. Funding is another, one that I imagine will be addressed at a different point in the change process.
Rick: In the past, when these policies were enacted, the problem was not money but the policies that disqualified many.
The chances of all of those qualities being in one candidate are zero. Why make your argument from the absurd?
The better scenario is that a candidate that was divorced because his spouse left him before he became a Christian will not be AUTOMATICALLY disqualified without considering the circumstances.
Or, candidates with special skills whose family if fully on board will not be AUTOMATICALLY disaqualified without considering the whole situation.
Or, someone with a PPL who never talks about it and does not ascribe to Charismatic theology (Charismatic theology presupposes a second Baptism of the Holy Spirit, NOT PPL), will not be AUTOMATICALLY disaqualified without considering the whole picture.
Or, someone who was baptized by immersion as a believer in Christ in an Assembly of God church at the age of 9 and then starts going to a Southern Baptist Church when they are 14 and fully accepts perseverance of the saints and is then discipled in SBC theology through college and seminary and is a member in good standing of an SBC church and affirms the BFM2000 will not be AUTOMATICALLY disqualified and his baptism declared invalid until he is re-baptized in an SBC church.
The interview/review process could still not appoint any of these people. This just means that their application is not AUTOMATICALLY thrown out because of these criteria.
That is what I am happy about and what I have always advocated.
Alan,
Indeed, my “reductio ad absurdum” rhetoric presents an unlikely scenario.
But IF such a case presented itself, nothing in the new IMB policy would AUTOMATICALLY preclude the candidate’s appointment.
I’m not nearly as invested in this issue as you are. I am happy for you if you think these rules will improve the IMB. I hope you’re right.
Rick,
Your concerns are noted and notable but here’s a real life scenario. We had a couple ready to go to a very tough place who, because or our church’s stance and their personal stance on PPL were DQ’d in the process. Furthermore, we have 4-5 in our church that have a PPL and function in what I consider a biblical manner. But I wouldn’t call us a charismatic church by any stretch. Lastly, because our people were DQ’d on the issue and our church could not send people to the field via the IMB, we disengaged with them in cooperation and lessened our financial commitment so that we could devote mission $$ to the organizations who could accept our participation.
I had significant concern about the tightening of the circle. I still have that with all SBC entities. Neither I nor our church will not have moved theologically, but we would have been outside participation in a significant effort of Baptist life.
I for one am glad they reversed the policy. We are making plans to reengage on the basis of this decision.
Our church following the pastor’s leadership (our son) uses short term missions. They sent 14 (including some children) to Haiti for a week, and they won 13 people to Christ. They also had some interesting experiences. In one case, a member (who is or has been a deacon) was asked to pray for rain (that area of Haiti was really hard hit by a drought). He prayed and shortly it started to rain, and it rained all night. One Haitian said that was the most rain they had had in seven years. The next morning someone said he ought to pray for the rain to stop, and he prayed and the rain stopped in about five minutes. (I think the team might have become worried at that point that the Haitians would not let that member leave to come home)(tongue in cheek).
Another member is on an 11 months mission tour in Central and South America. She has already been in Nicaragua, Honduras, and is now in Panama. I think the end of her mission will be in Peru. The church helped raise money for her trip, and they paid for the fourteen who went to Haiti. Short term missions have their place. Our son and his wife, while in seminary, went to Kenya and went door to door. I think they had about 41 professions.
If the rules had been different, I would have volunteered to go as a missionary with the old FMB, but having a second marriage put a stop to that. Now that the rules have changed, ill-health and an invalid wife and age put a stop to all hopes on that score. The hardest to bear was the earlier years, especially when I had heard of a radical Bultmannian who was appointed as a missionary to Europe. There was also the knowledge that other things happened that were far worse than a divorce and remarriage as it is called.
1. I trust IMB to handle the odd immersion situations.
2. PPL was never a problem in the field.
I don’t see either of these changes having much impact.
Yesterday was a good day. As it’s been noted by others, I believe there’s still a good bit that will need to be worked out where the rubber meets the road, but I appreciate the moves that are being made. Certainly bittersweet to reflect over the last decade. A lot has happened.
But you and I established our friendship because of this Russ.
Greg
That is true, Greg. Friendships were formed in 2005+ that I probably would not have had in different circumstances. I’m grateful for that.
If anyone has ever been through any aspect of IMB mission appointment, Rick’s absurdities can be seen for what they are.
The point of this is not to “lower the bar” but to remove strictures so that individuals can be viewed for their suitability one by one, case by case. Those who distrust the IMB leadership will use this as an excuse to demean them.
But the fact is that it is hard to get through the appointment process. Platt and the IMB leadership are not trying to get unqualified people through the process, but are trying to remove rules that might blocked otherwise qualified candidates from serving.
The PPL policy would have prevented the president of the IMB from being appointed as a missionary when it was adopted! A man was qualified to be president, but no longer qualified to be appointed!
We have a tough process of appointment and it will continue. There is little need to make the kind of ridiculous insinuation that Rick made above. It’s silly and insulting to the good people of the IMB. They do the best they can to vet candidates carefully.
If you have a problem with difficult questions, then it increases the need for these questions to be asked.
Honestly, I don’t know the subtext of this growing disdain for Rick, but it is clear and it is discourteous.
Let me make sure there is no subtext then. I want to be clear and plain. We have an open commenting policy here, so unless someone abuses that, we allow a wide range of views. That means that there are going to be a lot of views expressed here I do not like. Rick tends to cast aspersions and insinuations against men I respect. I don’t appreciate his views. It is consistent. Pretty much every comment has something negative about someone – usually Calvinists. I think his campaign is destructive to the SBC. I’ve communicated to him my intent to continually oppose him on this blog.
I never go on his blog and he is free to write whatever he wants there, but when he brings it here, I intend to oppose it and to oppose it directly.
I’m sorry if that offends you, but I do not intend to let Rick use this forum to spread his message without being challenged. I think his message needs to be challenged.
Again, he can write whatever he wants at his blog. I don’t read it and I won’t argue it. But when he brings it here, I intend to oppose his insinuations, derogations and accusations against the men I respect.
It is not disdain for Rick, but for his campaign of insinuation and derogation against leaders of the SBC whom he does not support. I’ve seen the damage it does and I intend to challenge his insinuations when he states them here.
But in the attempt to do this, you may at times be getting overly suspicious of Rick. You may be letting your opposition to him knock you off of considering what he says objectively. He was correct about The Village Church’s membership policy. I’m not particularly for or against Rick, but when you termed his statement about that as an accusation it struck me as uncharacteristic of you.
The problem, Ben, is that Village Church is an exception that would be dealt with at the candidate interview level. The policies for appointment are clear. All that these revisions do is allow the candidate to proceed into the interview process without being thrown out at the very beginning. If someone wasn’t immersed in believer’s baptism, then they would not proceed. What Village Church does or doesn’t do is kind of beside the point.
Yet, in the midst of discussing this Rick brings up one example as though the IMB would appoint a missionary from Village Church without applying their own policy on immersion. It really doesn’t make any sense. Why would they do that? Their own state policy that is in agreement with the BFM2000 forbids it.
I think you miss my point (if I have one). It just seemed that Dave’s response wasn’t to respond as you have, that the exception would be dealt with. It was to question whether Rick was even correct about his statement about The Village Church. And while I commend his following up to check on whether it was true, he seems to have stopped his examination too soon(perhaps an example of confirmation bias?).
I see possibilities of over-antagonism from both Dave and Rick. But given Dave’s usual concerns over how we blog (which I agree with Dave on), it seemed uncharacteristic of him.
And I’ll be straight up, Ben. Maybe blogging has gotten to me. But I’ve tried to be “Mr. Nice Guy” for 10 years, and devoted myself to bringing people together. I still intend to do that. I believe in the unity of the Body and am committed to that.
But there are some who are committed to other ends. They are not about peaceful coexistence, but about winning and about the destruction of the other side. Please hear me, I’m talking about a small fraction of Calvinists and a small fraction of non-Calvinists, the anti-Calvinist contingent. They have an agenda of division and derogation.
There are guys on the extremes – like certain “discernment” blogs and within the hardcore anti-Calvinist movement that regularly write poison pen articles about me. (I don’t read those blogs, but friends are always nice enough to let me know when they write a poison-pen letter telling the world what a sorry so-and-so I am.) I’ve found that being in the middle just made me a target for both sides in their battle. Plus, I’ve seen the detritus of the anti-Calvin campaigns in personal experience. It was ugly. I think that wing of the SBC needs to be confronted and exposed. Again, both of these camps represent the extremes – small percentages of their soteriological camps.
I have no problem with opposing Calvinism. And, I’ll be honest, a lot of Calvinists are really annoying! (Sorry, guys, but its true!) And I don’t think the Calvinist system is nearly as theologically or logically unassailable as the passionate Calvinists like to think. I respect them, and agree with some of their theology, but I’ve not bought into the system. When I oppose anti-Calvinism, it is not out of self-defense. It is because I don’t like what I see in their attitudes and approaches. On man (a non-Calvinist) described them to me in these terms. “These people really hate Calvinists.”
I’ve taken to heart Luke 6:26. Jesus said that we should not make it all goal that all men speak well of us.
I have tried to be a peacemaker and want to continue to do so. But there are those for whom peacemaking is NOT a goal – unless it is AFTER total victory. They will make peace if the other side capitulates.
So, I’ve decided to be a little more forceful at times. More direct. I may lose my “Nice Guy of the Year” trophy, but I think that may have been something that honored me more than it honored the truth or honored the Lord.
Strangely, it was dealing with the angry extremes that helped me to see that there is a time to take a stand and to be more plain.
So, when Rick posts here with his insinuations, I’m going to oppose them. I guess that will shock people, but I think Rick’s insinuations need to be countered. If he writes them over at his blog, I have no intent of pursuing him there. But if he uses this blog to advance his suspicions and derogations, I intend to answer him.
If you think less of me because of that, then you will have to think less of me.
Peacemaking is certainly a goal of mine, one which I believe is fostered by open and honest communication about concerns.
I must confess I have trouble grasping the new Dave Miller attitude toward me. I may be opinionated, but I try to share my views by addressing issues and not making it personal.
What Dave labels “insinuations” I view as simply comments. What he calls “suspicions and derogations” I see as merely concerns.
I am not an anti-Calvinist, but a non-Calvinist. (I had a Calvinist missionary from Southern speak at Christmas for the Lottie Moon emphasis.)
While I do not consider myself one of the “extreme” guys Dave is talking about, if Dave asks me never to comment here any longer, I will oblige.
But I’d rather have him just come out and say so instead of trying to drive me away with uncharacteristically harsh language. I don’t think I’m a troll. I think I’m an SBC Voice.
Go Yankees!
I wonder if that President was the son of the missionary in the Philippines who was seized from behind by a native whose language he did not speak. The missionary spoke to the man, using words that he did not know (they were the words of that man’s language), and his captor released him and took him to his village. Or maybe the President was the missionary. I heard about this experience, when I was pastoring in Missouri back in the 60s. Since I was unable to get confirmation about it, I have been slow to cite it. In any case, speaking in another language, one that person does not know (who is the speaker), and it is used to win the person from another country to Christ, that is not the same thing as PPL.
A friend heard the Founder of the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship tell people they could get tongues by going la, la,, saying the words faster and faster. My friend’s response, who had been raised an Orthodox Jew and had been converted to Christ and was called to the ministry, was, “That is ridiculous. A gift of tongues works without such a practice.” He took seriously the statement that “tongues shall cease.”
I think that old time blogging has ushered in the idea that proposing a question in hypothetical form is somehow now divisive. Not sure why that is but it sure seems that way. Asking the hypothetical questions is needed. Seeing the big picture of potential problems and impacts should never be discouraged. Taking a few steps back to think of the these impacts is more than important. I would hope that we would all understand this. Everyone of us will be dealing with MAJOR decisions in relation to religious liberty very soon. And the path that Rick took with his questions is the path we all better take. I am never afraid of questions. Why are some?
In relation to the decision, the Trustee system is our system and they have made a decision. As to the effects of this decision down the road, only time will reveal the good, bad, confused, mess, or success. I would simply state that this policy does nothing in providing new pathways until the pathways are funded. And that leaves me scratching my head.
How about we give the imb credit for having amplification up on this business within one day?
http://www.bpnews.net/44755/imb-and-churches-limitless-missionary-teams
Platt is listed as author but maybe he had help.
Criticize my friend Rick Patrick for questions and speculations? Read closely…looks like some of the piece was tailored as a response to him, certainly answers his conjectures.
This is a pretty considerable advance in message management by our venerable flagship entity.
Granted. Kudos to IMB for clarifying their new policy. This piece gives all the information we need that was lacking in the BP story.
Another way of looking at it would be that you are being watched, bro. Keep an eye out for drones.
And all of that perspective is exactly as I assumed that it would be and is pretty much how it was pre-November 2005. The current policy is all that we have ever asked for. It seems very healthy to me and exactly what we should be seeking to produce in our churches.
I am glad for the further explanation, but I would have expected nothing less.
David Platt lays out here what he personally believes about tongues and PPL. About exactly the same view I have been defending here for a couple of years. But maybe he does a better job of explaining it than I have.
https://vimeo.com/71843247
A step in the right direction. Now, if IMB would get rid of the requirement of having missionary personnel sign the BFM, that would be progress. Missionaries need to be trusted and free, after being deemed ready to serve overseas and elsewhere.