It’s not news that there are messengers who take to the floor microphones and have questions for our entity heads and it isn’t surprising that David Platt, IMB CEO, will be fielding such over the recently announced IMB personnel policies. What makes me curious about this is an article in the Southern Baptist Texan, news arm of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention on the subject.
Messengers encouraged to “take to the microphones” over IMB policy changes
The changes that deal with divorce, private prayer languages, and missionary candidate families with teen children would naturally raise questions, I suppose. the Texan article gives voice to one prominent critic, former IMB trustee Lonnie Wascom of Louisiana. Wascom even is quoted as suggesting a question for Platt. Here it is:
“Is it correct that a couple with multiple marriages, saved in a tradition such as the United Methodist church, baptized by any mode considered ‘meaningful’ to the candidate, who may also consider ecstatic utterance to be a normal manifestation of one’s salvation, will now be supported by the Cooperative Program and Lottie Moon Christmas Offering funds?”
I’d call that a cheap shot question but there’s no rule against them. I’ve asked a few myself.
Our entity heads work for us and should answer, respectfully and forthrightly, whatever question makes it to the floor. There’s no possibility of the convention doing anything about it because it’s a trustee matter. Seems like the changes were received favorably here. Maybe not so favorably elsewhere.
Sorry I will not be there.
I saw the Texan article a day or two ago and thought it was pretty ridiculous. Whatever. People can ask questions and they’ll get good answers.
That is the kind of petty twisting of the policies that we’ve seen. It’s sad. It evidences a failure to show even basic goodwill and civility – as if that were the intent of the trustees.
We had a couple such pathetic comments here.
The good thing is that the person who says something that ridiculous from a mic will get an answer. It may be a memorable moment like when a certain Georgia boy tried to challenge a seminary president a couple years back and got his quite an answer.
I’m guessing David Platt would love the opportunity to answer such questions.
🙂
I believe we should ask hard questions of this new policy. If EACH of these new criteria do not disqualify someone, then the combination of all of them does not do so either. It is quite reasonable for those who take the alternative view to stack them all together as the “ultimate case scenario.” As I understand it, however, while such a candidate may not be appointed, he would not be automatically disqualified either. I think that is where Wascom overstates his case—the new policy doesn’t say that such persons WILL be appointed; it just denies that they will be… Read more »
If someone wants to ask the question, go for it. But if you ask a silly question, you risk looking silly. The policies as they now stand do one thing – they remove automatic disqualifications so that responsible personnel can make their decisions on a case-by-case basis. The idea that we are going to send ridiculously unqualified missionaries as you stated in a previous comment is just not what is going on. Any messenger has the right to ask questions. But someone who simply takes the time to read what has been written – and does so with goodwill –… Read more »
Rick, I’m curious. Why is it that you believe that the SBC will not take a definitive position on the biblical legitimacy or illegitimacy of praying in tongues in private? If the convention were to do that, wouldn’t that settle this issue? You show a lot of “John Wayne spirit”; why don’t you ask the convention to decide their position on continuationism vs. cessationism? We don’t need to keep battling over this matter. We need to stake out a position & live with it, no matter the consequences. If the Lifeway Poll that stated 51% of SBC persons believed in… Read more »
Dwight,
Be careful citing that poll as definitive – “Legitimacy” of tongues depends on the definition the respondent holds when answering the question.
For example I hold tongues are legit – but don’t embrace ecstatic utterances. So I would be in the 51% you mention in poll – but I’d seperate from others in common practice.
By seperate I mean disagree.
Tarheel,
Who mentioned “ecstatic utterance”? Paul referenced “tongues” in 1 Corinthians 14: 2-4 as “talking to God”. It is cognitive content understood by God, according to Paul. It is private conversations, between Hod and the one praying. My question has nothing to do with “ecstatic utterance”. The question is, who won’t the SBCtaje a definitive position on “praying in tongues in private” based on Paul’s testimony & teaching in 1 Corinthians 14- 2-4?
Would u please answer that question without changing the discussion to “ecstatic utterance.” Paul didn’t mention that, neither am I.
I only mention that to demonstrate that not everyone who would answer yes in that poll would support “blanket” acceptance regarding the use of tongues.
Ok. Gotcha. I do not agree that Paul is teaching what you imply in 1 Cor. 14.
I contend that tongues spoken by humans are human languages.
I also believe the spiritual gift of tongues is God enabling someone to speak or hear a human language they did not already know.
And, that speaking in tongues is simply speaking in human languages.
I believe God has, and occasionally does today, give the gift of tongues, human languages.
Therefore, in one sense I am a continuationist, even though I do not agree with the modern day tongues speaking (ecstatic utterance, heavenly language).
The former LifeWay Survey really did not include my view at all.
And, many, past and present, do hold my view.
David R. Brumbelow
Yep, that was my point, too – David B.
David B., Tarheel,
Regardless to how we define it, don’t we need to make a decision so this won’t constant source of conflict?
Dwight,
Probably not.
David R. Brumbelow
I think David is right here. A decision has been made by the trustees and we need no further word.
Dwight, First, I don’t think the new policy rules one way or the other on PPL. Rather, I think it says it will no longer use PPL to automatically disqualify on the front end, but if it becomes a public problem, they reserve the right to deal with it on the back end. Second, I think the only way the convention could address this theological issue would be in an official revision of the BFM. No motion from the floor will change our official position on PPL, and unless the people on the platform want to review the BFM, it… Read more »
BFM revision on tongues would be both impractical and provoke the equivilant of WWWIII – as the varied positions on this non essential issue would cause division in places that are unnecessary.
Actually, I was surprised last year to find that a simple motion, passed at the SBC, can change the BFM.
When the Ex Com was working on some of their policies I was considering options and found that a simple motion to change the BF&M could be voted and adopted immediately.
Would it be? probably referred.
Dwight, I don’t want to have a cessationist battle any more than I want to have a vote to ban a more Calvinistic Soteriology. Why can’t we all just get along??? (Sorry couldn’t resist.)
But the bottom line is there are many folks I disagree with on both these issues who I admire, respect and would be honored to work with side by side.
Rick I think you’re right that we need ti ask hard questions when we are concerned about the decisions made at the top of our SBC Boards and Agencies. But there good ways and bad ways to ask a question. The question worded above is tacky at the very least.
The way you worded it as a ‘stacking’ of these items or an ‘ultimate case scenario’ is a less accusative and more gracious way of expressing this concern.
Lonnie Wascom is simply having a hard time swallowing a bitter pill since the policies he fought to enact at the IMB during his tenure as a trustee have now been convincingly and cooperatively overturned. Unlike the contentious passage of foolish policies in 2005, the rejection of those policies in 2015 was gracious and peaceful.
I value questions, but I pray that ridiculous questions aren’t the focus of the IMB address. Thankful for David Platt and the missionary heart of so many our IMB folks on the field. May we unite around the gospel to reach and teach more.
Thankful Pastor
Abe Hodges
Lonnie’s suggested question bothers me so I looked at the actual policy and how the IMB answered some concerns. This is directly from the IMB website: In regards to baptism: Q: Does this change mean that someone can become an IMB missionary even if they were not baptized by immersion? A: No. In light of the statement on baptism in the Baptist Faith and Message, any potential IMB missionary must have been baptized by immersion as a symbol of his or her faith in Christ. In regards to divorce: Q: Does this change mean that people who have been divorced… Read more »
BP has a story with more on the former trustee who raises the questions. He was chair of the IMB trustee subcommittee that put in the PPL policy. Stands to reason that he would be miffed at its being ditched.
doesn’t stand to reason that he would be so illogical in his suggestion of a question…
Dwight, You asked a question: “The question is, who won’t the SBC take a definitive position on “praying in tongues in private” based on Paul’s testimony & teaching in 1 Corinthians 14- 2-4?” Now I can’t answer for the SBC. But I can guess. The answer is that they see no definitive position. It’s ambiguous. Now its not ambiguous to you. Nor is it to me. But we disagree. So why do they want to alienate you by siding with what I believe? And why would they want to alienate me by siding with what you believe? Even though we… Read more »