Since hearing the report from the IMB trustees yesterday, I have done a good bit of reflecting about how the IMB policy on baptism affected me personally and shaped me as I actively engaged in Baptist life. I cannot fully describe the feelings I have about this important change or what this means to me personally. I have long believed that our mission boards ought to represent all the churches in fellowship with the Convention. If a church’s requirements are in line with the consensus of Baptist beliefs (i.e., the BFM 2000) they should be allowed to serve and not denied by the additional doctrinal requirements of a small group of trustees. I am thankful that our IMB trustees have restructured these policies to what I believe is a more biblical and Baptist standard.
But this issue in SBC politics has shaped me in a number of significant ways over the past 9 years and forced upon me a number of decisions about how I would engage in denominational life and, more profoundly, what kind of man did I want to be.
To Blog or not to Blog, that was the question
It is fair to say that I cut my blogging teeth on this issue. The issue was quite personal to me. I marveled at the irony of my situation. My path from a teenage believer in the Assemblies of God to a convictional Baptist and then graduate of Southern Seminary made me in the eyes of some simultaneously too Calvinist and too Arminian to be a missionary. I found myself affirming a doctrinal statement that allowed for latitude on tertiary issues while a number of my brothers sought to “narrow doctrinal parameters” beyond this statement in a way that excluded me. I found myself an outsider in the Convention I loved and have been a part of for decades.
Early on, however, I had to decide if I would blog on these kinds of issues at all. To say I am opinionated is quite the understatement. The question was whether I should state my opinions about these issues in such a public forum as blogging. As a younger evangelical, I clamored to have my voice heard and “have a place at the table.” I had to evaluate whether my desire to blog was fueled by selfish ambition and pride and a desire to be known, or did I actually have something to contribute? That is a question with which I still wrestle today. Added to the decision, too, was the fact that many key leaders saw the new medium of blogging as a threat and were harshly critical of bloggers and the Baptist blogosphere.
Ultimately, I decided to join the discussion. I would not be intimidated by those who saw blogging as a threat to the status quo or by others who labeled all bloggers as troublemakers. Still, I quickly realized that blogging was a medium that could easily generate more heat than light, that it too often brought out the worst in people, that it tempted me to write from emotion rather than thoughtful reflection, and that it could either be used to foster division or unity. I became a kind of on-again/off-again blogger fueled somewhat by a stewardship of time but, more often, because blogging was often a soul-draining experience, toxic to my spiritual life.
Nevertheless, I wrote much on the IMB baptism policies, both on my own (now dormant) blog and in the comment streams of others. I set about making the case that the IMB policies demonstrated a faulty view of baptism, a gross mis-understanding of Arminian theology, and a shutting out of cooperating, Bible-believing, BFM2000 affirming Baptists from mission service. The policies were inherently flawed and needed to be replaced. I joined the larger movement of Southern Baptists that formed its Baptist identity around our statement of faith but rejected the tribalism that isolated Southern Baptists from the larger evangelical world or camps within the SBC from each other.
I voted for the Garner motion, the GCR, the name change, ethnic diversity in Convention leadership, and Dave Miller for VP. I engaged on these issues and more in the Baptist blogosphere always speaking for those issues I cared about but also striving for unity and cordial debate on these important issues.
What Kind of Blogger would I be?
I also had to make a decision as a blogger, how would I engage in this conversation? I knew I had something to say, but had to make a decision about what kind of blogger I would be.
I observed that reasoned debate and legitimate questions too often got mixed with emotional tirades, and an unwillingness to engage each other honestly. I was frustrated by the tone of blogging generally, but also saw the positives of such open and rigorous debate on important issues. In my own personal reaction to the issue, I found myself sometimes behaving poorly (in the early days following the decision, for example, I was mouthing off in the Seminary hall to the VP’s assistant and found myself on the receiving end of a stern admonishment from the Dean).
At some point, as I began commenting on various blogs, I made the decision that if I had something to say, I should be willing to put my name on it. So I made it my practice to fully identify myself, using my full name or including my email. That kept me accountable and I’ve found that to be a good practice for me. On my own blog, I knew I could not be a “watchdog” blogger, having neither the inside information, time to do the kind of research required, or the stomach to play that role. While such shedding of light on such issues is often needed, that kind of blogging was wearying to me. I found my personal bent is to err on the side of naiveté rather than cynicism.
I also found that too often in the Baptist blogosphere, discussion of important issues degenerated into ad hominem attacks, conspiracy theories, mischaracterizations, assumptions of motive, accusations of cronyism, and general mean-spiritedness. I made a conscious decision at that point that I would refrain from that kind of writing and engage as best I could in a unifying way. I would not shy away from tough questions and reasoned debate, but made a decision to not assume motives or engage in personal attacks. I appealed to others to follow suit. Some issues I avoided altogether.
Something happened, however, as I engaged on the Baptism policy issue. I found that some of the men with whom I disagreed were the same men whom I considered role models of Christian leadership and maturity. In my interactions with these men, I found that most of those with whom I disagreed were godly, humble servants, who were trying to serve the Lord. As I got to know other bloggers personally as well, I grew to have a great love and respect for these men. Some of these interactions grew into friendships. I found myself praying for and celebrating these men, even as I disagreed with them on this and other important issues.
Would I continue to support the SBC, Lottie, CP?
Similar to my decisions about blogging, I had to make a decision about my participation and support of SBC missions. Would I continue to personally support and lead my church to support Lottie Moon, the Cooperative Program and the SBC when I felt increasingly treated as an outsider to this Convention I loved? Could I be bold in my opposition to these policies, possibly solidifying my outsider status, while still loving my brothers, giving them whenever possible the benefit of the doubt, and working alongside them to see the gospel go forward?
I remember an early emotional outburst to my Missions Professor at Southern. “Until these policies are reversed, I will not give another dime to Lottie Moon!” I angrily proclaimed. Upon some good counsel, and further reflection, I reversed that position. I realized that God was bigger than my personal concerns or even the SBC. I had to remember too, that even if sometimes bad decisions are made, that God is sovereign. God will work bad policies together for good. No errant decision would thwart his will. Ultimately, I made the choice for continued cooperation.
While I remained unsure about the future of the Convention and whether, ultimately, there would be a place for me here, I chose to stay, engage and fully participate. I honestly believed the SBC was at a crossroads and would either move toward a tribalism and continued narrowing, or would embrace the unity in diversity pictured in the Baptist Faith and Message.
As I continued to engage, the IMB Baptism policy still left a bad taste in my mouth. Though I disagreed on key issues, however, I observed in many leaders (even some of the architects of the policy) an earnest desire to see the gospel go to the nations and a desire to cooperate across the Baptist spectrum to see that happen. As time progressed, I saw other actions of the trustees to be missiologically sound and wise.
While the conversation took place and continues to do so, I have never stopped supporting the IMB and have led my church to give generously to support missions. In my disagreement, I chose to work for change, accept the dissonance, and choose to continue to support our cooperative work. I believed that the overall positive benefits of association far outweighed the bumps in the road. Whether the policy was ever reversed, I would continue to champion SBC missions. Missions support was more important than my personal stake.
In the interim years where no change was forthcoming, the IMB personnel policies forced us as Southern Baptists to have a conversation about what it means to be Southern Baptist and what kind of Convention we want to be. That conversation continues today.
The most important Lessons
I’m glad I entered the Baptist blogosphere and am thankful for the influence bloggers have had over the years. The lessons I’ve learned in this decade of debate are many. I’ve gained perspective from those who don’t think like I do and have been stretched to articulate and defend my positions, and even change my mind sometimes. I have learned how to disagree without being disagreeable. I’ve learned that God is bigger than SBC and our Baptist squabbles. I learned, even as I sought to be included, that Baptist Identity was indeed important and that clearly articulating that identity is not a misguided effort. I’ve learned that Christian brotherhood transcends our Baptist Identity conversation. I’ve learned that many, if not most, of those with whom I have disagreed on these issues are godly, spirit-filled men and women who want the same things I do. I’ve learned the true care and concern of these brothers for me personally even as we remain on opposite sides of certain key issues. I’ve learned the SBC is an awesome collection of believers who are like-minded where it really counts.
All in all, I believe that yesterday’s decision was the right one and I’ve long anticipated this day. The change was needed. Not all will agree. But I’m well past the days where I thought this policy issue was the most important one. I am much more thankful for what these years of SBC life have meant for me: Increased involvement, an appreciation for brothers who disagree with me, true friendships across the Baptist “fault lines”, a shared love for the gospel, and a desire to see the gospel go to the nations. May we continue to move forward together in this great cooperative work!
Todd for President!
Welcome back!
The entire article is well written and thought provoking but your last two paragraphs are an absolute gem! It describes my heart and what I am seeking to learn and practice – I’m still a work in progress – seeming to often take a step forward in the direction you are arriving at and then finding myself taking two back because of my stubborn pride.
I have only met you one time and we have conversed some over FB messaging – but I am comfortable in saying publicly that my admiration and respect for you continues to grow – Thank you, Todd.
How about 2nd Vice President.
Almost anyone can win that office!
Wow, thanks for the endorsement, but I’ll be voting for Dave Miller.
Well written, Todd. Like you, I celebrate yesterday’s decision. As we have discussed many times in person, the baptism policy was theological faulty and restricted the boundaries of service beyond that of the Baptist Faith and Message. I, too, have had my career altered from my original plans because of tribes within the convention which have restricted the boundaries of service, rather than fully embracing the Baptist Faith and Message. Thankfully, we serve a God who has His own plans, and He takes care of business. This is, in my judgment, one small victory, but hopefully one of many where our churches and institutions begin to embrace the Baptist Faith and Message more fully. Thanks for sharing. I’m glad to see that the Lord has taught you much since our times eating lunch on the third floor of the SBTS library. I know I’ve grown more than I could have anticipated. But that story for another time. . . .
It is amazing how many of us got into blogging because of this issue.
Those who started in on blogs after this issue faded probably have no idea how things were back then.
It was the Wild West of blogging back then. Entity heads would send you emails. It was a proxy war between Baptist Identity guys and whatever we all were who opposed the policies. Friendships formed and debates raged. It was interesting, to say the least.
Good post, Todd. Much of what you chronicle here is my own story – at least how I saw things. These were important discussions and I could not understand why we were restricting who could be missionaries when there were no real problems. I am very glad to see the policies change. Lots of words printed over the years on all of this.
Thanks for your writing and your part in it all. You have represented yourself well and it has been good to get to know you over the past few years.
Todd, I appreciate your candor and your willingness to stay engaged with the SBC and IMB despite the troubling policies you mentioned. I suspect one motivation for the changes mentioned this week is that they are in line with the practice David Platt had at his church on PPL, Baptism and divorce. I suspect they majority of trustees are from churches with similar practices. William Thornton just gave a link to Platt’s excellent explanation of the changes. He seemed to emphasis that they are trying to put policies in line with what the BF&M says and not place unnecessary burdens on our missionaries or those seeking appointment above the BF&M requirements. This is almost exactly what Wade Burleson was saying when this issue first surfaced.
I was serving with the IMB when all this took place. Wade first took to the blog sphere when he observed a small group of trustees plotting how to get rid of Jerry Rankin. Most of us felt the policy on PPL was passed in an attempt to embarrass Rankin over his use of a PPL. This had not been an issue before. Even before Jerry Rankin was president we had received letter from Richmond saying that any public use or over emphasis on PPL would result in termination. The baptism policy seemed to be driven from the fact that there was a strong group of landmark trustees who wanted this policy. Most of the trustees probably were not concerned about this but did not want to make the landmarkers mad.
Wade Burleson was like the kid who yelled the emperor has no clothes. These types of actions had been taking place for many years and people knew but none were willing to speak the truth. Keith Parks was attacked much in the same way that Jerry Rankin was but there was no blog world at that time and no trustee with the courage to challenge those who were slandering our missionaries and staff. I think that at the convention this summer in a spirit of confession and repentance and preparation for revival the chairman of the IMB trustees ought to invite Wade to the podium and apologize and ask forgiveness of Wade on behalf of the trustees. They are doing today exactly what Wade was asking to be done 10 years ago.
In those early days of blogging, some important things came to light in regard to some of the backroom politicking and to the faulty thinking behind some of the policies themselves. That first wave of Baptist bloggers included a wide range from thoughtful, engaging reflection to raging, toxic personal attacks. And, while the blogosphere brought these serious issues to light, much of what was written did little to convince and, in my opinion, actually hindered us from seeing the needed changes. My choices on HOW to blog were partly a result of my reaction to some of the blogging that argued my POV, but did so in a highly destructive and divisive way. My approach was to try to convince, and in the process, hear the real concerns of brothers who saw things differently than I.
At the same time, the last decade has seen a growing consensus among the messengers that we want to put the divisions behind us and move on to working together for the gospel. I’ll wait for our resident historian, Alan Cross, to write his promised “How we got here” piece, but let me mention a few things. First, every vote that could be taken as a choice between “narrowing doctrinal parameters” (to use Wade’s phrase) and a broader, BFM2000-sufficeint cooperation has decidedly been on the side of cooperation. To name a few: the surprise election of Frank Page, the Garner motion, the name-change option, the election of Dave Miller as 2nd VP. Other cooperation measures have been led by leadership and across ideological lines. So while I do believe Platt has played a significant role, the Convention as a whole has been moving in this direction for some time and these changes, upon his appointment, were kind of a capstone of a decade of moving toward a more unified Convention and a Baptist identity formed around the unity in diversity displayed in the BFM200.
Overall, the past ten years have seen a growing consensus among SBC leaders and messengers that working together for the gospel is more important than the tertiary issues and Baptist “fault lines” that threaten to divide. I do not want to fight, I love my brothers that disagree with me on some of these issues and have found that forging friendships, having spirited cordial dialogue, and a genuine love for one another is the way I want to go.
Todd,
I was already planning on that 10 year retrospective last week and have been thinking about it as a way to preview the convention. The IMB changing these policies just caps it all off in a pretty interesting way.
Well, I’ll look forward to it. History was never my strong suit, but it has been an encouraging 10 years.
Henry Blackaby once wrote the following, “Revival has always been, and remains to this day, God dealing with the sin of His own — not the world. Therefore, if we never recognize our need for repentance of sin, then our call for revival is in vain. “
Agreed. And I, for one, think we’ve come a long way in 10 years. I know I have.