SBC MISSIONS REDUX: This is a follow up post

... to an earlier CRIB post. My hope is it helps rather than muddies already muddy IMB Trustee waters.

A commentor on that post got me to thinking; as a bona fide supporter of the conservative resurgence in the SBC, did I do the right thing in supporting them? By the "them" in that question I mean the Judge, Paige, Adrian, Jimmy, Richard, Charles, Jerry, Morris, et al.

I've met several of these guys and can't remember anything I could criticize; they were accessible, open, soft-spoken, and godly men.

But now their followers are being spoken of in terribly harsh terms (e.g., power brokers, grand poo-bahs, puppet masters, old guys, etc,); terms I recall being used against those who stood up against the resurgence when I supported it.

This should worry anyone who's participated in a purifying movement within a denomination.

From what I can gather >a discrepancy exists between the published complaints of the IMB Trustees and the actual complaints of the same. If that is the case, nothing can be resolved until those official or "actual" objections are made public. What can we know outside of what we are told?

However, some of the reports are reaching Southern Baptists through the filter of lawyers, the press (two groups I've little confidence or trust in), and official spokespeople. And much of the latter is second or third hand.

We do have some eye and ear witness accounts from a couple of trustees who were on scene ... men I do not known. I prefer to side with witness who speak out publicly rather than through obscure filters and secrecy.

Bowden McElroy at Counseling Notes gives us a recent first hand report ...

Wade Burlson spoke at the Tulsa Metro Association of Baptist Churches (TMABC) [the other day].

... he was well received by the pastors present. If there was anyone there who was disappointed or who disagreed with Wade, I don't know who they were. My first observation was this: young and old alike were supportive. ... I expected those over 65 to be resistant to what Wade had to say. I expected blind loyalty to the IMB in spite of the issues. I know many of those men have no idea what a blog is. Nevertheless, they were supportive of Wade's attempt to call attention to the narrowing of the parameters of cooperation. ...

This narrowing of parameters is a huge bone of contention for Burleson, me, and many others. I believe those I know who were part of the resurgence would agree.

McElroy continued ...

... I was truly surprised to hear Wade say that at least one trustee was in his 16th year on the board. Sixteen years! We have over 16 million members of SBC churches and some board members are serving multiple terms? I just don't understand that. ...

I seem to remember a great deal of hoopla about finding younger leaders and integrating them into the life of the denomination.

Jimmy Draper has been calling for the convention to discover younger people to rise up and lead the great SBC ship into the future, I don't see from here how this is brouhaha is helpful.

At least one blogger is calling the convention to the right action ... the joseph kennedy experiment, he suggests, and I agree, that prayer for the IMB and the SBC is essential at this juncture. TJKE offers his own ...

Father, if those of us on the opposing end of the new IMB policies are in open rebellion against you and your Word, I pray that you would convict us of our sin and correct us through your Word and by your authority. I pray that you would allow us to humbly repent from our rebellion, if that is what we are doing. Likewise, I pray that if a small group is attempting to exert control over the majority you would humble and convict them, so they fall on their knees in repentance. You call us to work together in faithful unity, and that is what I cherish in the SBC. Give us your guidance, so that we would live for you, rejoice in you, and cooperate in you.

To highlight the confusion coursing through this controversy, SBC Outpost calls our attention to ancient convention history by sharing a section on tongues from a commentary by Paige Patterson ...

Many thanks to Benjamin S. Cole, pastor in Arlington, TX, for sending me this excerpt from Dr. Patterson's commentary on 1 Corinthians called, The Troubled, Triumphant Church. ...

"Paul then arrived at the conclusion of the whole matter. The church was to covet the gift of prophecy and was not to forbid speaking with tongues. 'Forbid' means to 'hinder,' 'restrain,' or 'prevent.' The statement once again emphasizes the relative unimportance of tongues in comparison with prophecy. However, the Corinthians were not to prevent speaking with tongues. Precisely what Paul meant by this must be understood in the light of the total emphasis of chapter 14. The Corinthian effort at tongues had been reduced in every conceivable way to a position of relative unimportance.

"In addition to this, six principles governing the use of tongues in the Corinthian congregation have already been given, and a seventh will follow in the last verse. These principles effectively circumscribe the use of tongues altogether in the assembly of believers.

"Nevertheless, for two reasons Paul said that tongues are not to be forbidden. First, he had already allowed that if one engaged in ecstatic utterance in privacy, while there was no real significance, edification, or meaning to be found in it, it was not thereby evil or wrong. That private experience might be permitted to the person.

"In the second place, Paul knew that the Acts phenomenon of speaking the wonderful works of God in a language in which the speaker was untutored had really happened. Furthermore, Paul knew that under the right circumstances it might happen again. The necessity for the revival of the sign gifts such as tongues seems to be unlikely, but Paul did allow the possibility."

Patterson, Paige. The Troubled, Triumphant Church: An Exposition of First Corinthians. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002. pp. 268-9. (reprint ??)

Now, we could argue 'til the cows come home on the nuances of his interpretation, but we all know that will get us nowhere. The real issue is that we have moved from a position of openness toward any supposed prayer language, as espoused here by Patterson, and a friendliness toward charismatics, espoused by Pressler to a closing of the circle as demonstrated by the IMB trustees.

A commentor at SBC Outpost responded in this way ...

... I must say I am entirely confused. Patterson espouses a very open, attractive expression of denominational polity in his Shofar Papers from 1980, at least from the quote you put up. He espouses, as does Pressler, a view of tongues that is intellectually honest as far as I am concerned as recently as 2002. If that openness and that toleration exist in him, then how does (sic) his followers then create such a rigid view of polity and such a restrive view of tongues?

Either his followers have extended his beliefs, especially in regards to tongues, and tried to clamp down on the polity issue more than he subscribes or he is leading them to weed out people he just doesn't like and trying to invoke landmarkism back within the church. If that is the case, then he should speak out against these policies, which he hasn't. The opposite it true I believe, where he is actually in support of them.

My feeling is that he doesn't want to be seen as leading the charge but is involved in moving the pieces while others lead the public march.

It also seems to me that the lack of consistancy from him only leads to the conclusion that if he is the puppetmaster, it is truly about controlling the boards and agencies and pushing his own brand of ecclesiological theology, regardless of the concensus of doctrinal teaching throughout the evangelical world. And it would seem to me that he simply believes that regardless of what he espouses in those writings it really doesn't matter; otherwise he would not agree with the policies and would speak out against them. IF that is true, I call that a lack of leadership at best, a lack of integrity at worst. ...

SBC Outpost responded to the above with the same frustration I feel and is the source of my earlier question ("did I do the right thing in supporting them?").

The question is not whether Patterson might support the new IMB policies. He has written to me that he, in fact, does. Now, how he reconciles that with his published thoughts in that commentary is beyond my ability to comprehend.

According to one SBC blogger Burleson's point is that ...

the battle between conservatives and liberals in the convention has moved to being a battle between crusading conservatives and cooperating conservatives.

Avoiding Evil asks and answers another question that is not going to be answered anytime soon ... "Why?"

I think there is more to this whole issue than we are seeing, however, the main issue is over the two new policies that forbid the appointment of any missionary who uses a "private" prayer language or one who has not been baptized by a "qualified administrator" of baptism.

Click Here to see a more detailed look at the new policies.

With regard to the baptism issue let me just say I get the feeling Burleson may have over interpreted this one ... on the other hand I don't really know what part this plays in the issue since the IMB clearly stated their issue with this well-intentioned "gadfly" (as they would describe him) has not to do with either of the policy changes.

Not every one is supportive of Burleson, some support him on the issue but not on his approach.

While I appreciate Wade Burleson's courage to stand up for what he believes in and I don't condemn him for his stance, I do take issue with how he has handled himself in this manner.

The issues for the CRIB (me) are multiple:

• one is the impression our foreign mission board leaves regarding the "private prayer language" of the candidate. I do not believe we ought to be messing with a believer's personal relationship with God. Isn't that what Romans 14:1-4 speaks to?
• another is the narrowing issue; I'm a strict conservative inerrantist but I'm smart enough to know I don't know it all and that there are many non-essential doctrines and positions that are open to some debate. Baptism isn't, tongues is! Narrowing is the devil's playpen.
• third is the issue of secrecy, my gosh haven't we learned secrecy is for the Masons, Mormons, and Rosicrucians? It simple isn't biblical! Period!
• And lastly is the issue of unofficial caucuses. Lordy I hate politics and that's what these pinstriped cliques are, politics and "the good ol'boy" system at the worst.

Satan must be splitting a gut!

Rationally, it would be unwise for Burleson to remain as a trustee; the controversy, no matter how it ends, has in effect disenfranchised him. Plus, to bring this to the floor of the convention would only exaserpate the situation and muddy the waters for many messengers who go as a social outing and not as a duty. Wade's best chance is to resign before the issue goes that far and continue his fight outside the politics.

John Armstrong, whom I don't know, but writes like I think, has this to say about the decision, by the IMB, it is ...

...really part of a larger picture of the conservative take-over of the SBC over the last twenty-plus years. Many, like me, prayed for these conservatives in the SBC but now the present leadership leaves us seeking to make some sense of these kinds of decisions.

I have no desire to be offensive I assure you, but what on earth were these folks thinking at the IMB when they passed a decision to inject their brand of Baptist politics into the private prayer lives of future missionaries? This is more sectarian than the old Landmark Baptist heresy which I fought as a child. (This heresy suggested that the Baptist church was the true church!)

I would hate to answer to God for passing a policy statement that bands (sic) what God makes permissible. I would also hate to explain Holiday Inn Expres (sic) theology to serious Christians who wanted to go to the mission field with my denominational agency. ... (HT: Missional Baptist Blog)

Armstrong is one who believes the move is towards neo-Landmarkism, I don't agree but sympathize with the feeling and fear.

The most common-sensical statement I've read was at Founders Ministries Blog ...

The IMB trustee chairman should not think that he can simply stand before the SBC and say, "trust us," and receive a sympathetic hearing. Those days are over. Trust will return when honesty, openness and integrity are put on prominent display. We could use some huge doses of these virtues at the present hour. [Tom Aschol]

Howie Lvzus an irreverent, former Southern Baptist blogger offers this insight ...

Many Baptists have viewed the first policy [tongues] to be a direct attack on Jerry Rankin, the IMB's president, because he has openly admitted to the practice of having a "private prayer language." Several of the SBC leaders I have spoken with see this not as a doctrinal issue, but a political jab at Rankin. Three of the leaders I have discussed this issue with have claimed that the IMB trustees from Texas, under the direction of Paige Patterson, have led the charge because Patterson does not approve of Rankin being the IMB president. (For Patterson's role in SBC life read this.)

Baptists also disagree with the second policy [administration of baptism] because it is "unbiblical" and seems to be too closely aligned with "Landmarkism," a belief that "a "Baptist succession" may be traced from John the Baptist to modern Baptist churches in which believer’s baptism and Landmark principles have prevailed.”

Considerable heat is building behind the scenes of SBC life, heat of the explosive destructive kind. The tone and the grammar give me the feeling I might have if the twelve sons of Jacob ran into the Holy Place to remove their tribe's shewbread. I wish I could say what I feel better than what I say I say. Some do.

This is a time of conflict in the SBC, pointing fingers and name-calling are not mature reactions; sin is everywhere present in our body and the decay I've long suspected is beginning to show. Now is the time when authentic Christian leaders will be called upon to act Christ-like ... a tall order from what I've witnessed.

The SBC is known for several things - cooperation, missions, potlucks, in-fighting, and being a "people of the book." Only two of those are true any more, the others are faux attributes.

BTW: The answer to my original question is, "Yes!" I did right in supporting those guys then in that context; now I'm older, wiser, and more of a cynic than then! Besides I don't know who the other guys are, but it's time to move over and let some of you young guys take over. This isn't the the Kingdom of God and the SBC isn't the New Jerusalem!

TAGS: Baptists, Wade Burleson, Christian, IMB, Missions,
SBC, Southern Baptists