12 Witnesses

I have been following with grave concern the events that have taken place over the last couple of weeks in regards to the International Mission Board (IMB). Last week, the trustees voted to ask the SBC to expel from their midst a member of their board. From all accounts, this is a thing never to have happened before.

The controversy surrounds his disagreement with some in the board over new policies implemented governing the appointment of new missionaries. I give you a link to his blog here, and you can review his position and get more information.

My blog will not detail his struggle, as he can do it far better than I. I want to address the future of the SBC. I am a younger pastor (30’s) and have been a SB all of my life. My family has SB heritage through uncles, cousins and grandparents. We are all SB, and about half are in ministry.

This is not why the SBC is important to me, though. The SBC holds my attention and participation for two reasons. The first is that my beliefs are well represented and I am free to practice my faith as a Biblical evangelical. In other words, I have a community of like faith. The second reason is an extension of the first. I join with this community, and those who were before us, to reach out across the world to share the Gospel with others, creating the greatest missionary sending body of the New Testament era, in my opinion.

I don’t want to lose this platform for evangelism. I am afraid that we may have already lost it.

The fallout from the decision to restrict our missionaries beyond the Scripture and even beyond the Baptist Faith and Message is going to be that the leadership of the Convention will so narrow the mindset of our missionaries - and later our churches and seminaries - into an acute reflection of themselves that the rest of us will simply leave. This will make the SBC both uniform and small.

A comment left on Wade Burleson’s blog is from a Missionary living in the 1040 window is profound and I want to reprint it here for your perousal. (The 1040 window is an area between 10 and 40 degrees north latitude and is one of the spiritually darkest areas on the earth. Our missionaries often live undercover there so the are not expelled or even killed. Here is a link to a better explaination.)

This is but the beginning of problems if we look down stream.The compounded problem?

The Board of Trustees indicated that the new policy regarding
‘prayer language’ and ‘baptism’ would not be retroactive or applied to the current IMB mission force. I do not believe this will be the case. Furthermore, I would say that the actions taken could possibly bring missions work to a halt as we know it. Here’s is why:

1. If new personnel with ‘authorized’ baptism pedigrees serve with those who are not, then there will be a mixed mission force. This mixture will become a point of contention and division (or even inquiry as to who is ‘authorized’). If missionary A is a Landmarkist and missionary B is not (and his/her baptism is considered invalid) then missionary A will have a problem with the fruit of missionary B, or even of working with missionary B. This will necessitate a clarification of who has authority to do missions. It will put new ‘authorized’ personnel in charge of validating current and future work, as well as, all past work.

2. But how could this bring missions as we know it to a halt - by shutting down all the intricate, interdependent, cooperative relationships the IMB has developed with Great Commission Christians (GCC). The challenge is so huge, the people so hungry, the darkness so great in many places that our leadership has rightly said, ‘This is a challenge for the whole Body of Christ, and those who are of like mind should work together.” Is the Bible Translator from an authorized Church? Is his baptism of the authorized type? Is the person we partner with in street evangelism and discipleship ‘authorized?”

In the context of Unreached People Groups (UPG’s) in the 1040 window (most of whom are restricted or limited access nations – where you cannot work openly as a missionary) house churches are the only real means of developing church and working towards indigenous church planting movements. The new “baptism” policy would invalid those house churches. This new policy would cause everything to grind to a halt - no CPM’s, the IMB’s current strategy for reaching the UPG’s of the world. I would say that those who put forward the motions along with many of those who supported it (I don’t say all, because there may be some who might not understand the full ramifications of their decision) are not pleased with the New Directions strategy instigated and implemented by Dr. Rankin. Maybe they are after Dr. Rankin AND the strategy.

3. The outcry may come too late - but it will come if Landmarkism overshadows IMB personnel and strategies and the Annual Statistical Report drops off the map because of destroyed relationships with GCC’s and an invalidation of all “unauthorized” baptizers. Yes, then there will be shouts, but will there be any ears left to hear them?

Living in the 1040
January 20, 2006

We must step forward and rescue the SBC from isolationism that forces conformity beyond essential, Biblical standards.

I believe what I heard Dr. Jack McGorman say in class at Southwestern Seminary one day. He said that many on both sides were at “war” with each other because they held more power during wartime than during peace. As long as their is a foe to press out of the SBC, they have something to gain, personally. Yes, this is sinful, but I don’t know that they all may recognize it as such. For this they have my sympathy, but that will not weaken my resolve to remove them from a postition where they are able to do what they are now doing.

For many, this fight, and my presence in it is too late. They may be right. If this press back by conservatives is unsuccessful, I see most of my generation moving away from the SBC - effectively dismantling what I called earlier, “the greatest missionary sending body in the New Testament era.”

We will be left with one of two options:

1. We will have to replace the SBC by forming yet another orginization of cooperation, and wade through the power sturuggles that come with it. This is not a bright prospect for me.

2. We will have to become independant churches who send missionaries out from our own congregations to places all over the world, as the moravians used to do. This will deny us the resources that cooperation afforded us so well.

The latter option is also filled with irony. It will leave the Southern Baptist Convention in the hands of Landmark theologians, who have traditionally eschewed and criticized denominationalism while isolating individuals who prefer the broad company of conservative Christians with whom to cooperate in accomplishing the mission.

*sigh* We must pray. We must also act.

Posts with related content

• No Related Post

Blogging, SBC

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.