Last night I was supposed to be teaching Bible Study (through the book of Galatians) for Small Group Time with our church’s Youth Group. I had been blogging all afternoon and the IMB/SBC issue was on my mind. On top of that, I was blown away by some papers that had been made available on Marty Duren’s site, SBC outpost.
As people began to arrive at our youth facility, I huddled with two adults and we began to discuss what was happening. Like most congregation members, they were unaware of the general politics of the SBC and not that concerned.
Keep in mind, at this point, that our church gives 15% (20% until a couple of years ago) of our offerings to the Cooperative Program – a major supporter of CP in the state and one of the highest per capita givers also. The tithes of these two adults are going to support the CP and as we talked, they paid polite attention.
At first, it appeared to be a theological nuance kind of thing, in their estimation. Something that I would care about, but nothing that they should have at the front of their mind. As we moved to start our small group – the whole youth group was gathered – our previous conversation spilled over to the teenagers. They were generally interested and asked some questions, so I answered and allowed the topic to stay where it was, bumping the scheduled lesson to next week.
It all turned to Shock & Awe when I explained the fallout of the new policies adopted by the trustees of the IMB.
One of our former Youth Workers, and a parent of two in our group, is a local veterinarian, deacon and trustee for our church and the chair of our church’s Mission Committee. This is a committee that he envisioned and its responsibility is to organize and implement mission projects and mission trips for our church. I told them that this young leader in our church would be ineligible to go as a missionary under these new guidelines. The good Doctor is unacceptable because, although he is a conservative believer who was baptized as a believer, he was baptized in an Assemblies of God church. His children’s faces were ashen and the room felt heavy.
I reaffirmed him to the group, assuring them that he believes that he cannot lose his salvation (neither does he speak in tongues – publicly or privately) and that his faith was sound. The disillusionment was palpable, however. His daughter then asked the $10 million question: “My dad is supposed to go on the Nicaragua Mission Trip this summer. Does this mean he can’t go?”
I sighed a big sigh and said, “Don’t worry. Fortunately, the IMB is not in authority over that trip. He can go and no one can stop him.”
We answered a few more pertinent questions dealing with things like what would happen to the missionaries on the field and what is motivating these kinds of policies to be implemented.
Still, the dull thud of a horrible truth echoes here. If the IMB excludes us, we go outside the IMB, and outside the SBC, just like my friend will be doing this summer. The bell tolling in the background is a call to prayer for the future of the greatest missionary sending body of the New Testament age: the SBC. Either that, or it is the Death Knell. It’s up to us to decide which it will be.
After the meeting, one of the adults asked about the other staff in our church – what they know and what they think. Now they want to know what we are going to do about this. I take this as a good sign.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Kdawg
on Jan 24th, 2006
@ 3:55 pm:
I don’t like politics, but we have to let our people know what’s going on and let them decide for themselves and our churches what we need to do.
KB
Evangelical Orthodoxy
on Jan 24th, 2006
@ 4:46 pm:
Art,
I appreciated your response to my comment on SBC outpost. I agree with you … it just seems like some people such as Wade Burleson and others seem so shocked that the Fundamentalist leaders would: 1. use anti-constitutional processes to win; 2. would employ secular politics to win; 3. would employ slander and gossip to win; etc. While Wade seems like a nice guy, there is part of me that wants to say: “You endorsed the creation of this monster, and now you have to life with it?” My contention always will be that the Takeover never had anything to do with God or the Bible … it was simple power. When SWBTS denied Patterson a place on the hill in the 70s, he decided to take it. And he did. I hate that this Takeover and resulting controversy has destroyed so many lives and cost so many the chance to hear Jesus. Most folks are so dug in and have been brainwashed with revisionist history that they never will change, and many others are too old to care. I hope maybe this IMB situation can cause some like Burleson to look back on the Takeover and reconsider the demonic aspects of those events. Anyway, grace and peace. God bless you and your ministry.
art rogers
on Jan 24th, 2006
@ 6:32 pm:
Evangelical Orthodoxy,
I agree that there is some disillusionment happening here. But is it simple naiveté or is it something more? I think that, at least for Wade’s part, that he never participated in the ungodly tactics from before, but simply, as I was, in agreement with some principles of the conservative side. I have stated before that my friends were on the other side and I respected them more for the way they handled themselves during the process, and in retrospect, prior to the takeover. During that time, they were peacemakers, seeking to hold everyone together. Over some issues we needed to part, but they did not attempt to force conservatives out of the convention they way they were when the tables were turned.
As it relates to the current targets, though, to say they helped to create the monster is to imply that they were in on the dirty work and not just voters who were conservative. Unless… you are saying that everyone who didn’t jump up and scream bloody murder when this backroom, slander/libel stuff happened is guilty of creating the monster. I think there is a case to be made for that statement, too. Saying that, by the way, implicates me as a by-stander for most of that whole time, and I do feel responsible for that, which is why I put my name on my blog and am willing to make that stand now.
art rogers
on Jan 24th, 2006
@ 6:37 pm:
Let me add that back in the day, the dirty tactics weren’t recognized for what they were by many who were not in the backrooms. I know a lot of conservative students and pastors that believed the stuff that was said because they trusted the source: their pastor. This doesn’t necissarily mean they were guilty of the same actions, just of blind trust of an authority figure.
Evangelical Orthodoxy
on Jan 25th, 2006
@ 5:50 pm:
Art,
I think we agree. I was not around then, and it is easy to hear stories today and expect people then to know what was going on … history is full of these examples. It is very likely that many “non-power” pastors or laity had no idea of the evil in their midst. For me it is more a matter of passive indifference than active support; but I wonder if a lot of folks still would have endorsed what happend … and apparently is happening. I guess my wish is this: the hardline leaders will be judged on that day, and I hope they have lots of ice! :) For others, like you and Mr. Burleson, et al, I hope you reconsider the Takeover and consider reconciliation. The issues were the same in 1979 as they are today … Wade’s blog reads like a moderate in the 1980s. The only difference is then it was women, today it is charisma. Unfortunately, with baptisms down and fighting up, I am not sure many mainstream Baptists have any desire to return to the SBC … and that is a shame.