Something that has been running through my head was given a good voice when I read something in Ben Cole’s letter to his church. He said:
“It would be far too great an expenditure of my time – and yours – to digest and dissect the entirety of Chairman Hatley’s rationale for the policy regarding private prayer languages. I spent an hour taking notes and drafting replies to the document before it dawned on me that wise stewardship of my mental resources involved reflective consideration of theological treatises of much greater significance. Quite honestly, I equate the reading and examining of Chairman Hatley’s papers with my childhood exercise of studying a middle school textbook. Its history is oversimplified; its handling of the biblical texts is problematic, and it seems that the trustee chairman was forced to scrape the bottom of the academic barrel to find corroborating, substantiating source references.”
Amen. I will refer you to several writings and then give you some of my observations about the political surroundings concerning these papers.
First I recommend you read Ben Cole’s full letter.
Marty Duren was one of the first to write about the papers and has some insightful comments.
Tim Sweatman is always worth reading, and this is no exception.
Of course, Kevin Bussey is straight to the point in this post.
Rick Thompson, IMB Trustee has a view from the inside.
Finally, Wade Burleson must be read.
My observations range over quite a spread. Here they are in no particular order.
The first thing that crosses my mind is that it amazes me that we had to wait so long for this paper. It seems that anyone could have written it in an afternoon. It does not cite sources worthy of note nor does it give any reference to any specific situation that such policies address or required them to exist.
Let me move quickly to this point in full. All of the communication seems to lead people to believe that they were correcting problems that were current. They weren’t. No evidence has ever been given that we were establishing NON-Baptist churches on the mission field and to insinuate that we were, under both issues, is disingenuous at best.
As to the definition of a church, some of you may wonder why this document was written or given. It is the underpinning of the other two rationales. The implication here is that we were not creating appropriate churches on the mission field and the statements made are an attempt to rally everyone to their side with declarations that would lead us to believe these things were not being done.
*Critique section*
There are two statements that lay the groundwork for the policies and the attempt to move the IMB, and subsequently the SBC, toward a particular theological holding. Not that we all must believe the same, but that we must be controlled by people who believe this way.
Statement #5 says:
Under the authority of the local church and its leadership, members may be assigned to carry out the ordinances.
This statement belies the leanings of Landmarkism, which claims that there is no authority within the body outside the local church. It seems innocuous, and most would readily agree with it, but it is dangerous ground. The underlying thought in Landmarkism is that only Landmarkers can be assured of salvation. They also harken to a Baptist priesthood – not of the believer, but of the “proper authority.” This is more Roman Catholic than it is truly Baptist. Still, think about how the Convention is being run right now. Are you being listened to or are you being told how things will be?
The final statement says this:
A church has identifiable leaders, who are scrutinized and set apart according to the qualifications set forth in Scripture. A church recognizes two Biblical offices of church leadership: pastors/elders/overseers and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.
This statement implies that women are pastoring churches on the mission field. In the church planting movement, sometimes groups of women are won to the Lord but they are the only believers in their area. Even though there are no men over which these ladies pastor, or “teach,” there are some who feel that these groups are inappropriate. When they grow into a stable Christian community, a proper church organization may be formed, but that is not the case in these small and rare instances. There is no need and no way to correct these instances.
The list might lead one to believe that we are establishing women led churches that baptize by sprinkling and baptize unbelievers. This has never been the case.
*End Critique Section*
As to the papers themselves, I will say simply that I think the rationale behind these thoughts can be seen in a paper that was sent to the Trustees of the IMB, Dr. Paige Patterson’s The Church in the 21st Century.
I contend that the thought processes found in this paper can be found in the papers just released. They are founded on the same thoughts. The policies now enacted, are the end result of at least some influence of a Seminary President.
***Special Statement***
Another thought that I had was that both of these policies have a touch of “charismatic-phobia.” They both seek to rule out doctrines and practices that are held by those in the Pentecostal, Assemblies of God, and other such groups.
Specifically, the practice of a “Private Prayer Language” is the only thing remotely related to the current practice of “speaking in tongues” that was not already outlawed by policy. This took the final step of removing any practice of anything related or seemingly related to what the more “charismatic” believers currently practice. Not that any of us would agree that what most of them are doing is Biblically sound, but PPL is not that practice – it just has a few similarities. Those are now not allowed. The only step left is to mandate every candidate affirm that they are a cessationist.
I take that back. They could always require that the person who baptized you was a cessationist.
Which leads me into the next policy: Baptism by someone who believes in eternal security. Our “charismatic” brothers and sisters often do not hold to the doctrine of eternal security. Rather, they believe that one can lose one’s salvation.
If I have anything original to add to this discussion, it may be this:
The question has been raised on numerous blogs and in other media, “Why the doctrine of eternal security? Why not any other specific doctrine?” The answer is that Charismatics don’t believe in eternal security. They also speak in tongues.
Now our missionaries can’t come from charismatic backgrounds or have charismatic looking “tongues” experiences.
***Ending Special Statement***
More than that, I don’t know that I can say anything that others are not already saying.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Ben Stratton
on Mar 11th, 2006
@ 7:56 am:
Bro. Rogers,
You wrote: “The underlying thought in Landmarkism is that only Landmarkers can be assured of salvation.”
I am sorry to relpy to you, but this a total falsehood. Can you give one quote from a Landmarker to back it up. Landmarkism is about the doctrine of the church, not about the doctrine of salvation. I can show you quotes from Graves to Pendleton to Taylor to Carroll that say that non-Baptists can be saved.
All Landmark Baptists also believe in the priesthood of the believer as well.
art rogers
on Mar 11th, 2006
@ 8:07 am:
Ok, Ben. It is just what I have perceived in my observations concerning the requiring of people seeking to join Landmark churches to be re-Baptized. The implication is that their salvation and therefore their ability to join the church could only be verified by the church itself and could not be received. In other words, they could only “assure” those they had close.
I agree that several Landmark scholars believe that other can be saved, in principle, but they do not give any specific assurance outside of their own congregation.
As I said, this is my perception, and I freely admit here that I may be wrong.
As to priesthood of the believer, I don’t think I implied that Landmarkers don’t believe in it. They just elevate the church as authority and the ordained officers of the church within that authority – which does run counter to priesthood of the believer.
Alan Cross
on Mar 11th, 2006
@ 2:21 pm:
Art,
Concerning the charismatic issue, I made a similar observation on Wade Burleson’s blog the other day. Also, many charismatics allow for women in ministry. Add that factor, and you have a trifecta.
Truthfully, there are many who believe in the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit, including tongues as a private prayer language that are very conservative and very balanced. That is most likely who you will find in Southern Baptist life. It would be a shame to run those folks off. I agree with you that this move (combination of moves) seems to have charismatic/pentecostal practices as it’s target. It is a reaction to the fact that global Christianity is a charismatic leaning Christianity and that is what is growing. I’m all for strong doctrine and conservative theology. I just think that we have to be more discerning instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Let’s follow Paul’s example and correct instead of eliminate.
GeneMBridges
on Mar 13th, 2006
@ 3:37 am:
The underlying thought in Landmarkism is that only Landmarkers can be assured of salvation.”
I am sorry to relpy to you, but this a total falsehood. Can you give one quote from a Landmarker to back it up. Landmarkism is about the doctrine of the church, not about the doctrine of salvation. I can show you quotes from Graves to Pendleton to Taylor to Carroll that say that non-Baptists can be saved.
—-
Let’s take a look at this straight from,” Old Faith Baptist Church Magazine” :
Arminianism is a false gospel. The True Gospel of Jesus Christ is essential to a Valid Baptism.
Those under a baptism administered by Arminian administrators are under a false baptism.
If Arminianism is the gospel then why are we all preaching something else?
If the gospel is not essential to valid baptism, then what is? Perhaps the gospel of antichrist?
I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that would trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than you have received, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:6-9.
Are we to reject the preacher who is preaching another gospel, which is not another, but a false gospel, and yet receive his administrations? I think not.
Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God, He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
2 John 8-11.
Is Arminianism the doctrine of Christ? Hardly so. Why should we reject the Arminian preacher and yet maintain his administration of baptism as valid?
Now, Ben, if Arminianism is a false gospel, it is apparently based on the notion that Arminians deny Sola Fide.
In Galatians, Paul labels this a doctrine it is damnable to deny.
Ergo, to deny Sola Fide is damnable.
So if an Arminian you have no basis of assurance. Indeed, you are likely unregenerate.
This is, without question, Neo-Gnostic Calvinism, a derivative of hyper-Calvinism.
If you go so far as to index baptism to sanctification itself and call upon the ethical tests for assurance, then, yes, Ben the logical outworking of this is that only Baptists, Landmark Baptists in particular, can be assured of their salvation, no matter what Graves, et.al. said, since you would deny them access to the Lord’s Table, which, I would add is, in part a memorial that is intended to give us a sense of assurance through the remembrance of Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and coming return. The next logical step is to deny them assurance altogether for staying in willful and perpetual sin.
In fact, this was a direct criticism of those opposed to Landmarkism in the 19th century. Graves protested he did not believe this. However, he was the one that said the church and kingdom are used in synonymous terms.
“The kingdom embraced the first church, and it now embraces all the churches. The churches of Christ constitute the kingdom of Christ” (Graves). The kingdom of God is made up of the sum total of Baptist churches.
He illustrated this by saying that one is a citizen of the US, and no one can be a citizen of the US w/o becoming a citizen of one of the states.
On this logic, then, the only way to enter the kingdom is to enter of its units, a Baptist church.
So, in the end, this reduces to exactly what Art has noted.
art rogers
on Mar 13th, 2006
@ 8:40 am:
Uuuuhhhh… Yeah. What Gene said.
GuyMuse
on Mar 13th, 2006
@ 9:46 am:
Art,
First time I have read your blog but will definitely be back for more. What you write above is an excellent analysis of what the root issues are behind the two policy changes: 1) charismatic/pentecostal influences on the mission field, and 2) how this carries over into the churches being planted by IMB M, the whole “definition of church” issue.
The two policies seem to be an attempt to address these two concerns which seem to be at the root of things.
My position as an IMB M is to invite anyone interested to come down and see for themselves what is going on. I have written on this subject myself HERE.
Charismatic influence is strong on the mission field and touches all areas of evangelical work (at least in S. America) But that is different than saying IMB M are planting charistmatic/pentecostal churches. As I write in the same article linked above the churches being planted are closer to those seen in the Book of Acts than resembling FBC, Somewhere, USA. We are NOT planting S. Bapt. churches overseas, we are planting NT churches that are “baptistic”.