I was contacted over the weekend concerning my satement that the definition of a church is the underpinning document of the two policies concerning Baptism and private prayer languages. The person contacting me said that the document was not written as an underpinning document, but was written with/by missionaries on the field to provide some common ground for missionaries in various cultures and it was written well before the rationales.

The concern was that the authors of the document would not agree that they were Landmarkish in nature or that they were to support these rationales. I told the person that I would clarify that in a subsequent post, and this is that. The person contacting me was not one of those authors.

I will assert that the definition is used to extrapolate the two rationales as I previously posted. Were the authors of the definition misrepresented? It is the assertion of at least one that they were.

Another item was posted in a comment by Alan Cross. I thought it was a unique thought and deserved to be brought to the center. In my last post I put 2 & 2 together and came out with “charismatic-phobia” as a common thread between the two policies.

Charismatics “speak in tongues” and PPL was the last vestige of anything that resembled what they practice of that today that was not outlawed among our missionaries already. Outlawing the baptism by a person who does not believe in eternal security provides protection against missionary candidates who were raised in a charismatic background.

Alan added that many of these denominations also allow women in ministry, what Alan aptly called a “trifecta.” We all know the current climate concerning this issue among Southern Baptists and the IMB in particular as it deals with “What makes a church?” This is a new problem with the advent of the Church Planting Movement, brought in by Jerry Rankin.

Jerry Rankin. Who has openly, and with great integrity, admitted that he has a PPL. Jerry Rankin who has “churches” being planted without males as pastor – so the allegation goes.

What a web of thoughts and convoluted motives. I stand by Dr. Rankin. I think he is a good leader for us. I am not blindly loyal to him, any more than I am blindly loyal to anyone. Still, I have to ask myself, “Can they really expect that none of this targeted him in any way?”

Back to the women in ministry issue… why not have a policy concerning it, if it really might be a concern? No need. The qualified administrator of baptism policy covers it.

Unlike the other issues, so does the BFM.

Posts with related content

• No Related Post

TAGS: None