September 11 and the IMB
Sep 11th, 2006 | By art rogers | Category: SBCFive years ago, a pastor friend of mine was preparing for a message to a civic organization. He was the guest speaker. When the planes hit the twin towers, his secretary went in and let him know what was happening, although he didn’t want to be disturbed. He gave it little thought. He was focused on preparing his devotional thought and didn’t want to be distracted. She should have simply told him that the world had changed and what he was doing was no longer relevant. He gave the most forgettable speech in that organization’s history.
This mindset of radical Islam, that would kill all who believe differently than they, now impacts the entire globe since that day, five years ago. We also find ourselves in a polarized global society where the opposite of radical Islam seems to be our American culture.
Among other things, Fundamentalist Islamics hate us because of the wickedness of our society – the excesses of worldly pursuits into which our culture dives headlong. Also, chief among the reasons they hate us is that America has historically been a nation of Christians. As a result, they have framed the war in Iraq as a modern day Crusade against Islam. So within America they find the two poles of worldly excess and Christian conservatism.
Radical Islam hates them both. In fact, that mindset doesn’t differentiate between the two, but melds them together and calls America the hypocritical nation of self-righteous infidels. This is a very simplistic sketch. There are many other reasons for their opposition, but these two are at the top of the list.
Strikingly, we realize it is our job to win these people to the Lord. They would rather we be dead and would gladly help us to find that end, and our responsibility is to go live among them and teach them that God does not belong to America but that all the nations belong to God.
Meanwhile, back at the IMB, we seem to be more interested in tweaking the folks who are actually ready, willing and able to walk into that context. The context where their children and spouses are in danger of torture and death.
I had the privilege of meeting with a 10-40 window missionary last month. He told me of a friend in a level three security country who said that normal transportation included a hair raising, 100+ mph blitz in a Suburban from one city to another. They have to drive that fast to avoid being killed by fundamentalist Muslims.
I just don’t get it. Should someone explain that the world outside has been revealed as grossly hostile, things are not what we thought they were and we need to not spend our time with insignificant issues? Have we not tried? What is the confusion?
Yes, I think that the PPL and Baptism issues WERE insignificant, until they were made significant. They should have been left alone. Period.
Let me be clear at this point. I know that every Trustee knows far more about the perils facing our missionaries than I will ever understand. So why are we still caught up in power plays? Let’s do the right thing and move forward.
As the IMB BOT meets this week, I would like to see some things and yet doubt I will see much, if any.
I am hopeful of a report from the two ad hoc committees studying the PPL and Baptism issues. They might tell the BOT how things are progressing. This may not happen, though, because of the scrutiny that any words issued from either committee will receive. Because of this, they both will likely choose their words very carefully and not say more than they must. Most likely, they will both issue a statement at the end of their studies and that is all they will say. The reports will contain an encouragement for the Board to stand on their previous decision, change their stance, or do away with the issue altogether – reverting back to the previous status.
At this point, I think it is more likely that the stance will either stay the same or be moderated to some degree. PPL will more likely stay the same and Baptism may be moderated to some degree. That is just speculation, but it is how I read the room, so to speak.
I doubt there will be a return to the previous status on either issue. If they did that, it would be tantamount (in their minds) to letting young bloggers tell them how to run the IMB. I think they would do anything to avoid encouraging our efforts by rewarding us with much success.
The other hope I have will be the appointment of an ad hoc committee to deal with Wade Burleson’s motion from Greensboro. The longer they delay announcing plans in this area, the more you know that their plans really are to avoid it altogether.
Depending on how this works out, San Antonio may be a place where genuine conflict falls out.
Or maybe not. Maybe the EC and the Presidential appointment process will give us enough hope that a real difference will be made so we can look toward another couple of years.
Meanwhile, lost souls are in the crux. I want change quickly, but realize that change like this is often incremental. In fact, the changes we have experienced over the last year look like lightening striking compared to the glacial speed of change normally occurring in the SBC.
We shall see what we shall see.
Be sure to check out SBC Outpost. Marty will be live blogging today and tomorrow from the IMB meeting.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
If the PPL and baptism policies stand after further review (been watching too much football), what effect do you think that will have on cooperation with missions? In other words, do you think that churches and individuals will just begin to peel off and find other ways to do missions through giving, going, and sending, while maintaining their SBC status? I really would love to know what others are thinking in this regard.
Alan-
People who are forced to find alternate means will likely be supported heavily by their home church. The amount of support will be much larger than the percentage of that amount that would have helped support them through CP Missions.
Thus, CP giving will fall and the # of missionaries commissioned through the IMB will be less than it might have been. Remember, though, that we aren’t talking about a lot of people; the policies were passed to “fix” a problem that did not exist.
Art,
You said, “Let me be clear at this point. I know that every Trustee knows far more about the perils facing our missionaries than I will ever understand. So why are we still caught up in power plays?”
First, allow me to differ, somewhat, with you on the first part of your statement…except for the briefings that Trustees receive, I do not think that, as a group, they are that informed. Speaking to fellow missionaries, we often lament how pastors from a church, or denominational/seminary administrators, who have been elected to the BoT, know very little about what we do or think. Why else could extra-Biblical policies be passed? One thing we on the field wish for is for Trustees to come where we are, live with us for a while (not those two day “flying” visits, staying in the better hotels), experience our world, know our hearts, ask us the “hard” questions, but be ready for “hard” questions in return. And do not use what we say to punish us.
But, I totally agree with the second part of your statement. Why all of the power plays? Does that advance the Kingdom? If so, someone tell us lonely missionaries how.
Thanks for the feedback, Marty. But, I’m not just talking about “people who are forced to find alternate means” because their baptism is not in order or because they have a PPL. I am talking about people who are tired of the narrowing parameters of cooperation and who feel that the IMB is engaging in unbiblical practices. Will those churches and individuals, even if the policies do not affect them, work elsewhere?
My opinion is that some will. But, that will only happen among the informed and those whose consciences are stricken by these activities. Most will see it as no big deal and will go on with business as usual. They will continue to support the IMB because good work is being done and because that’s what good baptists do and these things don’t affect them directly. That perspective is ingrained in us. I think that the BoT uses the latter perspective as permission to do what they want because they really don’t think it will affect anything. But, I think that perspective is deadly to actually carrying out the Great Commission, because it enforces passivity within the churches.
If the IMB does not reverse these decisions, it is my opinion that, over time, most baptists will just resign themselves to it and go on with life. Many will agree with the policies. But, the detriment to world evangelism will be huge, yet invisible to us. We will never see how we missed God and we will never know the loss of effectiveness that we will incur, not just from losing missionaries that are directly affected by the baptism and PPL policies, but by the residual affects of heading in this direction. Our “leaders” will lead an organization that will become more and more ineffective and irrelevant over the years and no one will even really notice until it’s too late. All the while, they’ll look for more enemies to blame because it couldn’t possibly their fault. It’s kind of like what is happening in our churches today all across the U.S.
This grieves me, because up until this point, the IMB has been the bright shining light of the SBC and is filled with incredible people who are doing great things for God. If we keep going down this road, I really do see that changing for the worse. Maybe I’m wrong and I hope that I am. But, that’s just what I see happening. I’m sure that many, if not most will disagree.
Art, sorry for writing a book here. I was just thinking . . .
10-40,
I appreciate your perspective. As to how much the Trustees understand about our missionaries, I was trying to defer to the inside knowledge they receive in the briefings. I have heard numerous times that M’s would like for Trustees (and pastors, and lay people) to come live with them for a while instead of doing “fly by” visits. I am glad for your perspective and agreement with my conclusion, though.
Alan,
Thanks for your post. I think it is deep and relevant. Feel free to say such things here.