Author: art rogers
The IMB Response to the Wade Burleson Motion with Baptism and PPL on the Side
Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
I interrupt the series of posts on Pastoral blogging to bring you the response of the IMB to the Wade Burleson motion referred to them by the Convention in Greensboro. Interesting commentary and Baptism and PPL update to follow. 
The unanimous response of the IMB, without discussion, adopted in Plenary session.
In response to the motion that “the Executive Committee appoint an ad hoc committee to determine sources of the controversies in the International Mission Board, and make findings and recommendations regarding these controversies, so that trustees of the IMB might effect recomciliation and effectively discharge their responsibilities to God and fellow Southern Baptists by cooperating together to accomplish evangelism and missions to the Glory of God,” the International Mission Board meeting in session on January 30, 2007, respectfully submits the following response:
The Board of Trustees of the IMB, which consists of 89 trustees elected by the Southern Baptist Convention, is convinced that it has, and will continue, to discharge its responsibilities and fiduciary accountability to the SBC in cooperation to accomplish the board’s ministry assignments of evangelism and missions. The diversity of personalities, backgrounds and churches represented invariably is reflected in different opinions in giving oversight to the work of the IMB. This diversity is necessary in arriving at consensus and determining the leadership of God in making decisions within the board’s assigned responsibilities. We contend that any controversies have been dealt with according to appropriate Biblical guidelines and in line with democratic processes and approved board polity.
With the counsel and concurrence of the International Mission Board executive staff, the board of trustees responds to the five concerns expressed in the motion as follows:
(1) The manipulation of the nominating process of the Southern Baptist Convention during the appointment of trustees for the IMB.
The International Mission Board has no authority to speak to the work of the nominating committee elected by the Southern Baptist Convention or to investigate the process by which it does its work.
(2) Attempts to influence and/or coerce the IMB trustees, staff, and administration to take a particular course of action by one or more Southern Baptist agency heads other than the president of the IMB.
It is assumed that any and all heads of SBC entities are concerned about the effectiveness of all entities in order for the SBC to fulfill its kingdom task in the world. While the IMB may exercise authority over its own president and elected staff, we are not in a position to question or investigate the actions and motives of heads of other entities.
(3) The appropriate and/or inappropriate use of forums and executive sessions of the IMB as compared to conducting business in full view of the Southern Baptist Convention and the corresponding propriety and/or impropriety of the chairman of the IMB excluding any individual trustee, without Southern Baptist Convention approval, from participating in meetings where the full IMB is convened.
The IMB does not allow formal business to be transacted in its closed Trustee Forums, but uses this time for prayer, personal testimonies and preliminary questions and discussions regarding issues of mutual concern between senior staff and trustees. Official executive sessions are limited to matters dealing with sensitive personnel actions related to staff, missionaries and/or trustees or those in which public exposure would result in detrimental consequences for personnel serving in sensitive and restricted locations around the world.
Any actions that may be taken to exclude any trustee from participating in closed board sessions by the chairman will have been made with support of the board as a last resort and in order to avoid disruption and distractions to the board fulfilling its assigned tasks with unity and appropriate decorum.
(4) The legislation of new doctrinal requisites for eligibility to serve as employees or missionaries of the IMB beyond the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.
While the Baptist Faith and Message represents a general confession of Southern Baptist beliefs related to Biblical teachings on primary doctrinal and social issues, the IMB retains the prerogative and responsibility of further defining the parameters of doctrinal beliefs and practices of its missionaries who serve Southern Baptists with accountability to this board.
(5) The suppression of dissent by trustees in the minority through various means by those in the majority, and the propriety of any agency forbidding a trustee, by policy, from publicly criticizing a board approved action.
All board approved actions result from a process of committee, and sometimes multiple committees, consideration before they are brought to a plenary session for adoption. All trustees have opportunity in the committee process and plenary session to express and advocate minority opinions. As in any democratic body, once the majority has determined the action to be taken, the board feels that the action should receive the unified public support of all trustees for the sake of effectively moving forward to fulfill our mission task.
The end of this is simply that the BOT of the IMB does not think the SBC as a whole should be telling them what to do and how to do it. This should surprise no one. We already knew that the BOT felt that they had a better grasp on their agency than the general population of the SBC, and especially better than the blogger informed crowd that seemed to support this motion. Frankly, this should be the case. Whether or not it is the case is part of the debate.
As far as my expectations go, this is pretty much what I was ready to receive. When you ask an agency to police itself against accusations that it is failing to police itself, then you can’t expect much else. Also, let me be quick to add that I am sure many on the BOT find the accusations unfathomable and for good reason. I am confident that a great many on the BOT have had nothing but the utmost integrity and forthrightness while serving and have not seen much of the substance of these inquiries. Of course they wouldn’t respond otherwise. IF (note the emphasis) there are those who are guilty of any actions reflected in these inquiries, then they are not likely to respond otherwise, either.
I think that what happens with this report, upon its presentation in San Antonio, is dependent on the Baptism & PPL issues.
Oh, yes. This report does not address those issues. It is my understanding that the ad hoc committees are going to do some intensive work to wrap up their charge and present a final proposal to the IMB BOT at the next session.
Where is the next session of the IMB BOT, where these issues will be decided before the convention?
Why, in MEMPHIS, of course. Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor?
To finish my aforementioned thought, this motion will probably be forgotten if the IMB reverses positions on the Baptism and PPL issues. They are the heart and soul of everyone’s interest with the IMB right now, no matter which side you are on.
On the other hand, if the ad hoc committees recommend no change, or little change, it would seem that there might be something significant on which to vote at this year’s convention. That could be interesting, noting that there is now an attempt by some to start rallying the troops. (Check the comment section of that link for more along those lines.) *In the interest of fairness, I am not sure that the “rallying” actually “started” here, but the term “full slate of messengers” popped up unexpectedly and got my attention.
Up until now, there had been no speculation whatsoever about anything that might be coming up. That’s why I found the link above so puzzling. This was in the context of the Dr.Klouda/SWBTS/Paige Patterson issue, but none of that is eligible for a decision from the SBC. Any attempt to force the SWBTS Trustees to do one thing or the other would be ruled out of order or referred to the Trustees. As long as the Trustees are who they are and there is no significant dissent from within, the point is moot.
That’s why a call to bring full slates of messengers confused me. The only vote we knew would happen… that is… the only vote of MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE that we KNEW would happen, is the one for the office of President. Frankly, I wondered if maybe this wasn’t an attempt to dislodge Frank Page.
I’ll give them all the benefit of the doubt, though. Unless something changes my mind, I’ll just assume that they are expecting to defend at least one of these restrictions and maybe the referral of this motion back to the Executive Committee.
In the end, they may be right. There may be a whole lot to vote on in San Antonio - besides the office of President. We will see.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
January 31st, 2007 at 10:43 pm
This report DOES address the issues of PPL and Baptism: (the board) retains the prerogative and responsibility of further defining the parameters of doctrinal beliefs.
The report seems to very clearly say they don’t have any intention of being faithful to the Convention by adhering to our Statement of Faith.
I am mystified by reports of blogging IMB trustees who claim things are improving: where in this press release (traditionally, press releases are carefully crafted and well thought out) is there any evidence the IMB BoT will abandon their “prerogative” to interpret for the rest of us what Southern Baptists really believe?
January 31st, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Bowden,
What was addressed was that they had the right to decide, but they have not yet presented the decision to which they claim a right.
Clear as mud?
January 31st, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Dear Brother Art,
Thanks for the report. I’m sure it is exactly what everyone expected. Why exactly do we refer motions like this to the group that is being accused of wrongdoing?
Love in Christ,
Jeff
January 31st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Art,
Whatever they decide, as long as the BoT retains the “prerogative and responsibility” to treat our statement of faith - our identity as Southern Baptists - as a general confession they can re-interpret at will, all Southern Baptists will have lost.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Jeff,
That is the question, isn’t it?
Bowden,
I’m not denying anything you’ve written there. I am simply predicting that if the issues are reversed, people will forget the answers to this motion - and that one among them. Not saying it is right, but that I think it will happen.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:28 am
Brother Art,
I am glad thatyou have published the report. If it is what you expected, then you may already know that I am in support of their findings. :>)
A couple of things I do want to call attention to, of which one is bewildering, and others make my point. First, your accusation of the “rallying the troops”. As the old saying goes, isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? As much political meanderings and criss-crossing the state of Texas as Brother’s Burleson and Cole have done, you now accuse others of “rallying the troops”. This, is something that I do not see how you can openly make the accusations that others are rallying the troops. You have always been fair in you assessments and I have always admired that about you. Your analysis have always seemed to present an open view as one searching, and leaving the reader to make accurate decisions based on information from all involved. This accusation, for me, calls into question your opennes with this issue. Also, your inclusion of Dr. Klouda’s issue as an example that there really was nothing that could be voted on at San Antonio, is a stretch. While we cannot do anything about this as a convention, you know as well as I that the timing of this issue instigates harsh feelings and promites disunity in order to bring out the messengers.
Second, you said; “To finish my aforementioned thought, this motion will probably be forgotten if the IMB reverses positions on the Baptist and PPL issues.” I know that you slipped by not placing the “ism” on the end of Baptist. However, your statement is exactly how I see the reversing of these positions will result. This issue is about who we are as Baptist. It is not about how we fit into the farger body of Christ. We know how that fit is and we know we are Baptist. It is the issue of Baptism and the lack of PPL that make us Baptist. Of course, I know that is a differing of opinion between you and I, but that is where I am.
Have a Nice Day,
Tim
February 1st, 2007 at 9:07 am
Bowden,
Spirit is improving.
Logic is not.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:13 am
Tim, you say,
It is not about how we fit into the farger body of Christ.
What is a ‘farger’ body of Christ?
Is it a new doctrine? Are others going to be asked to believe it in order to be a missionary?
Can women be a part of the farger? Is baptism the initiatory at the hands of a fellow fargerite the initiation into the farger? Does everyone in the farger believe in eternal fargerness?
Fair questions since the farger body of Christ is not in the BFM 2000, and it seems that people are reserve the right to narrow the doctrinal pararmeters and intepret what it is that we are to believe as a convention at large.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:26 am
You know Tim,
Sometimes a guy can get too overwhelmed with things and lose perspective without realizing what is happening to him. Could this be one of those times for you? It happens to us all. Maybe it is time for you to take a break and read something other than blogs.
You hit me on Tim Guthrie’s blog with questions you already say you had read the answer to before you ask the question. I answered you again, but Tim G. heard from God and removed the posts that had my answer to you, him and Vol. I saved the the whole comment thread. Would you like me to email it to you? Would you like me to post it on your blog?
Let me know and I will be glad to do as you wish. You said I had exposed myself so I will be glad to give you light on the exposure, since Tim G. had to delete his whole post and comment thread in obedience:-)
cb
February 1st, 2007 at 9:42 am
Brother CB,
Allow me to say that I am speaking to Brother Art in this comment stream.
Brother Wade,
Go ahead and belittle me all you like. As many times as I have overlooked typos and now I get called out on a typo. As a matter of fact, I pointed out a typo by Brother Art, and stated that I suspected it was so. Go ahead Wade, I will be you whipping boi.
Blessings,
Tim
February 1st, 2007 at 9:54 am
Tim,
Play nice:-) I was talking to Tim G. when you commented to me. Of course, I do not mind people doing so. It adds to the conversation.
Now, will you please let me know if you want my answer to you or not. You accused me of conspiracy in relation to Dr. Klouda and I sure you did not get to even half way read my response like you did the first time I answered you.
cb
February 1st, 2007 at 10:20 am
Tim,
I always believed that “who we were as Baptists” was about two things: a high view of Scripture and a high commitment to evangelism (sharing the gospel) and missions (doing evangelism with the intent of planting churches)
The Baptist Faith and Message contains our core believes, our doctrinal foundation. I believe that most Southern Baptists believe that this is who we are as Baptists.
Beyond that, when it comes to Calvinism, contemporary worship, traditional worship, etc., etc., and yes PPL; these things should be left up to the local church.
If Cessationist theology rules the day for the SBC, those with continualist positions will be forced into a corner. There should be room for both positions in this great denomination of Lottie Moon, the CP, and strong seminaries.
Jerry Rankin is our IMB president, he has vision, integrity, strength and a PPL. I’ll take him as our leader AND as a Baptist any day of the week.
Bottom line on PPL - rescind the policy and go back to trusting and relying upon regional leadership on the mission field to deal with abuses and deal with (to the point of firing) M’s that break policy
February 1st, 2007 at 10:24 am
Brother CB,
First, if I jumped the gun, forgive me. After re-reading, I do not know where I could have jumped the gun because I do not see where Tim G. commented.
Second, we are in Brother Art’s house. I personally do not mind your comments being placed publicly, because I have not said or questioned anything that I have not read. However, I do not know if this comment stream is the place to do that. I promise you that if you blog about it on your blog I will respond.
Blessings,
or
Have a Nice Day,
Tim
February 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Tim,
Take a moment and read your comments to me and mine to you on this thread.
I had asked you if you read my response to you from a comment you made to me on Tim Guthrie’s post. He deleted two posts because he said he was led to do so.
My question to you was: Do you want me to send his comment thread to you by email or would you like me to post it on your blog? You did not express your desire. You had accused me of a conspiracy involving Wade and Ben. I answered you on Tim G’s post before he took it down. I had saved the comment thread. I can still answer you if you wish.
You continue to accuse Art, me and others as being in a conspiracy of using Dr. Klouda’s situation for another purpose. That is not the case, nor has it been. Read my most recent post and every comment I have made relating to this matter. There is no conspiracy involving those you mention.
cb
February 1st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Brother CB,
Your words, while you feel are correct, I do not agree with. I have not accused anyone of conspiracy other than the ones that broke the story. You admitted that you knew about the Klouda incident from the beginning. But now you say you are in this to correct a wrong. The wrong you are attempting to correct occurred back in 2004. Why was it not brought to light then? That is the question.
The only conspiracy I see in Brother Art is continuing in the current direction not questioning why now has this come to light. I admire his waiting for Dr. Klouda before responding, but the bottom line is that the one calling for an investigation, according to reports, knew in 2004 and was advocating the actions as appropiate at that time. If he knew in 2004 and you knew from the beginning…
That is not an accusation, it is simply stating the facts.
Blessings,
or
Have a Nice Day,
Tim
February 1st, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Tim,
I was not making fun, only emphasizing a point.
I make typos all the time.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Brother CB,
I just re-read your current post and I will repost my last comment to you there. That way we will not hijack Brother Art’s post.
This post is dealing with the IMB Report and I do not desire to muddy the waters here.
Brother Wade,
I hear your last statement but it must be the way I am reading you comment. I do feel you did it in a patronizing fashion. If I am wrong, I am wrong.
Blessings,
or
Have a Nice Day,
Tim
February 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Tim & CB,
CB has a blogpost up right now that speaks to the issue of conspiracy and your mutual discussion, etc. would be better suited to that thread.
This is a round robin kinda conversation, however, so attention to Darren’s comments - which are very much to the point - would be appropriate. This is especially true for you, Tim, since he addressed them to you.
Tim,
As to your specific comments to me…
Your first objection, that I accused Bart of “starting” the “rallying of troops” being disingenuous, is a mistake, I believe. I didn’t say that. In fact, I put an asterisk in front of the qualifier that denied just that. Here is the quote:
Also, I called and asked Ben what the “criss-crossing” entailed and he said that they started in one town and went to three others together. Honestly, they clearly were trying to drum up some interest in the SBC, but that was not all. I don’t think anyone can quite say that they have “gone on tour,” a la Bobby Welch. Not to downplay what they were doing, but just to clarify it.
Secondly, considering Baptism valid based on the theology of the Baptizer is not a Baptist distinctive. Some Baptists, Landmarkers, evaluate the validity of Baptism based on an authorized Baptizer, but they are in the minority. Also, the exclusion of anyone based on their beliefs about glossolalia - at any level - has not ever been a Baptist distinctive.
If I am wrong on those two things, I have yet to see it documented. In other words, those beliefs don’t make you Baptist or not-Baptist. This is exactly what the problem has been over the last year. We are taking issues that have had Baptists - Southern Baptists - on all different sides, and elevating them to the point of division.
This is wrong. This will destroy the SBC. If you can’t allow others with whom you disagree on these issues to serve, the SBC is going to lose somebody. It is the classic definition of “narrowing parameters.”
——————————————-
I have a hypothetical question for all of you. Pick any divisive issue now under discussion within the SBC: Calvinism, PPL, Authorized Baptizer, Alcohol Abstention/Moderation, Traditional/Contemporary Worship, Traditional programming/Missional Cultural engagement… anything.
Pick the position about which you have the very most passion. Now, if the IMB BOT made a policy that people with your position could not serve, would you say that they have the right to go beyond the BFM on this?
Specifically, as #4 states, do you really think that the BOT of this, or any other agency, should be making these kinds of qualifiers concerning doctrinal purity?
What if you get agencies that set up competing doctrines?
I think it is very easy to support the answer given in #4 if you happen to agree with what they are doing.
Tim,
Don’t take offense at me singling you out. I mean no disrespect. You have published your thoughts on this issue frequently, so I feel I can accurately represent you.
You have said that you support the reply by the IMB. If the IMB stated that, under the auspices of #4, they will now exclude people who think that Abstaining from Alcohol is the only Christian position (and that would exclude you, ideologically), and only people who think that the Moderationist position are eligible to serve as missionaries, would you still support the position that the BOT has the right to go beyond the BFM?
If I have misrepresented you, Tim, please correct me, and forgive me.
As for Dr. Klouda, I found out the same way many did. I read Wade Burleson’s blog. Before that, I only knew that Dr. Bullock was not given tenure, presumably because she was a woman.
I have never denied that the issue is a political land mine. I don’t know of anyone who has said that politics play absolutely no part. If you’ve read that, please point me to it. Therefore, I think it is just as disingenuous to claim that it is simply politics or only politics as it would be to claim there were no politics involved. The latter, as I stated, has not happened, but the former certainly has.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Who knows what we’ll be voting on in San Antonio? Who knew what all we’d be voting on in Greensboro? Certainly not me. But I know that plenty of rallying has already been going on in BGCT circles.
The great irony of this situation is that the group accused of strict political control of the SBC is the least politically organized group on the field.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Bart,
Indeed. It appears you are correct about the opportunities to vote.
If you know about a bunch of rallying in the BGCT, you know more than me. I asked a BGCT pastor if he thought that they might come to San Antonio. He just shook his head. He said that he, and all of his friends had passed on the SBC a long time ago. They didn’t want to waste their time and money on a convention that didn’t want them and that they didn’t want either. That was the last I heard on the matter.
As to the political organization, I think you overestimate others’ political prowess. Furthermore, I don’t know that anyone has accused that particular group of HAVING strict political control over the SBC. I think they are accused of WANTING it.
art
February 1st, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Perhaps you are right. There is a difference between asking people to go to the convention on the one hand and people actually going to the convention on the other hand. Perhaps BGCT folks as a whole have no interest in coming.
In which case it still won’t hurt for me to encourage people to go to San Antonio. I can imagine quite a few possible resolutions or motions that people might introduce in San Antonio arising out of current events. I think there is a need for strong representation in San Antonio. If San Antonio is the tranquil meeting that will delight me so much, everyone who attends will nonetheless be the better for having attended.
I’ve spent years as a teaching assistant/adjunct trying to get people to participate in the annual meeting. Even apart from controversy, there is always a need to attend.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Art,
Dr. Bullock was not denied tenure by herself. She was denied tenure along with Dr. Stookey. Was he denied tenure for being a woman?
If so, he should have been denied tenure for being a cross-dresser (along with not being very cute, either!).
BTW, Ken Hemphill was president at the time.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Bart,
Could you clarify as to why Dr. Bullock was denied tenure? Do you know the reason?
Do you know what Ken Hemphill believes about Dr. Bullock’s denial? Was he for it, or against it?
Has SWBTS ever been on probation with the accreditation commission, and if so, when and for what reason?
Would you agree that a policy forbidding women to teach in the school of theology is not within the authority of the trustees and President to write and adopt, but dismissing a woman for gender, without such a policy in place, is the serious issue in the eyes of those who form the outside accrediting commission?
Thanks, and I assume your comment about Dr. Stookey was simply a friendly jab at a friend, right?
Wade
February 1st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
I’m sorry for the typo above.
Please scratch the word ‘not’ in the forth paragraph. It should read:
Would you agree that a policy forbidding women to teach in the school of theology is within the authority of the trustees and President to write and adopt, but dismissing a woman for gender, without such a policy in place, is the serious issue in the eyes of those who form the outside accrediting commission?
February 1st, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Wow, I’m tired, and I’m done.
It should be the ‘fourth’ paragraph.
See, Tim, I was not making fun.
February 1st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Why do we have the BF&M if it doesn’t cover everything that we believe as Baptists?
February 1st, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Brother Art,
My response to that would be a simple motion at the upcoming convention. I would base my motion on the direction the convention has taken in the past. I would research the resolutions and find that since the late 1800’s we as a convention have consistently rejected the notion that wine bibbing was something that we as SB would allow.
Having said that, let me ask you something. If the SBC votes this year to accept the report as presented, will we move forward without having to rehash this every year?
Blessings,
or
Have a Nice Day,
Tim
February 1st, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Tim,
If the SBC accepts the IMB report and the IMB keeps the two new policies the same without changes, this is one baptist who will probably choose to “move forward” and trouble the waters no longer. But, that’s what they hope for from opposition, right?
February 1st, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Brother Alan,
Let me be the first to say that I do not desire to see you leave. However, that is a decision that only you can make. I know that if I leave the SBC it will be a decision that I make based on my convictions.
Oh, if I left only because of opposition, I probably would not visit Art’s blog again. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
February 1st, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Bart,
Since they were both denied tenure at the same time, does it really stand to reason that they were denied for the same reason? That’s a bit of a leap in logic.
As far as the reason for the denial of Dr. Bullock’s tenure being “presumably because she was a woman,” let me clarify. It was presumed by me and those I knew who also had her. I don’t see any other reason to deny her tenure, either. I know you will rally to this statement: She was one of the best professors I’ve ever known.
In fact, I’ll even go further than that. I have had some excellent professors, but I would say she was the best instructor at any level.
Tim,
Thank you for not being offended. I appreciate you allowing me the latitude to use you as an example.
Of course, you will note, that the question wasn’t really about the Alcohol issue, but about whether or not people thought the IMB has the right to institute doctrinal standards beyond our common confession, the BFM.
Your statement that you would make a motion in regard to such a restriction reveals that you do not believe that they have that right, but are supportive of them because they are in agreement with you personally.
Since you do not believe that they have that right, you must understand why so many of us who disagree have acted as you would have, had you been on the other side of the issue.
I would point out the obvious, this means that you are not in support of #4, in principle.
Finally, to note Alan’s comment and answer your question, the future of the SBC is not yet fashioned. Until a solid direction established, I expect that there will continue to be pushing and pulling. I am not about to simply stop talking about the changes I would like to see happening. The only way that would happen would be if I decided the SBC was determined to be ridiculously narrow minded and uncooperative with anyone remotely close but not exactly the same. Then I would move on to some other cooperative effort with folks who are conservative, but not demanding of uniformity.
In other words, I will stop when others reduce the SBC to a fraction of its former self - one not worth the time, money, energy and prayer. Until then, I will give and press for the SBC I think it could and should be.
In an even shorter answer: No. Not until the issue is decided.
Maybe we should all just crank it up and bring our full slates of messengers. More and more, I think this is exactly that for which we are headed.
February 1st, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I’m with Alan. I will finish my term as one on the committee on nominations and I will find a way to give to my state convention without giving to the national convention. We will support church planting and missionaries across the world in other ways. The arrogance and insanity of this document, along with the fact that I know John Floyd is a Landmarkist and these policies come from that perspective, leave me little choice. If we can’t cooperate and be kingdom oriented, then there is no reason to be involved any more.
February 1st, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Brother Art,
Allow me to state that I was not trying to start an alcohol comment stream, I was merely responding to your example. If that starts something with others, I will be the first to call it down.
I believe that you will find you are I are in agreement on many issues. I also believe you may find it surprising that I too agree that changes a re needed. I do not believe that our leaders need to have carte blanche authority, but I also do not believe the way some are trying to correct it is the way to go.
Let’s say that the IMB comes out and changes the policies. Let us also say that many do not agree with the PPL changes. I will be prepared to present a motion that calls for our entities to adopt such a policy. If that passes then it passes. If it fails it fails. I will not begin castigating and charging the boards with ulterior motives. I will ask myself this question; can I convictionally live with the decisiosn? If the answer is yes, then I continue on, not in agreement with it, but keeping my mouth shut. If the answer is no, then I quietly leave and allow God to sort out the truth.
Blessings,
or
Have a Nice Day,
Tim
February 1st, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Bro. Burleson,
Dr. Stookey is an instructor and mentor. To call him a friend would almost be to make him my peer, which I would not presume to do. Nevertheless, I would certainly not call him any less than a friend. I do not know the reasons for tenure being denied to either of these two, although I have good reason to suspect that the reasons were ideological in nature. Dr. Hemphill was, rumor has it, supportive of both Dr. Bullock and Dr. Stookey. I did not mention his name to suggest that he was behind their departures—merely to correct the impression among many that Dr. Patterson presided over their dismissal.
I do not know about past accreditation history at SWBTS.
Art,
I rally to all that you have said about Dr. Bullock, just as you expected I would.
February 1st, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Tim,
Thanks for the candor. I think we are alike in response, except that I would not be willing to walk away after one motion pass/fail. Thank the Lord that CB Scott didn’t walk away from the Sanctity of Human Life recognition at the Sunday School Board when it did not pass at first. He stayed and fought. Because the cause was just and worth the effort, he stayed. I feel the same way about the SBC right now.
Bart,
I knew you would.
I know that SWBTS was on probation after Dr. Dilday was fired. It put my degree in jeopardy.
February 1st, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Brother Art,
You responded to Brother Bart about accredidation. You and I have more in common that I suspected. My degree was placed in jeporady between Dr. Drummond’s and Dr. Patterson’s tenure. As a matter of fact many colleges in NC would not accept my degree when I was trying to continue my Bachelor’s work. It was all because SEBTS was on probation with SACS and ATS.
Question. Why were these two institutions placed on probation? Was it the action taken that placed them on probation or was it because someone called in the accrediting agencies and leveled charges that were not charges that would jeporadize accredidation?
Blessings,
or
Have a Nice Day
Tim
February 1st, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Tim,
The accrediting agencies don’t respond to baseless allegations. If they believe something unstable is occuring, they put the institution on probation. This presses the point with the institution that they need to get their house in order. Should the institution choose to persist in behavior that threatens its own stability, then the accrediting agencies are oje major step closer to pulling their endorsement.
It is in the best interest of the agency and its member institutions that it be neither too harsh nor to lenient. Striking the appropriate tone is vital.
Too harsh means that institutions will seek accreditation elsewhere - a path that leads to the agency becoming defunct if followed to its end.
Too lenient robs the agency of its credibility, which will cause institutions to look elsewhere also. Again, this leads to the demise of the agency.
Therefore, when something truly threatening to the health of the institution occurs, they respond. If it is nothing, they defer.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:27 pm
I’m sure some will try to be gracious after the fact, Alan, and say they never asked or desired that the opposition would leave, but we have seen a number of times where it has been suggested that many who oppose should leave. Moreover, we know there was much rejoicing over the departures of so many during the conservative resurgence. And, I wonder how some feel about the fact that many missionaries had to leave the field because of their opposition to the changing of the rules.
Alan, I really like the phrase you coined: a missional resurgence. May it be so.
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I just wanted to weigh in since the IMB BOT policy change was the reason I got into blogging in the first place. I graduated from high school in 1980. That was also the first year I ever heard about tongues. It didn’t encounter it a proof of baptism of the H.S., but simply a gift from God that strengthened the receiver (a.k.a., PPL). The discussions we are having today we had then. Baptists, who had never had a written policy against it, wanted to kick Baptists out of the SBC who “spoke in tongues.” Every pastor knew it was the kiss of death to advocate the gift, much less admit having a PPL. Between 1980 and 1990, as there was a resurgence in the churches in the area in which I lived, many non-SBC people began to join Baptist churches. So, the debate regarding baptism emerged. There were those that sounded landmarkist and those who didn’t. It never became the issue that PPL did. The only Baptist churches I knew of that were landmarkist were not SBC. However, it was understood that in order to remain a member, or leader of an SBC church or organization, you could not advocate or admit to having a PPL. You could believe that the gift existed, but you could not allow it in your church. The overwhelmingly held belief was, “That’s ok for them, but not for us.” PPL has never been in the BF&M postively or negatively, but as a lifelong SBC Baptist, with three generations of SBC ministers in my family, it has always been understood that SBC Baptists did not believe in or practice PPL. I’m not saying I agree with that, or teach that, nor does our church practice that, but I would defy anyone to prove me wrong. We live in a day when more and more SBC churches advocate and allow PPL. I think it’s great. It allows people who are sound in theology, and would not identify themselves with Charismatic or Pentecostal excesses to practice the gifts of the Spirit Biblically. One more thing. There are several in these debates who are getting, as my grandmother used to say, “gettin’ nasty.” — particularly some of the leaders of the debates of the issues. Nasty doesn’t accomplish anything. We need to have these debates and we need to establish our beliefs, but not through berating those who disagree. The thing that makes me Baptist is that we are a people of the Book. If it’s in the book, we believe it . . . except for PPL and “alien” immersion.
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Would Brother Tim Rogers be so kind as to write down for us exactly what it is we Southern Baptist supposedly believe? The BF&M2K is obviously not enough for him.
I just need to know who speaks for Southern Baptists on matters of doctrine if it isn’t the convention approving in annual meeting as they did just 6 and a half years ago.
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:43 am
tlinasia: Good question.
February 3rd, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Sister/Brother tlinasia,
BF&M2K!
Allow me to ask you a question. What was the doctrinal guide for the agencies prior to 2000?
Blessings,
or
Have a Nice Day,
Tim
February 3rd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
At least at the IMB (then FMB) from 1992 possibly longer, the BF&M1963 was required to be signed (or a statement saying it was accepted as the doctrinal guide of the IMB) by all missionaries sent by that board. I know that because I, along with my wife, personally signed the BF&M1963 in the spring of 1992 as required by the then FMB.
I asked you a very simple question, one you have yet to answer: What exactly do SBs supposedly believe if not the BF&M2K?
February 3rd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Brother/Sister tlinasia,
I believe I answered your question. BF&M2K.
You have now in two different comments placed thoughts in my comment, that by me answering them tacitly says I agree with your assessment.
Let me now say, that I do not believe that we place requirements on anyone to be part of the SBC. As a denomination, anyone church that gives to the CP is considered a SB. Note that Jerry Falwell has now been given SB status along with David Jeremiah. All of this for one reason–they have given money to the CP.
Our institutions have the right to establish policy that goes further than the BF&M 2K for one reason and one reason only–the way churches are received into “friendly cooperation” in the SBC. I have no problem at all with the institutions interpreting stricter standards than the BF&M. I have serious problems with them loosening the standards to involve anyone who feels like it would be neet to go to the mission field. The SBC is not the Peace Corps.
Please do not read the above as suggesting that our current missionaries are Peace Corps volunteers. I am merely saying that we must have standards stricter than the basis of being SB in order to serve and be paid by SB as a whole.
Blessings,
or
Have a Nice Day,
Tim
February 3rd, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Tim,
Sorry I missed your answer in the previous post. I caught it when I read your post a second time.
I think you have avoided my question somewhat. You insist that the BF&M2K is an adequate doctrinal statement while insisting IMB and others can promulgate doctrinal requirements that are not explicitly accepted by the SBC as part of their confessional statement. That slippery slope has no end at all.
In the end the issue is related to the sufficiency of Holy Scripture or the requirement that particular doctrinal constructs based on the opinions of men become standardized. When a strict legalism that is held by a strongly connected, but minority group of Southern Baptists, takes hold of the IMB, as it seems to be, the end will not be more Southern Baptists seeking and being appointed to take the Gospel to the nations. It will be fewer and fewer.
In the end, it is the lost who suffer most.
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Tim,
Is the the BFM enough or can agencies go beyond it? It does seem that you have affirmed both answers. I am sure you didn’t intend to do so, but it has to be one or the other. It can’t be both, as you know.
Art
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I had lunch this week with a MTH and PhD grad of SWBTS, with his PhD coming in 2002. He told me that one of his associate pastors had gotten Patterson to come speak to his men about hunting, and would be preaching in his church. He wishes now that he had gone with his gut and canceled Patterson. He also told me the only reason he had to stay in the convention was the IMB. I wonder if he had read the IMB response. My wife, a MACE from NOBTS and with years of experience in 4 states as a Children’s Minister, went to an SBC sponsored children’s minister’s conference today. It was, for the most part, a waste of her time, the same old, same old by a former mega-church children’s minister in the South, spewing traditional children’s ministry. She told me tonight: I really don’t have a reason to stay SBC (and she’s got over 150 years of combined SBC service in her family). Their resources are horrible for those trying to do ministry anywhere other than traditional southern churches.
The only thing that is keeping me in now is our state convention. The IMB needs our support, but with the trustees of the IMB flipping the convention a bird doctrinally, basically saying it doesn’t matter what you like or want, we’re going to do our own thing, unless the policies change I believe we will find alternate ways of giving through our state so that we’re a state-affiliated church, but keeping our money from going to SWBTS and the IMB. We will support missionaries directly.
I will finish my service as a member of the Committee on Nominations for the SBC in March, and at that point be done with the convention. I hope that it doesn’t come to this. But the convention has lost its passion for an effective gospel and has only become concerned with the southern baptist way. We want conversions but not disciples. We want baptisms, but not Christ-likeness.
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Brother/Sister tlinasia,
Your original question was; “what it is we Southern Baptist supposedly believe? I said the BF&M2K. If you feel that does not exactly answer you question, I truly do not know what else to say. Now, if you are asking what acceptable doctrines we as SB support that would be a different question.
Brother Art,
See above. Also, if you believe I have affirmed both answers let me state this a little more clearly. A church that gives to the CP is considered SB. They are considered SB because that church, I am assuming, says they practice what the BF&M2K says. The institutions have every right in the world to interpret the doctrines contained in the BF&M2K more strictly. If you will remember during the CR the problem was not the strictness of the interpretation of the 63 BF&M, but the loophole that Jesus is the criterion of interpretation. That left open a loop hole large enough to drive a Neo-Orthodox Mac truck through. The institutions choose the doctrinal stance, the convention holds the trustees accountable to the doctrinal stances chosen.
Now, I truly want to discuss this, but I do not understand how one may say that I am trying to bake my cake and eat it too.
Blessings,
or
Have a Nice Day,
Tim
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Tim,
you said: They are considered SB because that church, I am assuming, says they practice what the BF&M2K says.
This is an error. There are many SBC churches that affirm the 1963 BF&M, not the 2000 version, yet still are SBC. They are only SBC because of missions.
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Tim,
I am not saying that you are intentionally trying to do anything. I think your answers just seem to be in conflict as I read them. I am sure you see your own words clearly. Nothing sinister implied.
I think part of the problem is that you are talking about alot of things rather than saying “yes” or “no.” I also understand that. I don’t usually like to give one word answers.
It seems to me that you are saying that institutions have the right to go beyond the BFM, which means that the BFM is not sufficient in and of itself.
Is that correct?
February 3rd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Tim,
In your comments on this post by Art (and other places where you comment) you make allusions to a body of beliefs common to all Baptists. You say things like you said above “This issue is about who we are as Baptist.”
What kind of Baptist, Tim? The BF&M2K doesn’t preclude someone who believes in eternal security but not Landmarkism from being a Southern Baptist. Yet the IMB BoT, which you defend here, says that in order to be SB missionary (or at least appointed) you have to not only to have been saved, you must accept eternal security, but you are obligated to have been baptized by “a qualified administrator”. The former teachings (baptism of believers and eternal security) are and have been held by Southern Baptists for much or all of our history, and were expressed in our confessions of faith.
But the latter teaching, the one that insists only one baptized by a “qualified administrator”, while not a new doctrine, has never been held to as a part of our confession of faith known as the BF&M(s). The latter teaching, the one you defend at the IMB, has been a divisive matter to the peace of the SBC for over 120 years.
Your statement: “This issue is about who we are as Baptist” is not an accurate picture of Southern Baptists now or historically, though it has been a part of our history and a doctrine held by some, but not all and never most.
Southern Baptists are not Landmarkists because Landmarkism is not a necessary conclusion from Scripture. Landmarkism isn’t good Bible and it isn’t good history (unless accepting numerous heresies as good is a positive thing).
Lest this be deemed a one sided rant, let me add that Southern Baptist confessions of faith have never expressed an iota on the matter of cessationism (another man-made theological construct being used to club people at an agency of the SBC).
Landmarksim and cessationism, constructed by men, will not prevail against the Holy Scripture. But they have and may continue to wreck our denomination’s ability to work together as part of God’s Kingdom force.
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:06 pm
David,
As one on the receiving end of your IMB support, I want to say thank you for how you have supported our work. I think the field missionaries are doing incredible stuff…exciting things are happening. I believe the home office staff is excellent. The trustees? I don’t understand them.
If you must leave the SBC, don’t go without knowing that those at the other end of the rope have been working hard, praying hard, witnessing hard, to be worthy of your support and to be found faithful by the Lord. I think you will find other missionaries, many in need of direct support, who you can support with the same level of enthusiasm.
We aren’t perfect, but God is using us in spite of our imperfections.
tl
February 4th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Let me just jump in here and offer my opinion that Landmarkism is something of a red herring in this argument. It is entirely plausible to believe in the necessity of a qualified administrator for baptism (as I do), without requiring that there be some traceable “line of succession” necessary to that qualification. When I talk about a qualified administrator, I simply refer to a properly constituted church. I don’t believe baptism is conducted outside the authority of a local congregation. This has nothing to do with being baptized “in” the proper building, or being baptized by an ordained Southern Baptist pastor. A church can authorize the custodian to baptize someone in a mud puddle if it chooses to do so. (long as it’s deep enough to get them all the way under; no sprinkling!)
I think that saying a church must hold to eternal security in order to have the authority to baptize is a tenuous argument, but not one I would allow to concern me too much. But I think that talk of Landmarkism is a bit out of place in this discussion. There may be a very few IMB trustees who hold that view, but the majority implemented this guideline, and I think it would be impossible to make the case that the majority are Landmark.
For what it’s worth…
February 4th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Wes,
I don’t know that Landmarkism is a “red herring,” per se. Authorized administrator is a key belief of Landmarkism, but I am willing to stipulate that you don’t have to be a Landmarker to believe in a need for an authorized administrator.
On the other hand, I don’t know that the majority of either the IMB BOT, nor the SBC, believes in an authorized administrator. Not that majority matters, being correct is what matters, but since you mentioned it above…
Not to go back over the same discussion in which you and I originally met (at Tim Sweatman’s blog a year ago - can you believe it has been year?), but I disagree the same way I did a year ago. Great Commission, Philip and the eunuch, etc.
Peace, brother.
February 4th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Basically, item #4 is going to be the issue. If the IMB can create further doctrinal parameters as they see fit, there is no end to what each agency and entity can institute. The BF&M means nothing, and it is relativistic to demand that employees and missionaries sign it on one hand, and then say that it is insufficient on the other hand. When do we stop signing? Who decides when we have enough? The Trustees? What if they have further requirements? There is no logic to this at all.
Yesterday, I engaged in a debate with Bart Barber, Jeremy Green, and Colinm on this matter. You can read the comments starting halfway down here:
http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2007/02/imb-report.html
Tonight, I plan to have a post of my own about this on my blog. This IS the issue, in my opinion, and it is one that needs to be highlighted, in my opinion.
February 4th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I don’t know who may have made this point before or not. But, I think it may be useful to make a distinction between Landmarkism, and what I would call Neo-Landmarkism. It seems to be popular on the part of many to distance themselves from Landmarkism because of their discrepancy with a few of the side tenets, when, at the same time, they are in sympathy with most of the foundational points that separate them from other Baptists and Evangelicals.
February 4th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
If everyone who disagrees with Landmarkism or Neo-landmarkism leaves the SBC, who will be left? And then, what will happen to the current missionaries on the field? At this point, I’m more concerned about my friends who serve as IMB missionaries than I am about the current BOT direction. Does the Neo-Landmarkism that the BOT has adopted change the way we do missions? I mean, we’re all saying we shouldn’t divide over peripheral issues. Yet, aren’t we getting close to that now? I say this while knowing that I would never be accepted by the current BOT as an IMB missionary: we accept PPL, Biblical immersion, and I wouldn’t keep my mouth shut.
February 4th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I am sincerely asking this question. Does it matter if it is Neo-Landmarkism or Landmarkism if the end result is the same, which it appears to be?
February 4th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
The end result of neo-Landmarkism is no different than neo-orthodoxy. Whenever the Scripture is supplanted by the interpretations of men it is the lost who suffer.
Neo-landmarkism is not the clear teaching of Scripture. It is bad doctrine wrapped inside conservative language, pretending to be holy.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:17 am
tlinasia & all,
I think the implication of this bend of the conversation has brought us to a place where Wes and his beliefs are now challenged as clearly unscriptural and based on man made tradition.
Whereas I disagree with him that Baptism has to be authorized by a local congregation, and I think that the thought does have Landmarkist overtones and may have Landmarkist roots, I can, without hesitation, say that I know Wes personally and know that he holds the Scripture in high regards. He is sincerely attempting to interpret Scripture.
February 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
No intent here to pick on Wes or anyone else. Just wanted to point out that points of view somewhat akin to Landmarkism, but not actually pure Landmarkism, might be more accurately termed Neo-Landmarkism.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
David,
I agree with your thesis. I just put myself in Wes’ shoes when I read the last remark that seemed to be intimating that there was an almost deliberate intent to ignore the clear teaching of Scripture. I was just wanting to be fair to Wes.
art
February 5th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Art,
I apologize for the stridency of my words. They were not intended to offend anyone.
My point that Landmarkism is not a clear teaching of Scripture is meant to say that it is not an unavoidable conclusion for a sincere believer “rightly dividing the Word of Truth”. It is not akin to the virgin birth, the sacrificial atonement, the death, burial and resurrection. Those doctrines are clear from reading Scripture.
Landmarkism is not so easily deduced. Bible believing Christians can reject that doctrine and still be faithful to God’s Word.
The matter at hand is this: Will neo-landmarkism keep a large portion of Southern Baptists from following God’s call to global missions? Neo-landmarkism seemingly tolerates no alternative interpretations of Scripture. And neo-landmarkism is currently in control of our IMB BoT.
February 6th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Let me add a couple of things:
1. It has been claimed that the belief that alien immersions (non-Baptist / baptistic immersions) should be rejected is a minority view in the SBC. I would like to know who has done the research to come to this conclusion. I do know that W.P. Throgmorton did a study in 1915 and found that at that time 85% of Southern Baptists rejected alien immersion. I seriously doubt those numbers changed much up through 1980. While I readily admit that those numbers would have decreased since the 1980’s, there is still a very sizeable number of Southern Baptists who believe alien immersions should be rejected. I have been a member of three different Southern Baptist associations and in all three the vast majority of the churches rejected alien immersion.
2. The rejection of alien immersion is not necessary related to Landmarkism. There were many, many Baptist before J.R. Graves who rejected alien immersion. Jesse Mercer and Spencer Cone are two quick examples. There have been many Baptists who were not Landmarkers who rejected alien immersion. Take James P. Boyce and John Broadus. Neither were really Landmarkers, but both were strongly against Southern Baptists accepting alien immersions. There are many Southern Baptists who have followed in their footsteps.
February 6th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Ben,
The issue for most Baptists I talk to is not whether other Baptists have rejected alien immersion, but whether a person is Biblically Baptized and then if any church has the right to reject such a person because of denominational preference. I have a good friend who has no problem with it. He and I disagree. It’s not an issue of polity for many of us. It’s an issue of the Scriptural requirement. I do not want to add to or take away from God’s Word. Requiring someone who has been Scripturally baptized to be re-baptized so they can be a member of my church feels very close to adding the requiremenst of man to the Word of God.
Cyle
February 7th, 2007 at 1:00 am
My problem with not accepting baptism outside of the SB church is two fold. 1. We are not baptized into the church, but to Christ. 2. It seems that we are saying the SB church is the only true church.
February 7th, 2007 at 6:24 am
Ben,
Just to make sure we are on the same page, it would be helpful if you would define “alien immersion.”
If we are understanding this term the same way (and I think it is likely that we are), and if the historical information you provide is correct (and I think it is likely that it is), my point is (and I believe a point of many others as well):
Jesse Mercer, Spencer Cone, James P. Boyce, and John Broadus may very well not be pure “Landmarkists” any one of them. But they are (in spite of not being “new” or “neo” in a chronological sense) what I am calling here “Neo-landmarkists.”
Whereas many Baptists (and at times, even the majority) may well have been either “Landmarkist” or “Neo-landmarkist” in the past, I don’t think that gives any Board or Institution of the SBC the prerogative to impose either “Landmarkist” or “Neo-landmarkist” criteria as a qualification for fellowship, missionary service, or leadership within the convention.
And the day the SBC clearly defines itself as either strictly “Landmarkist” or “Neo-landmarkist,” to the exclusion of “non-Landmarkists” and “non-Neo-landmarkists” will be the day I will see the need to find another group of churches and missionary organization with which to affiliate and serve.
February 7th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Ben,
Aside from the other valid points made in response to your post, please allow me the grace of a response in a different direction.
1. No one on this post, or anywhere else that I know of, has claimed that the rejection of non-baptistic Baptisms is a minority view. This is a false premise, unless you are arguing that baptistic immersion is something other than immersion of a believer upon their profession of faith.
2. You call for someone to cite research in belief of this false premise, which no one is inclined to do, since no one has made this statement, but you yourself are only speculating about what is or is not the make up of the convention beyond 1915. This speculation is based on your opinion.
3. Your opinion is informed, almost exclusively, by your pro-Landmark convictions. It is nothing more than biased speculation.
I don’t begrudge you your convictions, but your opinions and observations do not trump everyone else’s.
February 7th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Many of the claims from the neo-landmarkists seem to be built on arguments formulated by Landmarkists in 19th century, well before the rise of modern evangelicalism.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, and especially in the 17th centuries, Baptists (of all varieties) were among the very few (perhaps the only) denominations which practiced believer’s baptism by immersion. Pedo-baptism was clearly not a Baptist practice.
But in the last 125 years there has been a tremendous growth of evangelicals, including new denominations. Some of those evangelicals share much with Baptists, including Southern Baptists. Their practice is believer’s baptism by immersion.
It seems arrogant at best, triumphalistic at worst, to say that only Southern Baptists have true and genuine biblical baptism. Ben and Tim R. have not explicitly stated this, at least in this thread they haven’t. But if that is what the IMB BoT and those defending the BoT’s policies are saying, they need to state so clearly. If and when they do, their Landmarkism will be readily apparent.
February 7th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Art,
Please explain your statement, “Some Baptists, Landmarkers, evaluate the validity of Baptism based on an authorized Baptizer, but they are in the minority.” Also I base my opinions on this subject upon ten years of research and conversations with hundreds of Southern Baptist pastors across the U.S.
tlinasia,
The fact is that in the 19th century, the Methodist and Presbyterians did mainly baptize by sprinkling or pouring, however they did occassionly immerse, when the candidate requested it. It was these immersions that Baptists in the south rejected and wrote against in the 1800’s.
February 7th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Ben,
Landmarkers evaluate validity of Baptism, at least in part, on whether the person performing the Baptism is qualified - authorized by the local church? in the line of descendancy of valid Baptisms?
Landmarkers are in the minority of the SBC.
Those are my observations from a lifetime in the SBC, Southern Baptist education at the collegiate and graduate levels and 20 years of service to local churches all across the South - in big cities and in the heart of some of the strongest Landmark areas: Logan County, KY, your old stomping grounds. Not that Logan Co. is Muhlenburg Co.
Still, my observations are what they are, and they are very different than yours.
You write as if any observation that you make is authoritative and anything in conflict must be evidenced.
I’m not going to debate observations with you. They are what they are. You are entitled to your opinion. You can’t evidence it, and I disagree.
February 7th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Art,
Go back and read my original response or better yet go back and read Wes Kenney’s response. There are many Southern Baptists who are not really landmarkers who believe alien immersions (Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, etc. immersions) should be rejected. I totally agree with you that Landmarkers are in the minority of the SBC, although there are more of us still around that you probably realize. However there is a huge section of Southern Baptists who are not landmarkers, who have probably never heard of that term, that believe alien immersions should be rejected. You will not get a clear picture of the SBC until you recognize those distinctions.
By the way, those distinctions are clear in Logan County. There are a good number of Landmark Southern Baptist churches there, but they are probably in the minority. However a majority of the Southern Baptist churches there reject alien immersions.
February 7th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Ben,
I would have to have you define specifically the term alien immersion - just for the sake of clarity, so that I don’t assume you mean something that you don’t.
Still, no matter how you define it, if you use it the way you seem to have done so now, David Rogers has addressed very adequately the “neo-Landmark” position.
I believe you are accurate in your statement about Logan Co, but it is changing.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Ben,
Would a baptism by a church who a)only baptized believers (meaning no paedo-baptism) b)only baptized by immersion c)believed in “once saved always saved”, yet was not Southern Baptist, still be an “alien immersion”?
This is the question at hand: Do Southern Baptists believe, as a whole, that our churches are the only ones with a genuine baptism and that all other churches are, therefore, not really churches?