By now, you have probably read the Report of the ad hoc committees studying the Baptism and PPL issues at the IMB. If you haven’t, here they are: [HT: Wade Burleson]
Report of the Mission Personnel Ad Hoc Committee
May 2007
In March of 2006 an ad hoc committee of Mission Personnel Committee received the charge to revisit the approved board policy on tongues and prayer language and the approved board guideline on baptism, both adopted in November 2005. The ad hoc committee has met over the past year during board meetings as well as a two-day special meeting to consider the vast amount of material gathered from leaders, scholars, and pastors across our denomination. The committee solicited this material in an attempt to be faithful to its task. The committee has also spent considerable time praying, fasting, and seeking God’s heart on these issues. The committee has no desire to create further controversy. Rather, our desire is to bring this study to completion and allow the board to maintain its focus upon our world mission task.
The ad hoc committee has concluded that even though field related data and consultation with regional leaders has not indicated a systemic problem with charismatic practices among field personnel, the rapid spread of neo-pentecostalism and its pressure exacted on the new churches in various regions of the world warrants a concern for the clear Baptist identity of our missionary candidates. Furthermore, the diversity of denominational backgrounds among missionary candidates requires a clear baptism guideline to guide the work of our candidate consultants as they consider the qualifications of candidates.
Therefore, we recommend that the full board adopt the following two guidelines to replace Policy 200-15 and Guideline 200-3a. The Mission Personnel Committee approved this recommendation on March 20, 2007 by a three-fourths majority.
Guideline on Tongues and Prayer Language
GLOSSOLALIA
1. The New Testament speaks of a gift of glossolalia that generally is considered to be a legitimate language.
2. The New Testament expression of glossolalia as a gift had specific uses and conditions for its exercise in public worship.
3. In terms of worship practices, if glossolalia is a public part of the candidate’s current practice and it does not fall within the definitions of Parts 1 & 2 above, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.
PRAYER LANGUAGE
1. Any spiritual experience must be tested by Scriptures.
2. New Testament teaching is that prayer is to be made with understanding.
3. The board is not persuaded that ecstatic utterance as a prayer language is a valid expression of the New Testament teaching on prayer.
4. Therefore, if an “ecstatic utterances as a prayer language” is a part of the candidate’s current practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.
APPLICATION
1. This guideline is not retroactive.
2. Any exceptions to the above guideline must be reviewed by the staff and the Mission Personnel Committee.
Proposed Guideline on Baptism
THAT each candidate’s baptismal experience be examined, during the application process, in light of the Baptist Faith and Message statement and the points listed below:
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper. 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VII
POINTS TO BE COVERED DURING THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS
1. The individual
a. Believer’s baptism by immersion.
Baptism by immersion follows salvation.
b. Baptism is symbolic, picturing the experience of the believer’s death to sin and resurrection to a new life in Christ.
Baptism does not regenerate.
2. The Church
a. Baptism is a church ordinance.
Baptism must take place under the authority of a local church that practices believer’s baptism alone, embraces the doctrine of the security of a believer’s salvation and does not view baptism as sacramental, regenerative or essential to salvation.
b. A candidate who has not been baptized under the authority of a local church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his or her Southern Bapist church.
3. The Candidate
The candidate is responsible for requesting their home church to assist them in meeting this doctrinal commitment to the above points.
4. The Consultant
While the candidate consultant should have a working knowledge of many denominational groups, he or she is not expected to investigate every church.
APPLICATION
1. The guideline is not retroactive.
Any exception to the above guideline must be reviewed by staff and the Mission Personnel Committee.
My Response
—
General
While the vote was not unanimous, it was approved by a 3/4 majority. Two observations here. First, it would appear there are more that voted against the guidelines than before, so the number of Trustees willing to vote against these restrictions seems to be growing. Second, 3/4 majority is still a pretty steep hill to climb. The Trustees have overwhelmingly followed the leadership of the ad hoc committees.
Both restrictions are now guidelines. Previously, the PPL restriction was a Board policy. It is a small step forward to reduce this from a policy to a guideline. Practically speaking, though, I doubt that it will be waived for future candidates. The language of the guideline speaks for itself: “4. Therefore, if an “ecstatic utterances as a prayer language” is a part of the candidate’s current practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.”
The ad hoc committee on PPL specifically cites a lack of evidence with field missionaries but still brings in the guideline on PPL citing, instead, some generic spreading of “neo-pentecostal” theology. This is a term used frequently and pejoratively in describing Dwight McKissic by the SB Texan. Frankly, these are weak grounds that reveal, to me, a bias against any form of “tongues” in the Southern Baptist world.
The timing of this report is somewhat suspect to me. I had hoped for this report in the Fall of last year, but when that failed, I looked to Spring of this year. By releasing this report at this meeting of the Board, the ad hoc committees have produced little time for any convention action to be organized or build momentum like happened last year. Frankly, if you don’t have plans to be at the convention in San Antonio, you may not be able to rearrange your life in order to be there. Many churches have already elected their messengers, though a special called business meeting would be able to accomplish this if necessary. Practically speaking, this time is the most difficult time for opposition to rise and speak at the national convention. Given that the report was not mailed to the Trustees ahead of time and answers were not forthcoming as to why, it just seems to me that the timing may have been a strategically chosen one. I don’t know that – it’s just speculation on my part, but that’s what it seems to me.
Specific Theological Concerns
Glossolalia/PPL
I am troubled by the definitions given of Glossolalia and Private Prayer Languages. The ad hoc committee has taken a specific interpretation – that PPL doesn’t exist and that Glossolalia is a known tongue/specific role in worship – and elevated it to the standard of SBC missions cooperation. Again, if you don’t have a problem with the Board of Trustees defining theology beyond the BFM, this shouldn’t bother you – unless you disagree with their interpretation, like myself, or actually practice otherwise like Jerry Rankin, President of the IMB, among others. I will speak to the remedy to this at the close of this article.
Also, there is this cryptic phrase in the guideline, indicated by emphasis: “Therefore, if an “ecstatic utterances as a prayer language” is a part of the candidate’s current practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.”
This reminds me of Jason Epps, who sought funding as a church planter from our other mission board, NAMB. When asked about his PPL, Jason affirmed that he practiced it, but wouldn’t promote or teach it. The response, as he told it, was that they would fund him if he would agree to not practice what he considered a gift of the Holy Spirit. As a point of integrity, Jason refused. I don’t know if the IMB is taking a similar stance here or if they are just saying that they would accept those who had renounced that theology altogether. Since it is a guideline, I assume that the non-practicing candidate would go to the sub-committee for a ruling. I don’t know.
Baptism
The guideline specifically cites (rightly so) the BFM as maintaining baptism as a church ordinance. In my opinion, this stems from the Landmark stream in our heritage. Also, I disagree with it. However, my disagreement is with the BFM. The BOT has every right to enforce that which the SBC has adopted as its standard. If you don’t like this, you have to change the BFM.
Changing the BFM on this issue is not likely to happen. This gives every SBC church the autonomy to practice differently, according to its convictions, but the institutions and agencies will continue to operate within this field and no valid objection should be heard. Again, deal with the BFM if you don’t like it, but you can’t fault the IMB for what the BFM puts forth.
Security of the believer is still a part of this guideline. The church in which you are baptized must affirm the security of the believer. This is NOWHERE in the BFM and the BOT does not have a leg to stand on concerning in making such a restriction. This has not changed since last year.
Finally, the Board requires that the remedy of anyone not fitting these criteria is that the candidate be baptized in their Southern Baptist church. In other words, it is not a remedy to allow your beloved uncle to baptize you in his eternal security believing, fully immersing, believers baptizing Bible church. Again, the influence of Landmarkism.
Potential Response from the SBC
First of all, there is no motion to be made that can direct any agency or institution of the SBC to do anything. The power to direct the SBC has been given over to the Boards of Trustees by the SBC. I’ll come back to that thought in at the end (almost there). A motion, however, directing any agency to do anything will be referred to that agency for action, in the BEST case scenario. Such a referral will most likely receive a response similar to the motion from Wade Burleson last year that was referred to the IMB instead of having a vote on the floor to direct the Executive Committee to study the IMB’s situation. The IMB basically responded by saying that they will mind their own counsel, thanks for asking. That’s it. That’s all they are required to do.
If you want to vote this year on something that addresses the issue, a non-binding resolution is your only hope. The thing about it is, it is non-binding. It will allow the SBC to speak to the issue, and frankly I think we need one to do just that.
The process of getting a resolution is outlined in detail on SBC.net: How to Submit a Resolution.
Whether or not the resolution gets through the Committee on Resolutions is another story. If the Committee brings it out, it will probably pass, though you should expect a debate of some sort. If it doesn’t, you can move to bring it to the floor, but the odds are stacked deep against you. The best way to get a resolution to the floor, is to have a lot of resolutions sent in to the committee so that they can see a desire by many to address the issue. They will pick the best, possibly reword it to suit, and then bring it out – if they choose.
The final way to respond is to continue to elect presidents of the SBC who will in turn appoint the appropriate Committee on Committees, who will appoint the Committee on Nominations who will bring the slate for future trustees to the convention. Both of these Committees receive direction from the President. Substitutes to the trustee slates are permitted from the floor, but are not likely to gain ground.
Ultimately, if you want these guidelines changed, you will have to replace the trustees of the IMB and that will take about 8 more years after this convention. That’s assuming that Frank Page is re-elected and I think he will be. Any resolution is non-binding and any motion directing otherwise is out of order. The IMB’s BOT has been under intense scrutiny and pretty strong pressure over these restrictions and, in the end, listened to its own counsel.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Paul
on May 9th, 2007
@ 3:13 pm:
“The final way to respond is to continue to elect presidents of the SBC who will in turn appoint the appropriate Committee on Committees, who will appoint the Committee on Nominations who will bring the slate for future trustees to the convention. Both of these Committees receive direction from the President. Substitutes to the trustee slates are permitted from the floor, but are not likely to gain ground.”
And that is where, in my opinion, this whole thing will lose steam. If the SBC is so inflexible that it takes ten years to accomplish change on matters that are not anywhere close to being central to our faith or even our Baptist identity, then that inflexibility approaches rigor mortis. Don’t get me wrong. I do not believe these sort of changes should come quickly or easily, lest we be blown by every wind of the doctrine of whoever holds the scepter at the time. But we do not even have a means to address these sort of things as a denomination outside of at least a decades long political struggle. If that is what the powers that be desire as a representation of our mutual “cooperation” then I will have to say that they can have it. Christ did not die for the SBC. He did not die for the IMB or NAMB. He did not die for a trustee system or religious politics. I will simply get on with a focus toward that for which he did die with or without the SBC.
Alan Cross
on May 9th, 2007
@ 4:00 pm:
I nominate Paul Littleton for president of the SBC. Nevermind, I actually like Paul. Again, good words.
Art,
Could a resolution be drafted that takes into account the decision by Ex Comm regarding the IMB prompted by Dr. Boyd Luter’s resolution from last year? Could we draft a resolution that allowed the Convention to express displeasure toward the BoT of the IMB for going beyond the BF&M2000 and include SWBTS in that as well? While it would not be instructive, it could express a sentiment from the messengers that creating doctrinal qualifications that go beyond the BF&M is a bad idea. At least the Convention would be on record and the issue would not be tongues or baptism, but would apply to every doctrinal move that an agency board might make that goes beyond the BF&M. What do you think?
And, one other thing: Where is the theological justification for the ruling? Are we just using the “because I said so, nana nana boo boo” argument again?
Cyle Clayton
on May 9th, 2007
@ 4:20 pm:
I have been in SBCt life since conception (44 years). These policies have always been the majority opinion in the SBC that I’ve known. This is simply the closest the SBC has come to defining the speaking of tongues as a point of division. I’m guessing that there are tens of thousands of people who were once SBC who are no longer because of the issue of tongues. I personally know a church that has split over the issue of so-called alien immersion.
I seriously doubt that the SBC will modify the B, F & M to include these policies. I’m guessing they will simply be used as the unwritten, but oft spoken guidelines used to decide who gets into leadership. It is delusional to think that agreement on the BF&M matters if one speaks in tongues.
While I do not agree with either the baptismal or PPL guideline because I can’t prove them scripturally, I do understand the desire to avoid some of the problems caused by PPL promoters as opposed to PPL practicers. I also understand the problem caused by gossip, backbiting, lust, mean-spiritedness, and by any desire to draw lines in the doctrinal sand that the Bible does not draw. This is not a move forward. Not all people who practice PPL are divisive or “charismatic.” Not all people baptized according to the board’s new policies is saved, either.
Bob Cleveland
on May 9th, 2007
@ 5:16 pm:
A thoughtful and well-spoken post.
The real problem I have with this is the seeming blindness of the following: If someone who speaks in tongues (or whatever anyone terms it) claims it is a gift of God, the net effect is they must renounce the gift and the exercise thereof, to qualify. I realize it’s been given a new name (guideline vs policy), but the fact is they’re still to avoid or hide a gift received from a Holy God. In my experience, that’s a great way to have the Holy Spirit simply let us go on in our own power. I’ve seen evidences of that more times than I care to.
It’s either a gift of God, or it’s simply a work of man, which makes it a fraud, and we know where that comes from.
SBC and the IMB and NAMB are on a very slippery slope here.
GeneMBridges
on May 9th, 2007
@ 11:18 pm:
Baptism must take place under the authority of a local church that practices believer’s baptism alone, embraces the doctrine of the security of a believer’s salvation and does not view baptism as sacramental, regenerative or essential to salvation.
Read that very carefully. Baptist doctrine has consistently been that a credible profession of faith is required for baptism, because we believe in a regenerate church membership. To make eternal security/perseverance of the saints (folks, those aren’t the same doctrines exactly, which kinda bothers me given the tension between the Free Grace folks and the Calvinists in the SBC @ present and the seeming need of one side of that debate to want to excise the other from SBC life at times, but I digress) a requirement for a valid baptism is to infer that it is somehow essential for salvation to believe it. That’s a modern hyper-Calvinist move, and it is most certainly derivative of some hardcore Landmarkers who have argued that anybody that isn’t baptized by a church that is Calvinist (or at least Amyraldian isn’t validly baptized because he’s not a Christian. Ergo, the policy is self-refuting, for, while baptism is said not be viewed as essential for salvation, belief in eternal security seems to be essential because your baptism is considered invalid if the church that baptized you did not believe this. All they’ve done is commit the regressive fallacy. Sure “baptism” isn’t viewed as necessary for salvation, but for a valid baptism, your church (and thus presumably) you are required to believe in eternal security. To say your baptism is invalid if that isn’t the case is to say that your profession of faith is not credible. To say that, is to deny a person’s salvation, to say he is unregenerate. How is this functionally different than saying that baptism is necessary for salvation? The policy functionally commits the very act that it says invalidates baptism. These trustees live in a remarkably illogical world. Can they not recognize the regressive fallacy when they see it?
Apparently John Gano was wrong not to have baptized some of the General Baptists whose churches he and his associates reconstituted as Particular Baptist churches. So much for Baptist tradition.
Colin
on May 10th, 2007
@ 2:10 am:
Ergo, the policy is self-refuting, for, while baptism is said not be viewed as essential for salvation, belief in eternal security seems to be essential because your baptism is considered invalid if the church that baptized you did not believe this.
Parallel to this one: Ergo, the policy is self-refuting, for, while baptism is said not be viewed as essential for salvation, belief in believer’s baptism seems to be essential because your baptism is considered invalid if the church that baptized you did not believe this.
Now, wouldn’t most SBC agencies and churches reject membership touting infant baptism as sufficient and fulfilling the NT prescription for obedient baptism? I do not think this requirement infers that it is somehow essential for salvation to believe it. The logic above would dictate that these agencies and churches would view all who believe in infant baptism are not Christian and that they must believe in believer’s baptism to be saved:(but for a valid baptism, your church (and thus presumably) you are required to believe in believer’s baptism. To say your baptism is invalid if that isn’t the case is to say that your profession of faith is not credible. To say that… is to deny a person’s salvation, [thus] to say he is unregenerate. I think the most that statement infers is that not holding to the “doctrine of the security of the believer’s salvation” is sin.
Now, it is late, so I may have erred in my logic, but it seems solid.
Bowden McElroy
on May 10th, 2007
@ 1:41 pm:
I have followed this process from the very beginning and am impressed with the decrease in vitriol over the past several months. People are attempting to focus on doctrine and logic instead of hurling invectives at one another. Unfortunately, focus only on the logic of the ppl and baptism guidelines ignores one important underlying dynamic: the principles behind the decision making process.
As I understand the latest argument from the BoT’s, they are not even attempting to claim they are following the BF&M, merely that they are acting upon a desire to articulate a clear Baptist identity of our missionary candidates. I understand the desire to state a clear view of SBC identity. I do not understand the underlying belief that the IMB Board is better suited to do so than the convention as a whole. I would think that an ethical decision is one that supports the Statement of Faith as it is written; and that changing it would be a top priority for those who believe our identity is unclear.
One definition of arrogance is: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride. At the risk of incurring the wrath of those who have worked hard to “focus on the issues”, I maintain that the actions of 3/4 of those Trustees voting were arrogant and prideful. And the arrogance and pride of our leaders is a legitimate issue.
I can almost hear the indignant retorts of some, “You don’t know my heart… you can’t judge.” No, I can’t judge the hearts of others; their actions, however, are on display for all to see.
The optimistic part of me is encouraged by the number of those who voted against the guidelines. The cynic in me says you cannot use logic to persuade those who believe they know better than you.
volfan007
on May 10th, 2007
@ 2:46 pm:
bowden,
maybe the 75% of the imb trustees just dont believe like you do? maybe they’re not being arrogant…..maybe they just dont agree with you? you think that’s a possibility?
also, is it not arrogant to say that a large group of people who dont believe like you do are arrogant? is this not the pot calling the kettle black?
just asking.
david….volfan007
Alan Cross
on May 10th, 2007
@ 2:46 pm:
Bowden,
I have written a resolution that I plan to mail off next week that addresses the BF&M issue. You can find it at http://downshoredrift.com . I agree with you that there is a way to change the doctrinal standards of our entities and that it is through the BF&M. Obviously, the trustees did not feel that was the way to go. The problem with that is that we do not have proper checks and balances now. Perhaps the convention can speak to this in a non-binding resolution that lets the Boards of Trustees know that they have overstepped their bounds. I sincerely hope so.
Bowden McElroy
on May 10th, 2007
@ 3:13 pm:
David (Volfan),
The issue is not agreement or disagreement; the issue is one of faithfulness to the organization, in this case the SBC. Last summer the question of how much does one’s church give to the CP was an issue. I saw that as an ethical issue of a similar nature: do you support the organization you want to lead? I saw Dr. Page’s election as a referendum on that point.
As I understand the BoT’s position, no one is claiming the BF&M speaks directly to the issue of a PPL. Instead they are claiming to clarify what Southern Baptists really believe. For a small group of people from only one entity to speak (admittedly de facto) where the Convention as a whole has chosen to remain silent is to say, “We know what’s best for you.”
It is that position that I find offensively arrogant and prideful; not the doctrine itself. If it were merely a matter of disagreement, I would not have accused them of pride. The reality is we do have a statement that reflects our identity and the IMB BoT has made it clear it is not good enough. It is the idea that they can speak with authority about what the SBC believes when the Messengers have not done so that I see as arrogance.
(I understand the argument is often that they are NOT speaking for the SBC but only for missionaries; no one has convinced me that is a viable position.)
If it were only the baptism question, I would not have written what I did: I think they can make a case that they are interpreting the BF&M and then I would have to decide whether or not we agreed.
And, no… I don’t think I’m the pot calling the kettle black.
Bowden McElroy
on May 10th, 2007
@ 4:04 pm:
David,
Just to finish my thought….
Because I’m frustrated with the IMB BoT for overstepping the bounds of the BF&M, in order for me to be “the pot calling the kettle black” I would have to be guilty of disparaging the Board for things I disagreed with while encouraging them (or other boards) to do the same thing on issues where I agree. I haven’t done that. I would like to believe I would be consistent on the matter of Boards following the BF&M and not “clarifying” it no matter what the doctrinal issue at hand is.
A 10-40 Window Missionary
on May 10th, 2007
@ 7:34 pm:
Volfan007 (David),
Correct me please, but if it takes a 3/4 majority to defeat a policy (bill, ordinance, guideline, etc.), then it only takes 26 % of the group to keep the changes presented. Am I missing something here? All we know is that the vote was not unanimous, not the percentage on either side.
A 10-40 Window Missionary
on May 10th, 2007
@ 8:01 pm:
Art,
I tried to write about this issue, before the IMB BoT meeting. I had several concerns…one, the playing of politics in delaying the release of the new guidelines so that no one had access to what was being proposed. A very cagey trick to keep debate and discussion to a minimum (“we must do something on this by SBC, and this is our last meeting…”)
Since the BoT meeting, I have many more questions…If “tongues” is NOT a systemic problem on the field, why did we need this? As a church planter, I try to prepare church leadership to be doctrinally sound, but if I am planting churches, I cannot stay at that one church plant forever, I must train leaders and move on (as did Paul). What comes after I leave, I would hope that I have prepared leaders for problems that they could face. But even Paul could not prepare all the churches he planted, Look at the Corinthian Church.
And why was it out of order to have a regional leader speak to this issue? Did someone have his mind made up and did not want to be bothered by facts? I cannot remember the last time I saw a trustee on the field, but I think it was 1993. Of course, I have not been in glamorous cities, as Paris, Moscow, Hong Kong, Cairo etc. I have mentioned to each trustee that I make an effort to see while on furlough that they need to come see for themselves. All tell me great stories that they have heard from the field, unfortunately, nothing first hand.
So, for all of our trustees reading this, come to the 10-40 Window. We are on a dead-end side road off of the information superhighway, and life is considerably different than the USA, but I challenge you to come see for yourselves.
Thanks, Art, for allowing a rant.
Bowden McElroy
on May 10th, 2007
@ 10:54 pm:
10-40 Window Missionary,
That was likely my mistake and not David’s. I misread 3/4 majority of the Mission Personnel Committee to approve the recommendation to the Board for the BoT vote.
AJ
on May 15th, 2007
@ 7:42 am:
One problem with your example about the uncle in the Bible church re-baptizing the candidate… you must be a member of a SBC church at least 2 years before serving with the IMB. So the candidate would naturally be baptized in the SBC church that their membership is found. Yes, both policies have Landmark leanings in them that I could do without but I don’t know why anyone would go outside of their own church to be re-baptized. If they do they likely have other issues…
Art Rogers
on May 15th, 2007
@ 9:11 am:
AJ,
“I don’t know why anyone would go outside of their own church to be re-baptized. If they do they likely have other issues…”
Like loving their uncle? Having family in another city that would like to see you baptized?
I’ll grant it is not a likely situation, but pressing standards to the limits often reveal their weaknesses. These are both unnecessary regulations – the report itself claims there are no field issues left unhandled.
This is a political solution that continues to compromise the integrity of the mission force.