“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.