IMB Policies Demoted to "Guidelines"

The IMB Trustee meeting in Kansas City ended with the report from the Ad Hoc Committee studying the issues of Private Prayer Language and Baptism. Wade Burleson was there and reports on it HERE. Here is the report in it's entirety:

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.

(End of Ad Hoc Committee Report)

(From Me)  I am glad that the policies were degraded to guidelines. It shows a softening of sorts. But, after a year and a half of controversy in all levels of Convention life, it appears that a desire to be non-controversial will probably sow even more confusion as to what is meant. I still do not know how candidates who have a prayer language or were baptized by immersion in a church that does not teach eternal security should see this. And, I really do not expect any clarification. Instead of a definintive answer one way or another, we were given even more confusion. I do not want to be critical as I want to respect the men who worked hard on this, but I really have no idea what I am supposed to do with this as a pastor.

The statement was made that there "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."  It sounds to me like the old policies were working. It sounds like they finally admit that the new "policies" were not adopted because of any problems on the field, but rather because of fear of what MIGHT happen. This is not leadership. This remains an attempt to push a narrow theological position in through the back door of SBC life by going beyond the Baptist Faith and Message2000. And, if people who do not toe the line in these two areas are "eliminated," then how is it a guideline? It seems that the language is still very strong, but it's application is open to interpretation. I really don't know what to make of it, except that the Board of Trustees wanted to implement the same policies but take away ammunition from it's critics by saying, "We softened it. It is just a guideline." Sorry. I'm not buying it.

But, whatever. I can truly say that I don't care anymore. I really do not even have much of an emotional response to this, apart from "Huh?" and "Wha?"  I really have no idea what this means. But, they can do what they want, I guess. I have said my peace and it is time to shake the dust. I hope that things work out for the IMB and that God continues to bless that organization. As for me, I will remain Southern Baptist and continue to participate when and where I have something to offer and feel that cooperation is beneficial for the work of the Kingdom. Beyond that, it is time to move on.

I will write another post on this either later today or tomorrow to provide some further insights after I have had some time to digest all of this. I am already having other thoughts. And, I will be at the Convention in San Antonio in June to mark an end to my foray into denominational life, so I'll provide some insights into that experience as well. But, other than that, I am ready to put this bewildering experience behind me.

Comments

[Darren]

You wrote:
"It sounds to me like the old policies were working. It sounds like they finally admit that the new "policies" were not adopted because of any problems on the field, but rather because of fear of what MIGHT happen."

I'll tell you Alan, it sounds to me like there weren't enough trustees willing to admit that they made a mistake with the "new policies" and this is an attempt to move to the middle, which I agree with you, really does nothing but muddy the waters and confuse the situation.

This remains a narrowing of parameters for cooperation when it comes to missions overseas. With the onslaught of new networks and parternships to do missions, this just means that more and more non cessationist pastors and churches will venture into those networks. Like you, I will remain SBC. I love this convention and I love the IMB, but I am certainly disappointed that there was not a recognition of a mistake, of a poor policy, and that they simply did not return to the former guidelines.

[Guy Muse]

As a missionary, I would mention two things...

1) Lack of input by Regional Leaders (and rank and file missionaries for that matter) in the decision making process. The missionaries who are on the field are the ones to live with the consequences of these kinds of policy/guidelines. Our voice to express any concerns is through our Regional Leaders. But were the RL's given a voice in this process? I am simply asking.

2) Who in Baptist life is the "final word" on doctrinal issues? Is the IMB-BoT now our standard for interpreting doctrinal matters? By taking this stand, is the BoT indirectly saying we M's on the field are to realign our own teachings to mirror these two policy/guidelines? Again, this is a question that I hope somebody out there can answer for us.

BTW: I appreciated your excellent comment on Wade Burleson's blog today related to the same matter.

[RP]

I think the IMB shot themselves in the foot with the PPL and Baptism policies months ago. This week I think they have reloaded and shot themselves in the other foot.

As a M on the field I hate to hear words like have been said on this and other blogs about going with or supporting other sending agencies. HOWEVER, if I were in the states as a pastor, I would be saying the same thing, because we have experienced the same and even more frustrations on this side of the world.

If there is not correction made in the course of the IMB and ultimately the SBC in a few years they will be just a mere shell of what they were. That will be so sad.

We have just a few more years until retirement and we are trying to hang on. Hope we can.

Thank you for all of your blog posts and your comments on other blogs. Your vioce has been heard and appreciated by this m.

[Todd Nelson]

Hey Alan,

Just a word of encouragement from someone on the other side of the world and on the other side of direct SBC involvement (a reject by an IMB candidate consultant in '94)... Though it can be a grievous and disappointing departure, there is life, health, peace, and provision when we follow God into the great unknown: new partners, new paradigms, new networks, and new insights into God's work in the world.

Please allow one story... Just tonight, in our Alpha Course (our 7th in 3 years), I prayed with three Iranians and one Afghan -- all young men. One is a new believer already, two are *very* close, and one was deeply touched by God's Spirit last Sunday and tonight while visiting with us as a tourist. (They all come from the majority religion in their home countries.) It thrills me what God is doing in our midst. This is just the tip of the iceberg and the most recent thing. I just started last week reading the Bible with two of these men -- something they've never done until now.

If you do find it necessary to explore other options in missions, I'd be happy to correspond with you about it. This international church plant has been an adventure! Last year, I got hooked up with a new network of missional international churches (micn.org). Still, I pray that the IMB can adjust its current course and get back to a more cooperative mode of operation.

Blessings,
Todd

[John Fariss]

Thanks for your comments, here, at Wade's blog, & (re: other subjects) on other sites. I agree with you pretty much completely. Assuming the Convention itself provides no course correction, I would like, in a year or so, to know how many candidates with (or sympathetic to) a PPL have been accepted by the IMB. If a substantial number, even if still a minority of the total, it will speak eloquently that this is merely a "guideline," and that the IBM is genuinely evaluating candidates on their merits and calling. If, on the other hand, the answer is "none," it will speak even more loudly that this "guideline" is nothing but the former policy with a little window dressing. Do you know if there is any chance such information would be forthcoming?

I recently shared with the Missions Committee at our church this information (re: the "policies"). I told them that I was not any course of action, but that I felt they should be informed and make it a prayer concern. I concluded by asking them, "Why should we continue to support a missions-sending organization that would reject every member of this church as a missionary candidate?"

The jury is still out on that one.

John Fariss

[Alan Cross]

Thanks for the comments, guys. It is great to hear from other pastors and missionaries on this. I don't know what we should do. On one hand, I am ready to explore other partnerships, but on the other, we are a Southern Baptist church and we have always supported the Cooperative Program and the IMB. I'm going to see how this plays out over the next few months and probably make some type of recommendation to our church around budget time. I don't want to overreact, but at the same time, I do not want to reward and participate in behavior that is clearly in violation of Scripture.

So, I'll continue to be patient and wait upon the Lord. But, I am also now on the look out for other missional partnerships that God might lead us into. The important thing is to be led of the Lord and do everything to bring Him glory and advance His Kingdom.

[Lee]

I would think that turning down missionary candidates on the basis of their honesty about what happens in their own prayer closet is not consistent with the spirit of the original vision of cooperative missions around which the SBC was built. Every time a missionary candidate is declined based on their continualist beliefs, their own local church is affected. Before long, churches will begin directing their financial support toward those from their own congregation who are serving on the field, and questioning why they continue to financially support a mission sending agency that none of its members can qualify to serve.

We have two missionary families from our congregation who serve with agencies other than the IMB, largely because of what appears to me to be arbirtary qualifications not even related to doctrine. In one case, the family is self-supporting, in another, they are with an agency that allows them to receive private contributions. The church, of course, supports both, and each year, at budget time, there are questions about re-routing the IMB money to these two families. We have a third family applying for service this fall, and I guess the future of our IMB support might well rest on whether they are approved or denied. I don't know what their views are on private prayer language, but I would guess, from their involvement in our church, that they believe in the active operation of all of the Biblical spiritual gifts.

[Steve Walker]

About a year ago (May 8, 2006), IMB trustee Jerry Corbaley said on his blog:

"It is untrue that the IMB prevents anyone from going on the mission field. If God called you, then go. There are hundreds of ways to go. It is silly to assume that all members of a Southern Baptist Church are entitled to be paid by the NAMB or the IMB."

I don't want any churches to reduce their support of IMB missionaries. We have wonderful, gifted, and skilled M's that I count it an honor to support. But the IMB trustees should not be surprised if an increasing number of SBCers choose to support people the IMB rejects, as well as those who simply have been turned-off by what they see happening and thus pursue, from the outset, alternative means of going. Nor should anyone be surprised, in this post-denominational age, that SBCers are increasingly partnering with those outside the SBC.