Reversing the Guidelines of the IMB?

I have chosen to place my name as one of the original signatories of a letter calling on the International Mission Board to reverse its "new policies." The letter, and the issues surrounding it, you can read here. The statements on this website reflect sufficiently my own reasons for supporting such a call.

To note, I have received some question because my name appeared on the original signatory list, then disappeared, and is now back on... the story is this: One of the authors, Allan Blume, had shared with me the intent of the letter in a face-to-face conversation and I had expressed my full agreement with it. He told me he would send me a copy of the letter for me to review and did so but somehow I didn't get it. He took my silence as my consent. When the website went live yesterday, however, I had not seen the letter so I asked Allen to pull my name until I had a chance to review the letter myself. Allen graciously agreed and I took last night to look through it. This morning I re-added my name.

Our church has chosen to work with the IMB in helping us to plant churches overseas. They are a wonderfully effective organization, and we are grateful for the expertise they bring to our efforts. They do a great job strategizing, training, leading, supporting and caring for our teams overseas. They make us MUCH more effective in obeying our call to plant churches among the nations.

I do not object to the IMB trustees doing their job of determining what "kinds" of missionaries best represent churches like ours. It seems to me, however, that they have elevated some issues of personal preference to matters of primary importance. I hope they will listen to the voice of those of us who say that their new policies are not at all reflective of our wishes.

I have many strong, personal opinions on matters of great importance to me that I choose not to make "defining issues" that determine whom I will support and work with in missional endeavors. These include many secondary doctrines, political opinions, and favorite college basketball teams. The Baptist Faith and Message, 2000 is a document sufficiently clear, in my opinion, to establish the parameters of the kinds of missionaries we want to support. I love the BFM2K because it is sufficiently specific to ensure general agreement on the main things and vague enough to allow for difference in style and opinion on more secondary matters.

If the IMB trustees believe that these two issues (only baptisms in churches that hold a certain stance on selected doctrinal issues are valid and the use of a private prayer language) are of primary importance, I would encourage them to bring them to the floor of the Convention to have them officially added to the BFM2K. Let's let the churches decide which issues are of primary and which are of secondary importance.

We recently had one of our staff pastors who was going to serve in our Central Asian church plant who was told he could not go with the IMB because he had been baptized in a Pentecostal church whose position on eternal security could not be verified. Being a very humble guy, he graciously submitted to be rebaptized, but I just felt kind of silly about the whole thing. It didn't seem to have the same glorious feel of the famed Grebel/Blaurock mutual re-baptism of 1525. (There's a throwback for you Baptist history nerds).

I realize that it is difficult to establish what are "primary" matters in Christianity and which are "secondary." I do not envy the position of the Trustees on this, and pray that God will give them wisdom in the days to come.

I am also grateful for how the Convention we work with is set up, in that all of our agencies are accountable to the churches and not visa versa. In many denominations, what the hierarchical leaders say goes, as they are in authority over the churches. The SBC is organized on the principle of local church autonomy, meaning we recognize no authority over a local church except for Jesus Himself, and that all of our missional agencies utlimately answer to the church congregations they serve.

Comments

[Malcolm Yarnell]

The language of primary/secondary (or fundamental/nonfundamental) has, unfortunately, seen growing usage in our midst in the past several years. Historically, it is part of the search for the essence of Christianity, and has been championed by liberals such as Adolf von Harnack. The Baptist Faith Message does not make a distinction between essential and non-essential items with regard to Christianity, but it does identify the entire confession as itself essential for defining those doctrines that Baptists hold to be most sure. (The language of surety indicates there is no doubt in this regard.) Eternal security is one of those doctrines it considers essential, and since the confession defines baptism as a church ordinance, there was and is ample and sufficient reason for the majority of IMB trustees to have arrived at the policy they did with regard to baptism. The guideline on Private Prayer Languages is also their prerogative, having been appointed to their task by the approval of the churches through successive meetings of the Southern Baptist Convention. To turn back these guidelines would throw the polity of the SBC into a period of confusion by undermining the trustee system that has worked well for Southern Baptists since 1845.

[kim davidson]

JD - agree wholeheartedly with you. Believers baptism by immersion (as baptists believe) is a sign of obedience. Do we ask every candidate for baptism how they feel about the finer points of theology? No, we ask them about Jesus and what He did for them on the cross and their relationship to Him. Private prayer language - does that have anything to do with the ability to tell people about Jesus? No. But, how do we keep unity within the SBC and perhaps have another revised BFM?
Thanks for sending people to the hard places to tell those dying about Jesus.

[sv]

Would you indulge me and explain why eternal security is an essential doctrine to the Southern Baptist Convention? I have a strong background with both Southern Baptists and Free Will Baptists, and I'm sure you are aware that the key difference between the two groups is that Southern Baptists believe in eternal security while Free Will Baptists maintain that Christians have the free will to reject their salvation. I am familiar with both sides of the argument, and I cannot for the life of me decide which point of view I agree with- I see both sides of argument.

Frankly, I'm not sure it matters all that much either way. Whether a person is saved and then rejects their salvation, or whether a person was never genuinely saved to begin with, either way, the end result is the same... But maybe this isn't the best way of looking at it??

I know this can be a heavy/lengthy topic, so thanks ahead of time for indulging me! :-)

[Les Puryear]

JD,

I couldn't agree with you more. Thanks for your position on this vital matter.

Les

[a worker overseas]

Thank you, JD.

[Pastor J.D.]

Malcolm, thanks for taking a moment to post. I am having a little trouble following your logic here. The question is not whether or not eternal security is of such primary importance to be included in the BFM... we both agree that it is. The question is whether or not the person/church baptizing you has to agree with all that is in the BFM for God to see your "baptism" as valid. How about women in ministry? What if the person who baptized me had a private prayer language? What if they don't see "cooperation" the way we see it as expressed in Article 14? Does that make my baptism invalid?

And, as to undermining the trustee system... the "system" is that every agency is subject to the people at large. Wasn't that the way the conservative resurgence "worked?" As I said in the post, I don't object to the trustees doing their job of defining what they think a missionary should look like; they should not object to me doing mine and holding them accountable. It seems that you are suggesting that exercising the congregational accountablity function built into our denomination "undermines" the whole thing? If that were the case, could the conservative resurgence have happened?

SV: send a note to cdunn at the summitchurch.cc address and we will do our best to answer the eternal security question.

[J Pappa]

Hey JD, I just wanted to give you a hearty thumbs up :) and thank you for taking a stance on this issue and for being a voice for our congregation. I am so encouraged reading this blog and to see the church in action. I'm also encouraged and inspired at the humility that you and several other of our pastors have displayed on this issue with the IMB. Rock on :)

[a concerned church-goer]

JD,

It is refreshing to see the accountability of the SBC in action. I hope that this is the beginning of real, open discussion on these two matters.

[Malcolm Yarnell]

J.D.,

Always happy to interact with one of our leaders. I appreciate and respect your ministry so very much. Now, so as to unpack my compacted thoughts in answer to your very pertinent questions:

The trustees acted according to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 by holding that baptism is a church ordinance. In other words, as a church ordinance (ordinance = a command given by Christ to the church for perpetual observance) baptism is a responsibility of the local church. Therefore, it matters what a church confesses. J.D., if we divide a church's confession from the individual member's confession, ignoring the former while privileging the latter, then we are only supporting an insupportable division between public belief and private faith. In other words, by saying the church's confession does not matter, but the individual's confession does (even though he or she has now somehow mysteriously changed his or her mind because he or she wants to serve through the IMB), we are encouraging hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of private faith opposed to public confession is as we both know not exactly a Christian virtue. Indeed, such hypocrisy is condemned by Jesus himself (Matt. 7:21-23) .

Next issue: The essentials of Christianity as opposed to the essentials of being Baptist. There are two things to notice in the present debate about the confession we have subscribed. The Baptist Faith and Message indicates that the doctrines within it are held by its confessors to be "sure"; in other words, we don't hold these as doubtful questions. Thus, far from encouraging a division between sure and doubtful, our confession finds all of the doctrines discussed to be sure because they are based on God's Word. If we are not sure about them, then we certainly need to change the confession; either that, or we need to be honest and deny the confession.

Second, too many Baptists (and without surprise, especially those that are attracted to non-Baptist traditions) in recent conversations have wanted the Trinitarian, Christological, and soteriological statements to be essential and sure but the rest of the Baptist Faith and Message to be non-essential or doubtful. As I have argued elsewhere, the idea of theological triage, or the search for the essence of Christianity, is an enterprise fraught with difficulty. For example, as Herman Bavinck has shown, this project led German evangelicalism into the historical-critical speculations of the Quest for the Historical Jesus movement, and was championed most heavily by Adolf von Harnack. Our focus should not be upon identifying the lowest common denominator of acceptable Christianity but upon fulfilling Christ's will entirely and teaching others to do all that He commands, for Christ is Lord and that is part of the Great Commission.

This brings us to your questions relating to our Southern Baptist confession and legitimate baptism:

"The question is whether or not the person/church baptizing you has to agree with all that is in the BFM for God to see your 'baptism' as valid. How about women in ministry?" Most denominations that have adopted women in ministry have evidenced far deeper problems. We would not want to pursue the Episcopalian path, now, would we? If you will delve into the history of ECUSA or the United Methodist Church or any number of liberal churches, you will see that their acceptance of women pastors went hand-in-glove with changes in those doctrines that the ecumenical evangelicals in our midst would also identify as primary. Women in ordained ministry is often part of the entire slope of liberalism.

"What if the person who baptized me had a private prayer language?" Scripture does not consider private prayer language to be a spiritual gift, so the issue should not really matter one way or another. Yet, unfortunately, PPL has become a problem, hasn't it? The only reason that PPL has become a matter of controversy is that some want to push what is a non-biblical practice (and therefore a matter of no consequence) on others as somehow biblical or even necessary (therefore making it a matter of consequence). There are some who assert that PPL is a biblically-defined spiritual gift, but most Baptists (correctly) do not. There are some, such as the Pentecostals, who fit the "IMB Change" definition of baptism and see speaking in tongues as necessary, but Southern Baptists do not. The Pentecostal confession, which has its first personal expression in baptism, is invalid for any number of reasons; fulfilling their responsibility to local SBC churches, the trustees apparently chose to dwell on their unbiblical view of apostasy as the key to identification. They were wise to do so.

"What if they don't see 'cooperation' the way we see it as expressed in Article 14? Does that make my baptism invalid?" This is a good hypothetical question. Let me provide some hypothetical answers. A Roman Catholic could not affirm our article on cooperation, because it does not recognize their fictitious view of the universal church. I would argue that Roman Catholic baptism is therefore invalid. John Calvin's state church forced baptism on unregenerate babies. I would argue that Genevan baptism is therefore invalid. Mormon's will baptize even the physically dead, such as they did with Adolf Hitler a few years ago. I would argue that their baptism is therefore invalid. And I would say such about the Roman Catholics, the Genevans, and the Mormons, because they are not "New Testament churches," at least according to the Baptist Faith and Message (see articles 6 and 14). What I mean here is that under the rubric of "cooperation," a New Testament church agrees that "Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation." We would agree, would we not, that there is nothing spiritual, harmonious, or voluntary about baptizing babies, enforcing baptism by the state, or baptizing dead people? There seem to be two directions before Southern Baptists: a Baptist renaissance or ecumenical evangelicalism. One will lead to the IMB trustees logic; the other will lead to the logic of an IMB missionary affirming the possibility of Mormon baptism.

Now, to answer your final set of relevant questions:

"And, as to undermining the trustee system... the 'system' is that every agency is subject to the people at large. Wasn't that the way the conservative resurgence 'worked?' As I said in the post, I don't object to the trustees doing their job of defining what they think a missionary should look like; they should not object to me doing mine and holding them accountable. It seems that you are suggesting that exercising the congregational accountablity function built into our denomination 'undermines' the whole thing? If that were the case, could the conservative resurgence have happened?"

Please do not misunderstand me, for I am actually arguing for congregational governance, as long established in the SBC; indeed, congregational governance is the lifeblood of much of what I have been living out in denominational circles since I left the pastorate so many years ago. We both know that the conservative resurgence was able to triumph on the basis of congregational accountability 'through the trustee system.' Implementing change through our own Southern Baptist polity is how we were able to preserve the denomination, even as we reintroduced conservative theology in some of our agencies. This brings me to mention the background to my statement: Some have mentioned overturning the IMB trustees' decisions through direct mandate in a meeting of the SBC. If they did so, they would be introducing an extraordinary measure. Does the SBC (that is, the convention of local church representatives) have the authority to override its trustees? Yes, ultimately it does, as long as it follows, out of respect for the Pauline mandate to do all things in order, its own established due process according to constitution, bylaws, etc. But, and hear me clearly and distinctly, we would be wise to think twice even thrice before taking any such drastic action, for such an extraordinary action may undermine the very denomination our churches have so far found useful.

I will pray for you, SV, as this wonderful SBC church helps you deal with the issue of your assurance of salvation. God is sovereign and has promised that nothing can remove a true believer from his hand. I will pray that you receive that grace of assurance. And then, if you are ever called to be one of our missionaries, I hope you will have done so after having received baptism from a church that confesses biblical orthodoxy.

[Trip Rodgers]

Dr. Yarnell,

You said, "The only reason that PPL has become a matter of controversy is that some want to push what is a non-biblical practice (and therefore a matter of no consequence) on others as somehow biblical or even necessary (therefore making it a matter of consequence)."

I think this is the center of the whole problem with the IMB trustees with respect to the churches that they are supposed to represent. There has NEVER been presented any factual data, inside or outside executive session of the trustees, to support this statement, has there? I believe this was what started the whole issue. Please point us to the data if it exists.

Thanks.

Trip Rodgers
Rocky Mount, NC

[Malcolm Yarnell]

Trip,

Interesting question. I cannot speak to executive sessions of the IMB, and I imagine trustees and staff who were there have agreed not to do so, so it is difficult to argue such one way or another with any conviction. But publicly, one example of an argument for the biblical basis of private prayer language, among many, is found in the following article. It could be argued that the speaker has denied PPL is a spiritual gift, but then the arguments subsequently employed support the opposite conclusion.

Perhaps you could help me understand some things from that article. Is the speaker quoted correctly? If so, logically, how exactly is "praying in the Spirit" that is "of God" not a spiritual gift? Moreover, in the context of many SBC churches that have been disrupted by charismatic speaking in tongues, how is the argument that inerrancy and cessationism of spiritual gifts are incompatible not indicative of a preference for the spread of charismatic practices? For the people of God, how is the public confession of the practice as being "of God" not an advocacy of the practice for faithful Christians? Again, this is but one example, but a very interesting one that raises the many questions that we now face.

http://www.abpnews.com/838.article

I have other responsibilities with which to attend, so you will forgive me for backing out of any further conversation.

In Christ,
Malcolm

[marc p jones]

Perhaps I am too simple minded and do not belong in this conversation, but I feel that this sort of discussion often removes the focus from Christ and his mandates to us, as believers to spread his word.

When Peter preached his first sermon in Acts 2, he was asked by the hearers "what shall we do?"

The answer was simply, "Repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the Holy Spirit." (summary of several translations)

And about 3,000 were added that day.

Peter woke up, got nailed by the Holy Spirit, preached a sermon, had a Q & A session, and then baptised +/-3,000 persons. I doubt a lot of discussion was held about what language was prayed in and other such items. There was not enough time.

I am a member of a Southern Baptist Church, I do not pray in other languages, I speak a bit of French, but that matters not, and only wish to model Christ in my life in a way that those who come in contact with me will see the Lord shining through and desire to have what I have.

Sorry, I stopped by for encouragement and it hit a hot spot.

[Kyle Barrett]

Dr. Yarnell...

If we must take into account the beliefs of a denomination as we consider who may or may not be sent with the IMB, how can we not also take into account the beliefs of pastors or individuals doing the baptizing? I don't want to presume to answer for you but it seems that in order to be consistent you must answer that the beliefs of individuals/pastors affects the validity of the baptism of an individual. If this is the case, why limit the qualifications for a legitimate baptism to just doctrinal issues? What about a pastor who later leaves the faith? Not one who lost his salvation but one who walked with Jesus and then left the faith because he never had genuine faith. What about the pastor who is divorced? What about the pastor who has an affair and disqualifies himself from the pastorate?

These aren't hypothetical situations. These kinds of pastors serve in SBC churches across the country. Are these baptisms illegitimate?

Blessings....

Kyle Barrett

[Matt Brady]

Kyle,

Is baptism an ordinance of the church or an ordinance of the clergy?

[Kyle Barrett]

Matt...

It's an ordinance of the church but if an orthodox church administers proper baptism then on what grounds can we reject a person's baptism? If we say that only those holding to eternal security administer legitimate baptisms, then the belief system of the baptizer must be consiered as well. If the legitimacy of a baptism hinges on the belief system of the whole (i.e. the denomination) then it seems to also necessarily hinge on the belief system of the part (i.e. the baptizer).

I'm not sure where you're going with questions so could you clarify for me why you think it matters whose ordinance it is?

Blessings...

Kyle

[Bill]

"Perhaps I am too simple minded and do not belong in this conversation, but I feel that this sort of discussion often removes the focus from Christ and his mandates to us, as believers to spread his word."

Right there with you buddy. Christians in general and Baptists specifically (of which I am one) seem to enjoy fighting over stuff that makes NO difference to winning the "hearts and minds" of the lost.

Thanks JD. Our convention and the IMB needs to "keep the main thing the main thing."

[Bill]

"Perhaps I am too simple minded and do not belong in this conversation, but I feel that this sort of discussion often removes the focus from Christ and his mandates to us, as believers to spread his word."

Right there with you buddy. Christians in general and Baptists specifically (of which I am one) seem to enjoy fighting over stuff that makes NO difference to winning the "hearts and minds" of the lost.

Thanks JD. Our convention and the IMB needs to "keep the main thing the main thing."

[Ken]

JD, Great post. Thanks for what you are doing to move missions in the SBC forward.

[Luke Tolbert]

Dr. Yarnell,

I have a couple of questions that might help me to understand your case a little more clearly.

1. What exactly are the tenets of theology that would disqualify someone's baptism? I am concerned that if eternal security is a possible baptism-invalidating belief, what else could be elevated to that position.

2. What evidence is there from the New Testament where such issues were used to judge a person's baptist as valid or invalid? Many of the baptisms recorded in the book of Acts appear (to me anyways) to be in response to the believer's statement of affirmation on the basic tenets of faith. Peter's response to the crowd at Pentecost was not to instruct them on the church's statement of faith or ask them for their understanding of specific points of theology, it was merely "Repent and be baptized..." if they believed the essential truths of Christianity. Likewise, under what local church and statement of faith was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized?

3. How do we know what a church believes? After all, there are some churches that have a statement of faith which, while it might have been voted on at some point in the 1950s, some of the beliefs are not held by a majority of the congregation today. What qualifies as the church's belief - their statement of faith or the view held by a majority of the congregation? What of those churches that have a statement of faith that does not addresses certain matters?

4. As you raised the point with examples from Catholicism, Mormonism, etc., there are things that make a baptism non-Christian. Are you stating that those who are baptized in a church that does not believe in eternal security have a non-Christian baptism? Should not the qualification for defining whether a baptism is Christian baptism be the same theological doctrines that define whether a person is a Christian or not? After all, if we think that someone can reject eternal security and still be a fellow believer in Christ, why should we state that their baptism is not a Christian baptism?

Thank you for indulging these questions and for your service at SWBTS.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother JD,

You write; "It didn't seem to have the same glorious feel of the famed Grebel/Blaurock mutual re-baptism of 1525. (There's a throwback for you Baptist history nerds)." Are you telling us that you do not baptize by immersion, but by pouring a bucket of water of their heads? :)

Seriously, would you not agree that the IMB is making policy based on more than just the beliefs that you hold about baptism?

Also, would you not agree that a Pentalcostal/Holiness tradition has an ecclessiology that places the authority of the baptizer on the baptizer and not the church? Whereas most Baptist would agree that the authority of the baptizer was given by Jesus Christ through the local church.

I commend you and your Associate for your humbleness in this situation. I believe if you do not agree with the policies that you have every right to try and get them changed. You write; "The SBC is organized on the principle of local church autonomy, meaning we recognize no authority over a local church except for Jesus Himself, and that all of our missional agencies utlimately answer to the church congregations they serve." You seem to forget that while your church has authority over the IMB, you do not have authority over my church. The IMB Trustees are making policies they believe the majority of SB would agree. They have not gone past the BF&M. According to Dr. Chapman at this link
http://www.morrischapman.com/article.asp?id=71, he points to baptism being dealt with in the BF&M, thus the trustees are free to move further because the BF&M is written because; "It is the purpose of this statement of faith and message to set forth certain teachings which we believe." (Preamble) Do not forget that your view of Baptism is different from othes' view of baptism and the IMB has to make guidelines that accomodate both views.

Blessings,
Tim

[Kyle Barrett]

Good questions Luke.

kb

[Matt Brady]

Kyle,

I asked the question to point out that the authority for baptism rests with the church not the individual who happens to hold your hand while you dip under the water. The issue rests on what the church stands for and not what any individual robed cleric stands for.

Bill,

Would you agree that the Great Commission is at the heart of what we should be about as Southern Baptists? If so, I believe this conversation has everything to do with the main thing. In the Great Commission we are told to make disciples, "teaching them to observe ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you..." (emphasis mine). We cannot tell people to follow Jesus and then ignore certain of Jesus' commands that we decide are unimportant. All that God's word teaches us is important, and that includes baptism.

[J.D. Greear]

Malcom, et al... It seems that this issue has brought up some issues about which people have some strong opinions... :)I am grateful for your cordial tone, Malcolm, and the encouragement you have given me more than once in ministry.

Luke, I think you are right on in your questions. The issues are not whether or not the tenets of the BFM are important. I believe that the IMB should only appoint missionaries who agree with every word of the BFM2K.

The question is, as you asked, Luke, whether or not being baptized by someone who does not believe in one of those things means you weren't really baptized. If the guy who baptized me believes women can be elders, does that mean that my baptism is not "Christian"? Furthermore, if when you were baptized you yourself were unclear on the role of women in the ministry, church ecclesiology, family roles, etc... does that mean your own baptism was not really "Christian?" How much must a person understand to publicly confess their faith? If full understanding of the BFM is required for a baptism to be valid, we have a whole lot of people to rebaptize! Has the Baptist Faith and Message has replaced the Gospel for us!

All the things in the BFM are precious to me, but I think the primary doctrinal stance required is that "Jesus is Lord and Savior" as understood in the Trinitarian, Protestant sense. This clearly rules out Mormon and RCC baptisms.

Again, this does not at all downplay the importance of ANY part of the BFM. That is not in question. Missionaries should indeed have to affirm every tenet of the BFM without reservation. The question is if someone does not believe in eternal security, or they do believe that women can be elders, was their baptism by immersion not a Christian one? I think we should beware lest we add to the Gospel!

[Chris Hilliard]

Dr. Yarnell,
Would someone have to be rebaptized if they were baptized in these churches?

Romans: Church of Rome - Paul had to straighten out the Jews and Gentiles who still had various opinions and understandings about salvation (circumcise or not, law or not).

Ephesians: Church of Ephesus, needed to have the nature of the body of Christ (the true Church) explained to them further.

Church of Thessolonica - which was a little confused about the return of Christ and the end times

Revelation 2 and 3 (With the following, notice that all of these were called church by Jesus Himself, and thus, we have to recognize them as such)

Church in Pergamum - Allowed those who held to false teaching in the church

Church in Thyatira - Allowed an immoral false prophetess to teach her false doctrine in the church

Church at Sardis - A dead church with unrepentant sin

Church of Laodicea - An arrogant, lukewarm, naked, blind church

So, it appears to me, especially with the Revelation churches, that you dont have to have all your theology straight to be called a church by God. Now, He wouldnt stand for them remaining in the error. But he did recognize them as a church and didnt require any rebaptisms of their converts once they got things straightened out.

So, even though (enter any denomination you want to here) churches have the basics down but struggle in other areas, it does not mean they are not a real church. The early churches were often MESSED UP theologically. That is why Paul was inspired to write the inerrant Word to them. It was not okay that they were in the wrong. They needed to get things right. But they were called a church nonetheless. And thus their members were a part of the church. Their baptisms were valid even though some of their teaching was not.

[Malcolm Yarnell]

Chris,

Interesting argument, indeed. Please allow me to throw some thoughts out to consider, with regard to faith and order and with regard to perfect status versus New testament status.

From the perspective of faith, it should be remembered that the judgments given to the congregations, especially in the book of Revelation, varied tremendously, did they not? From the perspective of order, anecdotally, none of those churches in the New Testament baptized babies, forced baptism on others, or baptized dead people, did they?

Even more to the point, as far as I am aware, no Baptist theologian has ever claimed any New Testament local church, then or now, is perfect. Rather, as B.H. Carroll taught, the universal church, the perfect church, will gather at the end of time. The state of perfection and New Testament status among churches, just as among individual Christians, ought to be distinguished, don't you think, my brother?

Blessings to you.

[Trip Rodgers]

Everyone,

Wow! Did anyone follow the link in Dr. Yarnell's last post that he addressed to me? It was to a 2006 interview with Dr. Rankin (IMB) who was asked to talk about his PPL in light of the restrictions the trustees put in place. Did Dr. Yarnell just tell me that Dr. Rankin was the problem?

J.D., I appreciate your love for Dr. Yarnell, but wasn't that a not so veiled attack on Dr. Rankin?

Trip Rodgers
Rocky Mount, NC

[Chris Hilliard]

Great! So, if the Assembly of God, the Methodist, the Prebyterian, etc. are valid churches (maybe a theoligically off in some areas as the churches I listed from Scripture), then their baptisms are valid as well. Glad we could settle this issue! Now...let's get that baptism policy changed and move on to the Great Commission!

You said,
"From the perspective of order, anecdotally, none of those churches in the New Testament baptized babies, forced baptism on others, or baptized dead people, did they?"
Correct. And yet, those are not the only reasons baptisms are being rejected by the IMB. Remember, it is also because of the doctrine of the church (for example: eternal security). So, I feel your answer sort of jumped completely over my last two paragraphs in my commment. Baptisms are being rejected because these other churches are in line theologically with us in some areas. And yet, you can't get more messed up then the churches I listed above. Churches that are recognized as churches by the Lord Himself but I could assure you would be rejected by the IMB's new policies.

Other examples I've given (on another blog) are:

John 4:2 - I wonder if any of those who were baptized by Judas had to be rebaptized?

Luke 7:18-20 - or those baptized by John, who wasn’t quite sure of Jesus at one point?

Galatians - or baptized at the church of Galatia before Paul straightened the whole “saved by faith alone” issue?

Corinthians - or baptized at the church at Corinth before their toleration of sexual sin was addressed?

Acts 15 - or baptized at any of the churches that hadn’t figured out the law and grace issue until the council of Jerusalem set them straight?

I simply believe their is no Biblical merit for demanding that baptisms must be conducted by churche and pastors that are completely in agreement with us at the SBC.

[Wade Burleson]

JD,

As clear and concise of an argument for the reversal of the ill-advised policies as I have read. Well done.

Malcolm, you continue to raise the hypothetical of 'churches' and 'denominations' moving into liberalism by not stringently affirming to every 'doctrine' of the accepted confession of faith (BFM 2000), and thus, there is no room for a 'triage' of doctrinal understanding (ex. primary, secondary, and tertiary doctrines).

The point you seem to miss is that the problem that has arisen in the SBC these past three years is NOT from those wishing to detract from the BFM - but those who are adding to it - without convention approval.

That kind of back door, political manuevering by agency boards is PRECISELY why some who have historically had absolutely NO problem with the BFM 2000 (like me), have had to push back against those who are going WAY BEYOND IT.

It was a tragic mistake for the trustees in control of the IMB to push those two policies - policies that the President spoke firmly against, policies that not ONE Regional Leader supported and in unison spoke against, and policies that were not supported by any field or anecdotal evidence that necessitated a correction through an additional doctrinal requirement beyond the BFM.

I believe the fall out over this issue is just beginning. I realize that many have sought to make me the titular liberal that has caused this controversy, but anybody who knows me understands that I am as conservative theologically as our forefathers (Gill, Spurgeon, Dagg, Boyce, etc . . .).

The issue is NOT the atonement, salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, baptism by immersion after conversion, etc . . .

The issue is promoting conformity to TERTIARY doctrinal viewpoints ('no' private prayer languages and the baptizer must have proper 'church' authority) that some in the SBC, including you, have brought to the forefront. Excluding from the mission field or from leadership those who disagree with you on these tertiary doctines of ecclesiology and pneumatology is narrowing the doctrinal parameters of fellowship and cooperation beyond the BFM.

What doctrine is next?

I believe because people are now speaking out, the pendulum is moving back toward a more cooperative phase of ministry in the SBC. We have fought liberalism and won.

We will also fight legalism and win as well.

In His Grace,

Wade

[Travis]

JD-Thank you so much for your stance on this matter. It has been a huge burden on my heart as I prepare to go on assignment with the IMB. It just doesn't make sense that Paul the Apostle would be disqualified from service b/c he practiced a private prayer language. Who knows how many godly men and women have been disqualified b/c they followed in the footsteps of Paul.

Keep up the good work. You are a great blessing.

[David Peterson]

Article IX. Missionaries' Qualifications: All missionaries appointed by the Convention's boards must, previous to their appointment, furnish evidence of piety, zeal for the Master's kingdom, conviction of truth as held by Baptists, and talents for missionary service.

This statement demands that the IMB board (before they hire a missionary) evaluate that missionary's "evidence of piety", "kingdom" zeal, distinctively "Baptist" "conviction of truth", and subjective "talents" to even be a missionary. That's a tall order!

Within this statement, directly from the BFM, there is room for discussion and perhaps even a clue to the reasons for some of the dissent.

Does "piety" include such things as getting into a person's private and personal time of prayer.

Does "kingdom" zeal have more, equal or lesser weight than the next clause which seems to say that missionaries do distinctively "Baptist" work? (In my opinion the answer to this question may reveal a generational difference in mindset.)

How "talented" does a person have to be to be a missionary? How does one decide that?!

I also notice that the wording of the article seems to place responsibility for prooving these things upon the missionary candidate rather than the board.

My personal opinion is that these latest guidelines have gone too far in one issue and are about right in the other issue. My concern however is that we are better at arguing and opining as Southern Baptists than we are at listening and learning from each other. I have learned from this blog and hope to listen and learn from responses to this and other posts.

[JD Blog Watcher]

This is an interesting discussion. As someone who grew up Baptist but not within the SBC I find these denominational discussions intriguing.

I am most interested in the 'triage' understanding of doctrine. The belief that there are primary doctrines, secondary doctrines, and tertiary doctrines. Sometimes it is referred to as 'essentials' and 'non-essentials.' But my question is about this approach to Biblical doctrine. How can we say that some things in Scripture are not essential? Are some areas of Scripture not as important?

Thanks.

[phil]

This post has 30-some comments and growing....

Meanwhile, the "Organic" Hope for Durham post from a few days ago has only one comment.

Hmm... Somebody said something about "keeping the main thing, the main thing"............

[phil]

This post has 30-some comments and growing....

Meanwhile, the "Organic" Hope for Durham post from a few days ago has only one comment.

Hmm... Somebody said something about "keeping the main thing, the main thing"............

[Mike Madaris]

JD,
I want to pose a question in light of the present discussion. The question is, concerning baptism and PPL, how does James 3:1 apply to the situation with those making application as M's to the IMB? (There is a post on Tim Roger's blog today that states that less than 4% of canidates over the last 3 years have been effected by these policies.) Could the current policy be considered a "stricter judgment" for the "good work" they seek (I Tim. 3:1)?

Although this would not effect the local autonomy of the church or the resident member, that is not the debate. To me, it is the position of a very specific, distinct group of people, who will be held, by God, to a stricter judgment that is the point of contention, debate, etc...

[Mike Madaris]

Wade,
Please show me, biblically, where doctrine is divided into the categories you just mentioned? I believe Jesus said in Matt. 28:20 "...teaching them to observe ALL I have COMMANDED you..." (emphasis mine). Please show me the where the divisions come from. I am no Greeks scholar, so it must be found there. :)

[Kyle Barrett]

Matt...

I agree baptism is a local church ordinance. But there is a wrong way and a right way to understand that dynamic. My issue is that if we tie the legitimacy of one's baptism so tightly to the theology of a denomination then we must look at the theology of a local church and therefore to the theology of the one doing the baptism. Tell me what's wrong with my logic here. Where am I falling short?

It seems to me that if we too closely wed baptism to issues which are secondary - language which I think we have to use - we thereby cause unnecessary division and build barriers to cooperation in mission. Orthodoxy and a proper understanding of the mode/meaning of baptism should be the mark of legitimate baptism. Not one's understanding of eternal security. If it is Scriptural baptism performed by an orthodox church, then where is the issue?

Blessings...

Kyle Barrett

[Kyle Barrett]

Dr. Yarnell...

Do you think we should accept the baptisms of those M's baptized by two St Paul/Minneapolis area churches - Woodland Hills Church pastored by Greg Boyd and Bethlehem Baptist Church pastored by John Piper - both of which are affiliated with the Baptist General Conference? If not, why not?

Blessings...

Kyle Barrett

[Trip Rodgers]

Dr. Yarnell,

Thank you for your response. I apologize for being out of pocket today, but I did read your post this morning and thought I posted a response to it, but it's not up here, so let me try again.

I asked if any evidence of needs for the new guidelines had been presented to the board, and you linked to an interview with Dr. Rankin, the president of the IMB, that was done after the guidelines were adopted by the trustees (over Dr. Rankin's objections). In this article Dr. Rankin has to explain his own PPL and how he will work within the confines of the new guidelines.

This is an after the fact article, sir, and I would want to ask you if you are saying that Dr. Rankin IS the problem. I am very disturbed by this and I'm surprised that no one called you on it...Maybe no one else followed the link...

My heart breaks that Dr. Rankin faces attacks like this one from trustees. I would challenge you, sir, to find us the proof of the need for these guidelines. Surely there was something presented...call the current or former BoT chairmen...I'm sure you would have access to them that I don't. I think that if those facts were shared with the churches then people would get in line with the guidelines.

Let me quote you again:
"The only reason that PPL has become a matter of controversy is that some want to push what is a non-biblical practice (and therefore a matter of no consequence) on others as somehow biblical or even necessary (therefore making it a matter of consequence)."

I don't think this has been proven to anyone, and unless there is another agenda these facts should be shared by the BoT.

Trip Rodgers
Rocky Mount, NC (but not in the mountains!)

[michael]

Thank you JD for taking a stand on this issue.

One of the issues raised in this long stream of comments is whether the notion of secondary and tertiary issues is valid. The Great Commission was quoted urging us to teach everything Jesus has commanded us. Everything Jesus taught us is in the Bible. I take that as a command to teach what the Bible says.

Due to cultural thinking patterns, philosophical presuppositions, passed-down tradition, and epistemological perspectives we have sought to organize and categorize what Scripture says in ways that help us understand what the Bible says. This is enormously helpful for someone like me who thinks linearly and in terms of categories. But I recognize that these created categories of systematized theology are not Scripture and not inerrant. The pervading influence of sin even affects our articulation of theology. For me then, this means I must approach theology humbly and must perpetually submit my theology to continued reading of the Bible.

There are many matters of theology where we (tainted by sin) have categorized and explained things a little bit differently. Sometimes it is a matter of reading on verse in light of another and someone else doing vice versa. This is why there is a diversity of theological expression all under the umbrella of orthodox theology, thus the secondary and tertiary issues (e.g. plurality of elders or limited atonement).

As I understand my Baptist heritage, it is for this reason we as Baptists are a confessional people rather than a creedal people. It is a recognition that our confessions of belief cannot be elevated to the level of Scripture. We must be careful not to elevate our systems of theology to the place of Scripture. In all of the defenses of these policy changes I have seen, I have seen very little Scripture referenced and a lot of categorized, systematized theology referenced. It seems that with the issue PPL we have allowed our systems of theology to eclipse a more plain reading of Scripture.

[Jake Porter]

I agree. The new "guidelines" should be reversed. Let's vote for an SBC president who has expressed his support for this position - Les Puryear! Check my blog to see why I'm supporting Les.

[Bill]

Matt Brady:

Thanks for your comments. Of course I believe in the Great Commission, however, with my lack of formal training as a disclaimer, I really can't find anything justifying the position on "Baptist" baptism. In fact, I do not think that the Ethiopian baptized by Philip on the side of the road would qualify to be a missionary under these standards.

Also, please point me to the chapter and verse that bans a private prayer language. While I don't practice one, and honestly think it a bit strange, please show me where in the Bible it says that it is an affront to Christ?

[Bill]

Quick clarification: by "Baptist" baptism, I'm not referring to baptism by immersion but rather the requirements for baptism to count as stated by the IMB.

[formerM]

Good point by Trip Rogers quoting Malcolm:

"The only reason that PPL has become a matter of controversy is that some want to push what is a non-biblical practice (and therefore a matter of no consequence) on others as somehow biblical or even necessary (therefore making it a matter of consequence)."

Dr. Yarnell errs here, and actually sound like he speaks in support of repealing the guidelines. It (PPL) was not a matter of consequence until the caucus pushing the guidelines made it an issue of consequence. No one, especially Dr. Rankin -- as Dr. Macolm's thinly-veiled point to Dr. Rankin -- is making it an issue. And to call it non-biblical, Dr. Yarnell, is your interpretation. But that seems to be what is wrong with this and all conversations with your type. This issue is so open for interpretation. But somehow your type as the only correct discernment of scripture.

[formerM]

Correction to last sentence:
But somehow your type IS the only correct interpretation of scripture.

[Jason]

Does anyone else find it odd that this whole thing was started because (supposedly) people were pushing the issue of PPL, but when asked for proof of that it is hidden behind a "behind closed doors" approach??

I trust the trustee system...but, since the trustees represent US (an not the other way around)...I don't think it is unfair for the content of the discussion (especially when it drives toward extreme actions...as it has) to come into the light of public knowledge.

These "hush hush" meetings are not the idea behind the Trustee system and when carried out like this actually work against SBC polity. Something tells me Dr. Yarnell knows that but doesn't want to admit that since he agrees with their decision. (Why wouldn't he? It's a step toward landmarkism.)

JD, thanks for taking a stand. It's a sad day in SBC life when pastors are scared to take stands on controversial issues for fear of getting booted out of the good ol' boys club and the SBC power structure.
It's time for men of conviction to lead the SBC...not men hungry for power and political gain.

Jason

[Anne Foster]

This is what I sent as a petition signer:
I humbly entreat all relevant persons involved to reconsider what is essential. We suffer so many hindrances to the gospel in a society that is increasingly intolerant of Christians. We must ban together in every way possible to preach Christ and Him crucified! God help us not to squander any time or resources on anything less than advocating, promoting and supporting greater proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Thank-you kindly, Anne Foster, seminary graduate and single mother business owner. Cary, North Carolina

[Todd B.]

Thanks, J.D. for being part of this move to reverse the policies.

For those questioning the idea of "theological triage" and primary vs. secondary and tertiary doctrines, I refer you to Dr. Mohler's excellent post on this issue: http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_print.php?cdate=2005-07-12

Blessings,
Todd