Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Dr. Eitel's Second Paper w Drs. Patterson & Hadaway

This second paper will dispel the notion that Dr. Eitel's first paper was erroneous. Interestingly, this paper did not recieve much attention by baptist news agencies and almost NO attention by bloggers...in fact this will be the first time many of you have ever read this!!! It was written to validate Dr. Eitel's concerns, after his first paper was accused of referencing "isolated incidences." According to one Trustee, this paper helped move the Trustees to address needed changes. Other than footnotes it is published in its entirety. It is long but revealing of 2003 and before.

As one missionary pointed out recently, it is the responsibility of administrators and professors to protect their students and address concerns their students have. Thank God for the response of Dr. Patterson and Dr. Eitel and the impetus this response has provided for the restructuring of curriculum at the ILC. Now, I call on all bloggers who have wrongfully accused Dr. Patterson and Dr. Eitel concerning their papers to issue a public apology.




Drs. Paige Patterson, Keith Eitel, & Robin Hadaway

In keeping with a simple and yet focused discussion format, the following depicts the primary concerns raised by the “Vision Assessment” white paper written by Keith Eitel and the subsequent flow of email and letter exchanges that bring us to this meeting. A given issue is stated, then supporting evidence is offered, and finally a possible way forward is proposed. The incidences cited as examples to various issues are only representative. Numerous other instances could be noted from multiple regions over about 15 years of observed practice on the field. In other words, these ARE NOT isolated incidences. They are systemic problems running throughout the structure. In addition, details supporting Eitel’s contentions have been contributed by Robin Hadaway. Some of these comments are from Hadaway’s paper, “Rejoicing Together: Balancing the Biblical Perspectives: A Missiological Analysis.”

Issue One: What is the precise policy and practice relating to church planting? Are we planting Baptist (not merely Baptistic) churches? If the practice is varied, what are the guidelines for determining whether we plant a Baptist church or not? To what degree are we involved in ecumenical church planting? What theological guidelines do we have to prevent this as we partner with the Great Commission Christians around the world?

Observations

• SD21 data has a curious pattern for gathering the data. 10% of the entire field force was surveyed to discover a variety of things, mostly reflective of how well they’ve understood the Church Planting Movement (CPM) concepts and methods. However, the section designed to determine whether the IMB is planting Baptist churches or not is only an opinion scale from the 15 regional chairpersons of the trustee board in consultation with the 15 regional leaders. This same material could have been easily included in the field survey given to the field missionaries. This in and of itself reflects a skewed methodology, but more importantly it seems to imply that the field findings might mitigate the desired outcomes and demonstrate that we are not consistently planting Baptist churches. Rather we’re planting churches that reflect more the mix of ideas inherent in a blend of Great Commission Christian ideas, often neo-charismatic leaning and quasi Biblical (see a discussion of this GCC concept below).

• While on sabbatical in the fall of 2002, Eitel observed five different locations and the network of work in those locations in China. Consistently, there seemed to be an emphasis on the GCC partnerships as vital to the process of planting churches. Dr. David Garrison’s booklet on Church Planting draws concentric circles of levels of partnership. On paper it looks feasible, but in practice in China (Eitel has also observed this in numerous other settings), it breaks down. When pioneers are first entering a people group or city, finding any other believer to work with is an encouragement. Natural bonds of friendship and affiliation develop. The momentum of these relationships carries over and causes the concentric lines of partnership (which are designed to determine when and how missionaries should partner) to collapse. It’s easier to ignore doctrinal differences and not push Baptist distinctives in order to foster a so-called unity in planting the churches. This type of unity is superficial and will usually erupt into conflict after the initial phases of planting the churches. In order to avoid this syndrome, some missionaries advocate and practice a method of planting so-called churches that means brand new believers are encouraged to share Christ immediately, gather a group of unbelievers together and teach them the essentials of the faith to bring them to Christ, and then in a pyramid fashion, the cycle repeats rapidly. While this is indeed a great evangelistic tool, it does not foster maturation of the church, leadership development nor establishment of long-term vision or stability for the church. It seems to rely almost exclusively on the early sections of Acts as a foundation for this model while ignoring the patterns of maturation found in the Pastorals and General Epistles. Nevertheless, this rapid reproduction allows the missionary to avoid the doctrinal issues that come with GCC partners yet they do not compensate for it by taking the time to “commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

• In Islamic contexts, the GCC influences are stimulating unhealthy contextualization patterns that undermine New Testament Church Planting much less anything Baptist. For example, a missionary wrote to me about this very issue. He stated that someone working with Frontiers had come to teach them about how to establish C-5 Islamic churches. This missionary goes on to say that another GCC partner was willing to call someone coming from an Islamic background that is in a C-5 church plant a believer even though that person emphatically denies the deity of Christ. Yet, this approach to CPM is encouraged and doctrinal concerns are subsumed to foster a so-called unity. Conversely, Dr. Hadaway reports that his strategy in Sudan called for starting Baptist churches (and calling them Baptist) from the beginning. This work has grown through the team Hadaway started and others have continued to over 85 churches and 100 “outreach groups.” His rationale for the persecuted world was “since it was illegal to start any kind of church in Sudan, one might as well start an illegal Baptist church than an illegal non-defined church.”

• In 1992 Hadaway (then an SC) attended a strategy meeting where SC’s were encouraged to partner with Eastern Orthodox churches in their strategies. Dr. David Garrison (then a CSI administrator) said at this meeting, “It does not matter the gender of the pastors of the churches with whom you bring into your areas.” In addition, SC’s were encouraged to include charismatic groups such as the Assemblies of God denomination in their strategies, including church planting.

• In late 1996/early 1997 Hadaway (then a supervisor of SC’s) attended a meeting called by David Weston to plan to enter the country of “Narnia.” CBF representatives (husband and wife) were invited by David Weston to this meeting and attended to take part in the evangelism and church planting strategy. They were introduced as CBF representatives in the meeting Hadaway attended. Although today’s SC’s are given the Garrison document concerning concentric circles of levels of partnership, it is still up to each SC how he or she applies the guidance. Each SC has the freedom to partner with whomever they desire.

• These and numerous other examples can be offered but suffice it to say we’re likely not involved in the formal Ecumenical movement per se, but we’re heavily involved in the Evangelical version of ecumenism by default due to a lack of careful partnering and questionable church planting methods.


Possible Solution

• For all forms of church planting, any partners involved should be inherently in agreement with the BF&M 2000. This will provide a clearly Baptist blueprint for the established pattern of the church and all GCC’s should be able to agree with these beliefs or we should only partner with them on more superficial levels, if the doctrinal differences are not so significant as to undermine partnering at all.

• Since 1963 missionary candidates have been allowed to become missionaries without totally agreeing with the BF&M. Missionary candidates have been permitted to register their disagreement with particular points of the BF&M as long as they agree to “ teach in accordance with and not contrary to” the 2000 BF&M. However, such allowances place missionaries in the uncomfortable position of ministering counter to their own beliefs- something difficult, if not impossible to do. When IMB leadership asked the Region Leaders (RL’s) and Vice Presidents to sign the 2000 BF& M, two RL’s could not sign the document. One RL resigned his position, while the other signed with an annotation. The IMB is the only SBC agency that allows their personnel to disagree with specific elements of the BF& M. Seminary professors at the six SBC seminaries cannot object to points of BF& M and agree to “teach in accordance with and not contrary to” the BF & M. Presently, even ADJUNCT professors teaching at our Southern Baptist seminaries must sign the BF&M 2000 without annotation. We are in the interesting situation where we have many missionaries and even some Regional Leaders who can serve with the IMB in responsible capacities but could not teach even as a visiting professor at one of our six seminaries. This issue was discussed in early 2002 at an IMB senior Management meeting attended by the President, Vice-Presidents, and the Resident Regional Leader (Hadaway). John White introduced the subject by calling for a “post decision analysis” of how IMB leadership had handled the BF&M 2000 issue. In response to John White’s call for free and honest discussion, Hadaway said, “If anyone cannot sign the 2000 BF&M without annotations they should not be missionaries.” The President asked me, “So you would disagree with the IMB’s long-standing policy of allowing missionary candidates to note their points of disagreement with the BF&M.” Hadaway replied, “Yes, as other SBC agencies do not given their employees this option.” Therefore, IMB trustees could better insure that missionaries will follow the BF & M if all missionaries who are appointed to supervisory, RL, and Vice-Presidential roles are not allowed to express points of disagreement with the BF & M. If the trustees do not desire to revisit the BF&M issue with regular missionaries who have signed with annotations, then this board should appoint only applicants who can fully affirm the BF&M. In addition, those who are appointed to supervisory positions (SC’s, Strategy Associates, Richmond Associates, Administrative Associates, and Associate Vice-Presidents) and those who are elected by trustees (RL’s, Vice-Presidents and President) should affirm the BF&M without annotations.


Issue Two: How many of our IMB missionaries are involved in the neo-charismatic movement, and what is presently being taught and advocated by staff concerning "spiritual warfare"?

Observations
• Each year, Eitel leads three short-term mission teams of students somewhere in the world to engage the fields and contribute to the evangelistic and church planting strategies of numerous SC’s worldwide. When working in a Central Asian country in the summer of 2001, the region sponsored a “spiritual warfare” workshop for our students as a preface to engaging in prayer walking through a city. The individual leading the workshop was seconded to the IMB from Frontiers and said he wasn’t taking an extreme approach to spiritual warfare. However, he studied at Fuller Seminary under John Wimber, Peter Wagner, and Charles Kraft. He definitely showed strong influence if not full embrace of their extremist positions e.g. territorial spirits, new revelations, and a complete lack of understanding whether seeking after spirits is more important than simply speaking the Gospel. When prayer walking, we were strictly told not to talk to the people of the city but only to be open to a word from the Spirit.

• Career missionaries often speak of problematic workshops where such ideologies are given and without any critical biblical reasoning allowed. They’re often made to feel as if they are not fully Christian if they even raise a question about the legitimacy of any aspect of such a presentation.

• Missionaries on the field are implementing these things. One lady missionary felt she had to exorcise her curtains of evil spirits. Many who embrace these things are taking it in without thinking it through biblically. Most that fall prey to these strange doctrines have had little or no theological education and don’t have the tools with which to analyze what they’re hearing.


Possible Solution
• Short-term solution would be to redesign the workshops throughout the field structures and bring the subject into biblical balance. Primarily, creating a “reactive” not a “proactive” approach to dealing with the demonic world. That is, be proactive about speaking the Gospel and only stop to deal reactively with demonic issues when/if necessary.

• Long-term, strengthen the required biblical and theological requirements for appointment to give the missionaries better depth understand of Scripture and practice in analyzing issues theologically.

• The IMB receives career, associate and apprentice missionaries from many theological seminaries. In addition, the IMB receives ISC (Journeymen, Masters and ISC) missionaries who have not attended college at all. Since the missionary force comes to the IMB with such varied backgrounds it is no wonder that different beliefs and practices come into conflict with one another on the field. Theology and PRACTICE courses are needed at MLC so that missionaries understand the acceptable parameters for personnel.


Issue Three: What is the policy and practice of the IMB regarding gender roles? Are women placed in supervisory roles such as Strategy Coordinators over men? Are women encouraged to learn to baptize converts and administer the Lord's Supper? Are women urged to be the de facto pastor "leaders" of house churches or any other missionary assignment like the Strategy Coordinator role?

Observations
• One lady student, while serving in her 2+2 assignment, was asked if she wanted to be the SC for a particular city. She declined sensing it was best for a man to serve in that capacity. When the male SC and his wife went home and chose not to return, a lady SC was put in his place. Our student was suddenly ordered to perform the ordinance of baptism for a set of new believers. She was distraught as these are exactly the kinds of things she wanted to avoid. She did more than her share of evangelizing, but she didn’t think it was right to perform pastoral-like functions. Until she appealed to a higher authority that intervened and got her SC to relent, she was in a predicament. The lady SC, by the way, had never been to seminary, was middle-aged, and divorced yet served in a pastoral-like role. Our student thus described the conflict she felt having to sign the BF&M 2000 and then being taught to perform both ordinances while at the MLC (a practice that has only recently been stopped, at least temporarily).

• Curtis Sergeant, the former associate vice president for Strategy Coordination, has had significant input in the design and implementation of the MLC curriculum and teaching of the CPM methodology, especially over the past 2 years. He interprets the BF&M 2000 very strictly and concludes that as long as lady missionaries are not serving specifically as pastors of local churches, then the IMB is in compliance with the document. Yet, he turns around and says in an email correspondence to Eitel, “ . . . if anyone asked me, I would certainly have nothing against it [having ladies administer the Lord’s Supper] . . . All disciples are ministers, however, including women.” Again, in the MLC handout he uses to teach on CPM methodology, he concludes by giving the reader an impression of what the newly established church might look like. “They [the churches] frequently have women in key roles in the church. Women are viewed as ministers, as having spiritual gifts just as much as men, even in patriarchal societies.” Again, in his D.Min. Project, he affirms this same value with the fine line of distinction affirming that a lady should not “pastor” a local church but may do all the ministries of a pastor e.g. administer the ordinances, teach, and lead. By emphasizing that the New Testament requires multiple elders in a local congregation, women can fully participate in leadership roles without holding the title of “pastor”, functionally circumventing the restrictions he acknowledges elsewhere. Sergeant has had significant influence on the SC structure on the field in numerous regions. He states in his Project that over the course of the years he personally taught 727 SCs (Strategy Coordinators) and was the primary resource person for 150 others (see page 14 of his Project). Additionally, in his present role he teaches hundreds of new missionaries headed to the field and encourages ladies to assume leadership roles that are pastor-like, even the performance of ordinances.

• Throughout the world, lady SC’s function and are in roles that restrict them from being a pastor of a local congregation but are unrestricted as to their ministry functions, fully assuming pastor-like leadership and decision making roles.

• During an SC training in Eastern South America in September of 1999 Kathy Hadaway heard a single, 25 year old female tell some other participants that she regularly “preached the main Sunday message and gave the invitations” in many Baptist churches in Brazil. ESA Regional Leader, Hadaway met with her and forbade her to continue in this practice. A year later at another meeting, Kathy Hadaway heard another single, female missionary say, “they won’t let us preach in the U.S., so we come down here where we can preach.” This sort of latitude in the role of women on the mission field led to the ordination of Ida Mae Hays by a local Baptist church in Brazil in 2001 shortly before her IMB retirement. In the same service she received the title of Pastor Emeritus. Hadaway, Kathy Hadaway, and IMB trustee Johnny Nantz asked Rev. Hays to rescind her ordination in a meeting at the Atlanta airport. She told us, “I don’t want to be a pastor,” and said the action by her local church was strictly honorary. Despite some misgivings the ESA trustee committee decided to believe Ida Mae Hays and graciously allowed her to retire without rescinding her ordination. However, a year later she was called to become the senior pastor of a Southern Baptist Church in North Carolina. Today she enjoys the joint titles of Emeritus IMB missionary and Senior Pastor of a Southern Baptist Church in North Carolina.

Possible Solution
• Fully re-evaluate the SC model. Ascertain the pastor-like functions inherent in the actual practice of being an SC. Cull out those functions and restrict those assignments to men. Create a different role with a different title to assume complimentary duties that enhance the SC’s functions in establishing churches. This complimentary role can be performed by either ladies or men as long as there is a male SC.

• The IMB trustees need to clarify the proper roles for all missionary women, including the issues of ordination, supervising men, preaching, and administering the ordinances.


Issue Four: What is the rationale for the approved abandonment of many of our "harvest fields in places like Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa?

Observations
• A joint, “ad-hoc committee” of trustees and senior IMB leadership designed and implemented “New Directions” in 1997. This committee recommended to the Board of Trustees the internal absorption of CSI (Cooperative Services International) into 14 (later 15) new regions (an expansion from the former 10 areas). New Directions was called “a new paradigm” of overseas leadership and was designed to have a “dual focus” to reach the harvest world and the unreached world. The idea was that Southern Baptists would have a global presence.

• A couple of years into New Directions, leadership began speaking of “Strategic Directions for the 21st Century.” It became evident that the IMB planned to scale down work in the places where Southern Baptists had been working for many years (except parts of Asia). In one of the Regional Leader Forums, Hadaway asked the Senior Vice-President-Overseas, about the change from a dual focus to a strictly unreached people focus. He replied, “We’ve changed our mind.” The decision to change from a dual focus to a single focus was reached by staff with minimal trustee input and was not announced to field missionaries until several years later (last Fall).

• At the Global Summit of Senior IMB leadership and the 15 Regional Leaders in August of 2003, another restructuring appeared on the horizon. In a strategy exercise Hadaway was assigned to a table with Curtis Sergeant, former Associate Vice-President for Strategy Coordination and three other Regional Leaders. Sergeant’s notes (which he shared with the group during the exercise) called for reducing the 4 America’s regions from (approximately) the current 1,200 missionaries to a projected 200 during the next 2-4 years. In addition, Sergeant called for placing about 1,200 IMB personnel in S. Asia (India), and approximately 1,150 missionaries in E. Asia (China). The President and Overseas Vice-President verbally affirmed this “strategic realignment” advocated by Sergeant and the Global Research Department (GRD) during the ensuing discussion. Hadaway asked them, “Do you think Southern Baptists are ready to support a mission board with almost 45% of their personnel in only two countries, India and China?” The response was to the effect that it had not been thought of in that way.

• The software used by the IMB Global Research Department (GRD) during the Global Summit weighted every strategic category heavily toward population. In other words, the number of people in a country outweighed every other factor. The office of Strategy Coordination is recommending a radical shift based upon a one-to-one ratio of IMB missionaries to population (see Hadaway paper) instead of strategically placing personnel according to multiple factors (including receptivity and Church Growth principles). Therefore, the heavily populated countries in Asia will within four years make the IMB effectively an “Asian Mission Board” with almost 65% of all IMB personnel assigned to that continent (the 5 Asia regions). Is this the vision of the IMB trustees or the staff? Such a redeployment will mean abandoning Latin America to the charismatic influence (70% of all evangelicals in Latin America are said to be charismatic) and ignoring the plight of the desperately poor people of sub-Saharan Africa who have considerable fewer resources than most of the world.

• The IMB leadership is proposing another regional reorganization. Staff’s plan calls for the America’s to be reduced from 4 to 2 regions. Sub-Saharan Africa will be reduced from 3 to 2 regions. (Asia is being reduced from 5 regions to 4 regions, but the rationale given for that was so it would not seem the America’s were being singled out). Rather than planning this restructuring with the trustees (as was done in 1997), this radical change in strategy (abandoning the harvest) and structure (reducing regions from 15 to approximately 11) was decided with little trustee input, with most trustees being informed after the fact.

• During the May 2003 RL Forum the Regional Leaders were told that due to the budget shortfall and strategic needs, the Overseas Leadership Team (OLT) and administration desired to look at the IMB organization. With this on the horizon the Regional Leaders asked to have “some input” into possible quotas or rumored restructuring. The impetus for reconfiguration did NOT come from the Regional Leaders, but from the administration and the Overseas Leadership Team. The Overseas Leadership Team had planned and proposed a similar restructuring in 2001 (Hadaway wrote the “Rejoicing together paper for that meeting), but was overruled by the President. During the discussion at the August 2003 RL Summit it became apparent that the Associate Vice-President for Strategy Coordination and the statistics office were leading the process down the reconfiguration road. During the ensuing discussion some Regional Leaders disagreed with the quota system and with a reduction in regions. However, when it became apparent that the reconfiguration would happen in the future it was understood that the Regional Leaders should support the OLT and administrations direction. However, it was not the RL’s idea.

Possible Solution
• Trustees represent the will of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. Do Southern Baptists want approximately 1,200 missionaries each in China and India, and 50 each in Brazil, Mexico, Kenya, South Africa, and Russia? How would it be possible for the long-term influence of the IMB to continue in sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America with this kind of emphasis? Trustees need to create a “Global Strategy Committee” to jointly decide IMB strategy to make sure IMB strategy conforms to the will of all Southern Baptists rather than staff.

• It is impossible for the IMB to send people exactly where everyone feels called to go. IMB leadership is responsible to Southern Baptists to develop a world-wide strategy deployment. However, a balance needs to be struck between the “call of God” and the “strategy of the IMB.” Many who feel called to go to some parts of the world are being denied that opportunity. At one SBC seminary there is a young qualified couple (with a baby due) graduating in May who felt called all their lives to Latin America. There were no openings in some regions in Latin America (due to the quota system) until 2005 and in some regions longer. This couple had to choose another part of the world despite their long term calling to work with a Latin American people group less than 2% evangelical. They could not understand why an unreached people group in Latin America of more than 500,000 and less than 2 % evangelical was less important than an unreached people group in another part of the world. Unfortunately, many couples like this would decide to go to the mission field independently. Such couples would be supported by Southern Baptist churches, in turn causing a negative impact on the Cooperative Program.

Issue Five: Finally, why is there such a de-emphasis on theological education for long-term missionary appointment? Is not the lack of theological depth worsening the problems faced on the field as well meaning missionaries are inevitably dealing with complex choices regarding the interface between culture and the claims and expectations of Christ?

Observations
• As noted in Eitel’s “Vision Assessment” paper, there is a historic trend in the SBC, especially since WWII, to see the influence of Neo-Orthodoxy. The pernicious effect of this influence is a gradual, perhaps even unconscious prioritization of religious experience over objective doctrinal truth. As we partner with GCC’s (Great Commission Christians) on the field, they are usually from backgrounds that affirm an interdenominational or non-denominational priority, and often hold varying degrees of neo-charismatic convictions. So within evangelicalism itself, there’s a downplay of doctrinal truths for the greater practice of unified partnering. So the religious existentialism of Neo-Orthodoxy flows over into evangelicalism and is known as neo-evangelicalism. We find ourselves in the middle of this pool of thought. Now more than ever there’s a need for missionaries to be keenly aware of theological trends and to know how to articulate a biblical position on any given doctrine along with an understanding of historic Baptist convictions regarding doctrine. This all means theological education must be required and emphasized for career appointment of missionaries.

• Neo-orthodoxy has infected the IMB at times through the missionary training system. When Robin and Kathy Hadaway (former RL Eastern South America) were in missionary orientation in January & February of 1984, Alan Neely of SEBTS taught Universalism and Liberation Theology as truth. The Hadaway’s complained to the program (Parks’ presidency era) director of the Missionary Orientation Center (MOC) and were told by him, “every class complains about him and I’ve asked him to ‘tone it down.’” However, we later learned that Alan Neely taught these sessions to every MOC (and later MLC) class for 5 years! This Director went on to become an Area Director, an IMB Vice-President, and was a principle defender of Daryl Whiteman (See Eitel’s Vision paper) when he was criticized for his teaching at MLC in the late 90’s. This person retired as an IMB Vice-President two years ago, still in charge of the Missionary Learning Center. Trustee pressure succeeded in removing Daryl Whiteman from teaching at MLC. This underscores the necessity of recruiting leaders for senior IMB leadership positions that will take the concerns of conservatives seriously (see Eitel’s “Vision Assessment” paper).

• Yet, within the past twelve years, there has been a consistently more flexible allowance made for those without significant seminary training. Career consultants have informed students as each policy change has come out. Initially it was an M.Div. degree with 2 years of experience required for appointment to work with church development or church planting assignments. Then the Strategy Coordinator role developed and folk could be appointed with as little as 20 semester hours of seminary. Later it was raised to 30 semester hours. Now a new policy has emerged that eliminates the need for seminary at all since the IMB cannot fund the hours at the seminaries any longer. An additional two weeks will be added to the MLC experience to compensate for seminary training.

• These short cuts are all encouraged in order to expedite or rapidly get missionaries on the field so we can complete the task. So the tyranny of the urgent commands the policy and careful preparation for a qualitatively healthier church-planting outcome is sacrificed for advancing rapidly.

Possible Solution
• Re-examine the policies that govern these types of appointments and minimally require a return to the 30 semester hour policy for all engaged in SC, church planting, or church development assignments (whether the IMB pays for the hours or not—SBC seminary education is intentionally inexpensive compared to other seminaries). Perhaps there is a need to even return to the earlier policy of requiring a professional degree from a seminary &/or enhance development of the 2+2/3 programs. Practical, hands on experience in conjunction with the overall learning structure of a full M. Div. program, only enhances the candidate’s preparation. Hence, continued development of the 2+2/3 programs with each of the seven seminaries (inclusive of Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary) would seem a positive development.

• Prior to the development of the SC program (formerly NRM), everyone had to have an M.Div. (or the professional equivalent such as MRE, M. Music, M.D. or be the spouse of someone with one of these degrees) in order to become a missionary. The only missionaries who were permitted to come to the field with 30 hours were “business managers or treasurer types” who would not be interacting significantly with nationals. Hadaway served as an SC, has supervised and trained SC’s, and has supervised a region as an RL. He believes it would be best to return to the previous requirements for missionary career, associate and apprentice appointment (at least one spouse would possess an M. Div., MRE, professional graduate degree in their field plus 30 seminary hours, or age equivalent church work experience plus 30 seminary hours for older candidates).

160 comments:

Les Puryear said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Les Puryear said...

Brad,

Excellent work! But I don't think you should hold your breath waiting for those public apologies. ;)

Regards,

Les

brad reynolds said...

Les
If no public apologies are issued then we know it has more to do with politics than truth on the blogs who were critical.
BR

Anonymous said...

As an IMB missionary of the past ten year - the second Eitel paper is an accurate reflecitn of that has been giong on and one of the primary reasons that misisonaries on the field are crying out for change. I just received an email from a misiosnary couple today who is struggling with the "call" isse. They feel called to one place, have been effective there, and yet because the quota of people needed for them to continue working with this group is lass than the IMB target - they are told "too bad" you need to find a new place to serve.

Grosey's Messages said...

May I comment from an Australian perspective. Point 5 has been a concern to presidents of Seminaries in the Asia Paific region. The President of the Baptist Union of Australia, Dr. Ross Clifford, exhorted me to encourage Southern Baptist leadership to stop "the dumbing down" of theological education in this region due to the vacuum created by not encouraging SBC theological education on the mission field.
This "dumbing down" vacuum allowed for two effects
a. the extreme charismatic influence becoming prevalent on the mission field.
b. the influence of the CBF, neoorthoxy and liberalism filling the vacuum with their own "theologues"

Sadly, IMHO the dumbing down effect is not only felt on the mission field, but also in your current
contentions on the IMB BOT.

brad reynolds said...

Anonymous

Thank you for your words. It grieves me to hear about the missionary couple of which you speak. But may this discussion be a light which opens further corrections on the field.

I feel some of those who began this mission of "rolling back the carpet to expose things" are now in a quandry (as Les put it there won't be public apologies...in my opinion they won't even speak to it publicly, because they don't know what to say - we will hear an awkward deafening silence from those who are not used to being silent) because what is actually being exposed isn't the politics of an individual but the neo-praxis of an institution.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Grosey
Wise Words. Thanks for the input. May all heed your words. May the IMB and its Trustees hear you counsel.

I can't tell you how much more meaningful it is to hear from those who are actually on the field and see the problems identified by Dr. Eitel.

I have heard privately from multiple M's expressing the same things.

Thank You
BR

HarveyTheRabbitt said...

Brad,

Dude, these guys just hit a grand slam. Why did we not hear of this paper before now? After reading your last 2 posts, I am suprised that Dr. Rankin did not fire back some type of response to Dr. Eitel years ago, or did he? Has Dr. Rankin ever even replied to these things going on under his watch? Why have we not seen it, if so? Or was it just too non-publishable?

Surely this evidence will silence those wine-bibbing, women pastor promoting, charismatic liberals.

Keep us updated on the truth. Lord knows we will not get it from those other sites on the Outpost of SBC life.


Good Day,
Harvey

brad reynolds said...

Harvey,
I think your big ears are an aid. Perhaps you've heard something in the wind, perhaps not...but to answer your question.

Yes. Dr. Rankin responded, which prompted the second paper. I don't think it would be beneficial to the kingdom to let out all the things I know; for his response could be percieved by some as harmful to the IMB administration. Nevertheless, I have stated before, I will continue to reveal what I have to, in order to dispel the blatant erroneous accusations which are occuring on some blogs.
BR

tim rogers said...

Brother Brad,

I do not see how the Trustees were able to clear up the MLC in the past three years. I am still reading the second paper.;>)

Brother Grossey's comments should be yelled to the world. What great insight and coming from another country's Baptist focal person.

But, then again he may be part of this vast conspiracy to silence principled dissent.:o)

Blessings,
Tim

brad reynolds said...

Tim
The ILC has been pretty-well cleaned up thanks to new leadership. However, what is occuring on the field is still problematic according to the Trustees I have spoken to...they are confident, however, in time, with more seminary students arriving on the field, this will correct itself.
BR

Jim Champion said...

Brad

You do show Dr. Ps side very well, in fairness, I think that you should also post Jerry Rankin's response to Eitel's white paper or you are just seeing one side of the fence. We all know that there are two sides to every disagreement.

volfan007 said...

brad,

all the things that you have posted in your last two posts are very concerning. i hope that things are a changing....are they? it's hard to imagine that we have come so far in the conservative resurgence and still allow such things as women pastors and charismatic extremes and liberal, cbf'ers exist on our mission force. wow!

this is why it's hard for me to understand a certain bloggers whining and crying and calling for unity...and he joins with these same type people, and then he calls himself a conservative. i am sorry, but the tent can only be so broad before it breaks.

volfan007

volfan007 said...

have yall seen that a certain blogger is commending a sbc church for joining with a church of christ church to do ministry? even though this campbellite church believes in baptismal regeneration?

where does this "unity" end? should we join with jw's? mormons? gay episcopal priests? my goodness, let's come back to common sense.

volfan007

brad reynolds said...

Jim
You are right...I am just posting the documents that we sent to all Trustees and Administration at IMB. And someone, not Dr. Patterson or Eitel, leaked the papers. Thus, these are semi-public knowledge. Not everything I have worked to gain from a variety of sources including M's, Trustees, Students, etc is public knowledge. Thus I want to be careful and keep it private unless errors are told.

Concerning the Admin's response - it really can be perceived as very damaging to the Admin in some ways. I do recall a prayer request given at the Border concerning our 2+2 program and threats issued from the IMB. Thus, I think you can respect my desire to not cast ill-will toward the administration. I think Dr. Rankin is a good man who loves Jesus and is trying to do his best for the kingdom.

Concerning one-sidedness. All I have done is published the papers the Trustees received. The one-sidedness was the accusations against Dr. Patterson and Dr. Eitel which were wrong and ill-founded as the papers make clear.

I haven't availed the readership of other items I have, which further validates Eitel's concerns. I simply placed out the papers. I haven't given a commentary or posted point by point what I believe the paper reveals – I will let the readers judge for themselves so as to not bias it and be “one-sided”.

I will for the sake of truth show in the near future how the ABP misquoted Dr. Eitel's paper, but for now, I am just posting papers for people to read and draw their own conclusions.

I hope this helps
BR

brad reynolds said...

Volfan
I agree. Some are making the ten to wide…IMHO they are replacing it all-together.

Also, I’m ok with what the church you are referencing did. The reason: Local Church Autonomy. The blogger you referenced forgot that bedrock belief of Baptist. It is fine for churches as they feel led to cooperate even with Mormons in protesting an abortion clinic…that however, is TOTALLY different than paying an Assembly of God believer to be one of our missionaries.

The straw man he builds could be blown over by freshman theology students.

It certainly makes me wonder if he is correct in his conservative credentials but is just theologically naive?
BR

David Rogers said...

Brad,

Even though it may take more time than my reply to Jerry Corbaley's 50-something point post defending the Tongues policy, I hope to eventually respond to this 2nd paper. Do not interpret my silence for the time being as conceding the points I have made earlier.

David

Jim Champion said...

Brad

I think your motives are good, but I think that Dr. Rankin was to some extent blind sided by Dr Eitel's paper being sent to the entire BoT before coming to him - hence his seven page resoponse. I dont have his response or I would post it myself, but I am assuming that you do. this is why I am asking you to post it as well so that your readers can can evaluate the whole and not just the parts.

Since Dr. Rankin wrote the response, and a few years have passed. Since that time the Bot have essentially given the IMB a clean bill of health. I dont think his letter would harm the administration any more than the posting of Dr Eitels white papers.

Jim

Jim

brad reynolds said...

Jim
If I were to post a response from Dr. Rankin I would probably need to post things which showed the error of the response (ie - communications before the paper which showed he was not blind-sided. none of this would be beneficial in my opinion).

I have not posted the papers for the benefit of those whose minds are made up. I post it for 2 reasons:
1. To show what was said without slanted commentary.
2. For those who are open-minded and just want to know.

Hope this helps
BR

brad reynolds said...

David,
I have no doubt many will respond, and I welcome open dialogue. However, to date NO ONE has shown where either paper erred!!!
We have what I like to call the no-spin zone here, where we will keep things focused on the facts of the paper.

Look forward to your response.
BR

Anonymous said...

Dr. Reynolds,

You have had several people ask you about Dr. Rankins response. I too would like to see it. I think I know your concern. However, if you do not let us read it, some will think you are covering up for Dr. Eitel and Patterson. PLease publish it and let the chips fall where they may.

Tommy Johns

brad reynolds said...

Tommy Johns
Thanks for your concern. However, I can honestly find no good reason for the sake of the kingdom in publishing it. I will consider it and seek some Godly counsel.
BR

brad reynolds said...

To all

Les Puryear has written an excellent article concerning the mess our BOT's will have if they don't correct the Burleson Method.

Excellent job Les!!!
BR

brad reynolds said...

You can find his article at
http://lespuryear.blogspot.com

BR

HarveyTheRabbitt said...

Brad,

I smell a skunk. I know I have big ears, but I also have a keen sense of smell.

I found Dr. Puryears article alarming. He hit the nail squarely on the head. I wonder if Wade intentionally implemented this method for even bigger gain?

It appears to me that the alcohol issue and trustee issue may just be the tip of the iceberg. It seems that these alcohol bibbing, women pastor promoting, charismatic liberals are now upset with Dr. Page.

What if Wade and his cohorts intend to overthrow Dr. Page and run McKissic for SBC President? Dear Lord deliver us from the "Burleson Method."

Awwwwwe help us Lord,

Harvey

brad reynolds said...

Harvey,
Are you Bugs Bunny in a Harvey costume? Bugs was always a step ahead of his antogonists.

You introduce an interesting scenario. Running McKissic as President. Hmmmm. I heard Wade had someone in mind.

I would be curious if he and McKissic had phone conversations or e-mails before the SW chapel...perhaps a three-way with Mr. Cole? I wonder?
BR

HarveyTheRabbitt said...

Brad,

After reading Dr. Puryears blog,

It would not surprise me if McKissic had the whole thing planned with Dr. Cole and ole Wade himself before he ever stepped into the pulpit at Southwestern.

If I were a betting Rabbitt, I would bet that Wade has plans for McKissic and Ben. Too bad I sided with you conservatives, Wade might have made me Prime Minister or something. Oh well I am a Rabbitt of conviction. Unlike some, I will not sell my soul to anyone.

Wade talks about Dr. Patterson being a puppet master, but the truth is coming out that Wade is the master puppeteer himself.

Please Dr. Reynolds answer me just one question. How does a man put on an act like Wade did in Greensboro this year and act so humble, yet at the same time run to the press and his blogger boys to get his story out, and still sleep at night?

We need to pray for that ole boy.

Rabbitt Out

Jerry Corbaley said...

Brad,

I look forward to your post on glossolalia.

David,

Sorry to heap work upon you, but I just posted a new blog about the SBC and the evaluation of glossolalia with 78 points.

It seems that reflection on the issue raises additional concerns.

It should not be hard to find on a search engine. I don't want to violate any ethics by asking anyone to check it our and posting the address.

Brad,

Rebuke me frankly if you need to.

brad reynolds said...

Rabbit
I think you are joking on some of the things you say...but just in case you are not. Let us be mindful that we don't want to judge people's motives here. I am very concerned about Wade's widening the tent and perhaps some political maneuvering behind the scenes, however, lets not claim pseudo-humility etc for we do not know his heart only God does.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Jerry
Excellent thoughts on your post on tongues...I highly recommend it. It can be found at http://sbcglossolalia.blogspot.com

Very thorough.
thanks Jerry.

We will tackle the issue sometime next week.
BR

Jerry Corbaley said...

Brad,

Well! Like all humans, saved or not, I look forward to your post all the more since you liked mine.

How the angels must laugh and lament.

Thanks for the plug.

CB Scott said...

Rabbit,

Please tell me atleast the state your hole is in. My dogs need the work out. Season for you kind starts soon:-)

cb

Les Puryear said...

Brad,

If you honestly believe that posting Dr. Rankin's letter may jeopardize field personnel, that's good enough for me. Don't do it. I trust your judgment in this matter.

Regards,

Les

brad reynolds said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
brad reynolds said...

One final note

If Dr. Patterson has been misrepresented on blogs concerning his involvement in the "papers" to the IMB. Does that not beg the question of how many other things he has been misrepresented on by those who just seem to have a "hate Patterson" agenda?

I have asked one blogger who claims we are narrowing the tent to provide evidence outside of the IMB doing what NAMB did in 1987! He has given no evidence. He just claims it and people, I guess because of too many conspiracy movies, believe it.

As Les wisely points out, just because Trustees make policies concerning personnel does not mean we are narrowing the tent. Just because NOBTS may develop a policy forbidding tobacco users from being students DOES NOT MEAN we are narrowing the tent to tobacco users in the SBC. It just means not all SBCers can be students at NOBTS or M's for the IMB!
BR

brad reynolds said...

Les
Thank you my friend. No field personel will be in harms way if I post it. I did not want to post it because I am not convinced it will do any good for the kingdom. I have even contacted Dr. Rankin who was kind enough to respond graciously. He also had reservations of the good in posting it.

However, some of these bloggers accuse me of prejudicing things by just Posting without edit or comment Dr. Eitel's first paper and second paper. Thus, I am considering posting it all, including the ABP revisions, so everyone can see the truth. Dr. Eitel and Dr. Patterson are not what they have been made out to be on blogs and as more truth comes out, more eyes will be opened.

Interestingly, I haven't heard any public apologies by bloggers yet. Well Folks. There you have it. This is the no-spin zone!!! We admit our mistakes and own up to them, others don't. Truth will prevail:)
BR

sbc pastor said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sbc pastor said...

Brad,

This is an excellent post. I hope that all of Eitel's concerns are being addressed by the administration and trustees of the IMB. Do you know how they are progressing?

It is interesting that those who have propagated misinformation about Dr. Patterson are strangely absent from the discussion today. For the record, I have not heard of any apologies either. However, truth will prevail! God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

Pastor Mike said...

I am glad to have had the opportunity to read Dr. Eitel's two white papers. I have only been aware of these issues within the SBC since March. I am overwhelmed at the attacks that are being made. It is so very ungodly and anti-Christ. As I finished reading the second paper my thoughts were drawn to the Matthew 28:18-20. This passage of Scripture is known by Christendom as the Great Commission. It is the marching orders from Christ to his disciples (it was given before the church was formed, therefore it is a commission given to every individual christian). There is one central idea in the Great Commission, and that is to make disciples-followers of Christ. This process of discipleship includes but is not limited to evangelism. Jesus said, "Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you..." This command is not only for the US pastor, seminary professor, Sunday School teacher, but it is for the IMB appointed missionairy as well. I know that it is of utmost importance that all IMB missionairies have indepth theological training. With this training they will have the background to know what the BF&M 2000 is actual saying, and be able to discern heresy when they encounter it on the field. It is imperative that we as Southern Baptist keep a clear and undistracted focus on what God has called us to do, both individually and corprately.

brad reynolds said...

JLG
The silence of Pattersons accusers is deafening as is their absence of apologies.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Pastor Mike
Wise words - may we all heed them
Thanks
BR

sbc pastor said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sbc pastor said...

Brad,

Mike has written an excellent post entitled, "Perspective is Everything." I believe that it is extremely relevant to the current discussion:

http://pastormikehgbc.blogspot.com/2006/09/perspective-is-everything.html

Thanks and God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

colinm said...

I would like to offer a small suggestion here. The other side has been accused of judging motivation of SBC leadership. That is, they take an action and make it evil by assuming ill-intent- esp. with Dr. Patterson and Dr. Eitel.

I would urge that not be done to Burleson and the others. Let the biblical basis of their positions affirm or deny their cause. I believe it will sooner rather than later. And, I believe seeking to attribute sinful motivations to existing leadership (or brothers in Christ, for that matter) without due cause and admittance denies the very humble orthodoxy one may claim to elevate and base his principles on.

CB Scott said...

Brad,

Do me a favor and answer the question on my blog.

cbscottthereport.blogspot.com

cb

HarveyTheRabbitt said...

Brad,

You said that you thought my comment concerning Wade's plan to overthrow Dr. Page and install McKissic as president was just humor. Well, honestly it was until this morning.

I decided to sleep in late and not catch my usual Friday round of golf with my friends at Twin Lakes. However, I received a phone call from a Texas pastor that I graduated with at Cherry Point who told me that he had read your blog and was very disturbed.

He claims to have been in a meeting with the Traveling Road Duo (Wade and his special friend)in which Wade proposed a similar series of events that might unfold next year. This meeting was prior to McKissic's chapel message. He asummed the talk to be mere speculation, but now he is not so sure.

Have you heard anything like this before today? Is there really a conspiracy? Have I unknowingly stumbled into a quagmire? What is Wade really up to? Should I hire body guards? Remember that CB has publically threatened to hunt me down. Is he the Traveling Duo's hitman?

Heading for my rabbitthole

Harvey

Ps. Tell CB I live in Russia. Yeh that's it Russia.

volfan007 said...

harvey,

how does a 6 ft. pooka live in a rabbit hole?

russia is too cold.

volfan007

brad reynolds said...

colinm
Wise Words
BR

HarveyTheRabbitt said...

VOLFAN007,

I have abig rabbitthole and am digging it deeper with onsite security system.

Rabbitt

Ps. If CB asks, about the cold weather, tell him I am in southern Russian. Yeh that works.

brad reynolds said...

CB
I have left a comment on your site. Which for those interested is cbscott.report.blogspot.com not cbscottthereport

Also, I noticed what was happening on Wade's site with your comments, I would be interested to know how he answers that question and if he answers it.

Wade implies that he may not be concerned about other things said by Flamming (ie-one may be saved without affirming the virgin birth, the denial of miracles in the Bible, etc.) when he says "Thanks for clarifying that you are not the one who has accused Dr. Flamming of denying the Virgin Birth. As you are aware, this accusation has been made by several, and if it were true, would be cause for concern."

In my opinion there is a lot more he should be concerned about...if Wade is not concerned...then that is concerning.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Rabbit
You have BIG EARS.

WOW!!!

Some obvious questions come to mind:

1. Did Wade and or Ben talk to McKissic before the chapel message at SW?

2. Was it planned?

3. If so was this not a political maneuver on their part to undermine both the integrity of the chapel service as well as the President of SW, and further to make tongues a central and divisive issue in the SBC?

Please don't read into what I have written. I am just asking questions. Perhaps Wade or Ben or Dr. McKissic could clear these concerns up for us. They could clarify the whole matter by making clear they did not speak before the chapel message. And that Dr. McKissic gives his word he will not run as President of the SBC.
BR

HarveyTheRabbitt said...

Brad,

Your wisdom never fails to amaze me. Perhaps I should go back to school and get my PhD. Sincerely you are a man of wisdom and I admire they way you use your intellect for the good of Jesus' Kingdom. I hope Wade, and McKissic will be wise and respond to your questions. They are valid concerns.

Harvey,

Ps. Moscow Cable wants extra rubbles for running my RoadRunner line so deep in my rabbitthole. Any suggestions on fundraising? Was that CB on the # 4 tram in Moscow this morning? Oh man he may have found me. Oh well guess I'll did deeper.

HarveyTheRabbitt said...

Brad,

Just for the record. That is not Russian Vodka or a White Russian I am sipping.

Harvey

volfan007 said...

brad,

why dont you go to wade's blog sight and ask him the three questions you brought up. that would be interesting to hear his answer.

harvey,

i hope that's not moonshine you are sippin'....is it?


volfan007

brad reynolds said...

volfan
Wade refused to post two comments of mine months ago and I have decided not to go back to sites that are subjectively selective in what they allow you to post.

My comments were not rude or anything. Personally I think he just didn't want me to challenge his assumptions (Please see my post in my July Archive - "An IMB Trustee, A Calvinists, and Blog Subjectivity - Part 1").

Nevertheless, please feel free to ask him those questions...you can even reference this blog if you desire...let us know what he says...if you or anyone asks him.
BR

Jerry Corbaley said...

Hi Brad,

I understand and agree with your decision not to post on blogs-in-the-margin which are polarized toward politics instead of transparency.

I will no longer interact with Marty Duren’s blog. When he edited out a part of my comment and pretended he did not know what I was referring to, I knew the opportunity for meaningful interaction was over.

Last Spring, I communicated with Marty in an attempt to get him to remove the text of my motion to have a trustee removed from the IMB. The form of the motion was twisted on purpose by someone to change the meaning; I don’t know that it was Marty. He would not trust me, and left the misleading form of the motion on his blog.

He did offer to protect my anonymity if I wished to disclose any privileged information about IMB internal matters.

Imagine my surprise when he cast doubt on the integrity of the IMBoT by implying they would not consider my violation of executive session protocol,(sbcoutpost, “Two Meetings”, Sept. 9th). It would seem that he will actively seek and protect trustees who will willingly violate board ethics and impugn their character if they do not comply.

On August 16th I contacted all the members of the IMB Executive Committee and “turned myself in”. I believe it is absolutely unchristian to not submit oneself to the wisdom and accountability of one’s peers. I would be willing to post the text of my letter to them if you wouldn’t mind it taking up space.

In the September IMB meeting in Spartanburg I raised the issue of my violation of executive committee protocol in the Chairman’s Council which includes the chairmen of all the standing committees, the Executive Committee, and Senior IMB Staff. They expressed zero concern regarding the assertion of a violation of ethics. In fact, Dr. Rankin pointed out that the text of my motion was read into the public record the next morning, and my release of the text of the motion was not a violation at all.

Should anyone wish to pursue this matter, all they need to do is find one trustee (who agrees with them) to bring it up in forum, or two trustees (motion and second) to bring it up in Plenary Session.

Transparency (walking in the light) is more than just a word.

Anonymous said...

sbcpastor

whats with your latest post on wade burelson???

volfan007 said...

brad,

i understand about your not posting on wade's blog anymore after being deleted. i too was deleted by wade. he didnt like what i was saying either. also, i dont post on founders anymore either. tom ascol deleted my posts and all but told me that i was not welcome there.

i guess that some cant take it if you disagree with them. it always amazed me that those who did agree with wade and tom could say just about anything and it was smiled upon. but, let someone disagree with them, and you were bad, or mean, or not for unity, or something else terrible in thier minds.

thus, i too do not post on thier blogs anymore. if all they want are yes men, or people who praise them, well, let them have it. it makes me not trust half of what is said on thier sites.


volfan007

volfan007 said...

brad,

i went to wade's blog and someone asked wade the three questions. he answered no to all of them.

just thought you would want to know.


volfan007

Sonya D said...

Harvey the Rabbit/Volfan,
You spent much time on Wade's blog and commented freely many times. Maybe if you would have engaged in disagreement respectfully instead of ending so many of your comments with "juvenile name calling" you would have been more welcome. That kind of behavior doesn't become a child of God or an adult.

CB Scott said...

Rabbit Guy,

I once traveled "miles and miles" to capture one weasel. Now, all people know a weasel is not as valuable as a six foot, talking, rabbit:-)

cb

martyduren said...

Jerry C-

I'm disappointed that you would run over here and slam me using half truths and distortions. You and I have exchanged emails in the past and you could have easily alerted me to the fact that you were rewriting history on Brad's blog.

First, anyone who desires to see your motion can do so here. As I remember how it was originally posted, I had combined your parts one and two using a comma, rather than separated with a semi-colon as it now stands. During a conversation with you, you stated that it had been intentionally twisted, a falsehood that you perpetuate again today. During our conversation, I agreed to change it to the 4 part format so as not to be offensive to you, though anyone who read it would easilty know the accurate meaning behind it as I communicated to you.

Per your concerns, this was changed immediately following our conversation, yet you state, "He would not trust me, and left the misleading form of the motion on his blog." Jerry, that is patently incorrect as it was changed and has remained in the format you requested until this day.

(BTW, to anyone who still cares about what happened to Wade, when the vote was rescinded there was one vote to cover the entire motion, not 4 separate votes, proving that it was a single motion.)

Second, you state, "He did offer to protect my anonymity if I wished to disclose any privileged information about IMB internal matters."

As I said on my blog, comment #49 of this post, I did not (and still do not) know to what you refer. You've never emailed me to clarify and though I have a "Contact Me" form on my blog and though you've had my email address and office phone number for a while, you never attempted to clarify this statement.

The statement to which I think you refer is from an email that I sent you on Saturday, March 4 of this year. The quote is, "I have two credible sources for the text of my post. If I am in error [about the text of the motion], then please email me the text of the motion. As with other sources, you will remain in absolute confidence and never be revealed. If I am in error, then I will make a correction as I have done in the past when new info came up (such as the vote total issue in Huntsville)."

It was in the context of the issue above (your motion), and I was inviting you to provide the correct information without trumpeting where I found it. Your continued misuse of it only demonstrates that you aren't interested in the truth at all. I never sought for you to give me "privileged information about IMB internal matters" and you are deluded if you think that I would. Unfortunately, I'm not surprised that you de-contexted it and have applied it twice now to attempt to imply something I never said.

Now that you confessed to the "proper authorities" and were found not guilty, it appears that I was only asking you to confirm "what was read into the written record" anyway. Therefore, my asking you to provide the text of the motion was not "privileged" material. You can't have it both ways.

Third, I did not question the integrity of the IMB BoT; I wondered about its consistency. The context of the post was would they come after you the way that they went after Wade, ostensibly for the same thing? Interestingly, Wade was castigated for "violating Executive Session," though he consistly denied having done it and it was never proven.

You, my friend, are wrong. You are dead wrong on every count.

CB Scott said...

Jerry C.

It was and still is me that greatly questions trustee integrity. I am not alone.

cb

Jerry Corbaley said...

Marty and CB,

Let me reflect on how best to respond. I am in a coffee shop with wireless (90 minutes from home) and will not return home until Tuesday.

I also am not sure Brad would appreciate his comments section being dominated by our give and take.

Since I am not blogging as an IMB Trustee, and since these issues reflect information that is already released to the public, the review should prove interesting; and different than in the past.

Hopefully, Christian brothers can combine their perspectives and perhaps see our relationship from a perspective closer to the Master's point of view.

If Brad is willing, I will post my recommendation for conversation very briefly in this comments section.

Have a good weekend.

Jerry

brad reynolds said...

Volfan

Thank you.

To All - Volfan has informed us that:
1. Wade has made it clear that neither he nor Ben talked to McKissic before the chapel service at SW.

2. It was not planned by them.

3. It was not political maneuvering.

Thus, let's put these thoughts to rest!

Does anyone know about the rabbits final comment about them running McKissic as President?
BR

brad reynolds said...

Jerry and Marty,
I trust you two as Christian gentlemen...therefore feel free to share your disagreements here in a Christlike spirit.
BR

CB Scott said...

Brad,

Jerry addressed me along with Marty. You called them Christian Gentlemen and gave them permission to proceed.

Question, my fraternal brother: What am I, a barbarian Hun? :-)

martyduren said...

Brad, Jerry and CB the Barbarian-
I respectfully decline to participate an a "sharing of disagreements" in this venue. Jerry and I have exchanged emails already. If anything else needs to be said from me, it will be said there.

My singular purpose in responding was that erroneous statements about me would not be allowed to stand here uncorrected.

David Rogers said...

Brad,

I have posted my reply here.

God bless you,

David

volfan007 said...

sonya,


name calling? and, what names were those? also, did you not read how i was attacked every time i disagreed with wade. all the back slappers of wade....oops...that may be a name calling....would jump on me like a bunch of hound dogs on a coon. if you mean that i called five point calvinists..five pointers....i am guilty. thats what they are, are they not? if you mean that i called the alcohol drinkers...err...alcohol drinkers, or the wine and cheese crowd....well, yea, i guess i name called.

huuummmmmm....seems like i remember Jesus calling a bunch of pharisees white washed tombs....a den of snakes...and jude calling heretics false teachers.

i guess i just call people what they are. if you're a five point calvinist, then i call you a five pointer. that's what you are. if you are a tongue speaker, then thats what you are.

i am sorry if i offended you and made you mad though. i always try to be kind and respectful of everyone....especially to ladies. i am a southern gentleman. so, pardon me, ma'am, for upsetting you.

raised in the hills of tn,

volfan007

brad reynolds said...

CB
my friend of course you are not a Barbarian. A man who would use and M-16 gleefully on a defenseless little rabbit, maybe. but a Barbarian...no
BR

brad reynolds said...

Marty
Thanks


David
Thanks

brad reynolds said...

David

Good thoughts on your response…but I think you have erred.

First you state “from an entirely objective point of view,” - my friend claiming objectivity does not make one’s point of view objective.

You also state “the examples given, on their own, even if valid (to which I will respond later), are not sufficient to warrant the claim of "systemic problems." To assume that the examples given are not systemic implies a belief that the paper should have been an audit report rather than a paper. The men did not desire to cite every instance of doctrinal error occurring on the field (some M’s could have lost their job!!!)

I have received contact from 10 different M’s (and counting) who have basicly said THANK YOU BRAD…finally some truth as to what was happening!

Failure to see the problem in planting baptistic rather than Baptist churches underscores their concerns.

When you state your opinion…it is your opinion and nothing more.

Your desire for more clarifications and definition just lengthens an already long paper. The fact they did not define how they used every term (you felt they needed to define) does not in anyway invalidate what was happening.

We could go on…but the bottom line is:

You did an excellent job of cross-examining their paper without their being able to respond…however, you showed NO ERRORS in their paper…you showed NO PLACE where what they claimed “what was happening” was not. In other words their paper and their analysis of what was happening both at the MLC and on the field still stands without error. When you can evidence that it was not occurring I think you will have a much more valid argument. But to assume these were isolated incidences rather than systemic is to betray a less than objective approach.

The e-mails I am receiving from the field also adds support to the paper.

God bless you my brother.
BR

brad reynolds said...

David

I also think it is important to remember the historical context of the papers.
1. Eitel sends first paper.
2. He is accussed of citing isolated incidences in a response by Dr. Rankin
3. Eitel responds to Dr. Rankin
4. A second paper is written to show the first paper did not cite isolated incidences.

And now you are claiming the second paper used isolated incidences...at what point do we admit there were some problems? How many isolated incidences must be shown for it to be realized as systemic? How many M's careers would we endanger by citing their situation in order to reveal a problem?

Drs Patterson, Eitel, and Hadaway walked a tight rope to protect M's and yet reveal the problem and now you are asking that the rope be made a string.

Point being again: Show me 1 PLACE, just 1, where their paper was erroneous.
Thanks
Brad

brad reynolds said...

TO ALL:

If anyone can show any error in either paper I will post it gladly.

TO DATE NO ONE HAS SHOWN ME ONE ERROR.

Further, if one desires to cross-examine the author(s) rather than a silent paper, I am certain you can call or e-mail Dr. Eitel and he would be glad to respond.

BR

David Rogers said...

Brad,

I am sorry for my miscommunication. I did not mean to imply total objectivity for my own point of view. A better wording would have been: "In my opinion, it is not objective to claim that the examples given, on their own, even if valid (to which I will respond later), are not sufficient to warrant the claim of 'systemic problems.'" I will change the wording on my post accordingly.

In regard to your claim about not showing any errors, my reply is that the bulk of what is stated in this paper is the type of stuff that is nearly impossible to demonstrate as either false or true. If Dr. Eitel said he observed certain things, I have no way to either confirm or deny what he said. I must take him at his word. Also, if he says other people told him that certain things had happened or were happening, I cannot say that those people did not tell him those things. That is not my point.

My point is that the bulk of the examples given in Drs. Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway's paper do not convince me of the main thesis of "systemic problems running throughout the structure" of the IMB. I will concede that if you are an extreme advocate of "Baptist" as opposed to "baptistic" church planting, if you are decidedly against anything that slightly hints of charismatic or "third wave" practice, or if you assume non-clerical individuals administering ordinances is unbiblical, then you may well regard the examples given to be sufficient evidence of "systemic problems."

My position is that none of these supposed problems goes against either the Bible or the BFM 2000. I recognize that others, due to their interpretative presuppositions, reach other conclusions. I recognize, at the same time, that I have my own presuppositions.

In regards to the amount of examples given in the paper, I was not particularly impressed by either the quantity or the gravity. Given the extensive contact each of the authors has had with missionaries down through the years, it would be unusual, in my opinion, to not come across occasional aberrations of belief or practice. Once again, the nature of this claim makes it impossible to prove or disprove, but I have a strong suspicion that if a random survey of doctrine and practice were taken among cooperative Southern Baptist churches in the States, the comparative degree of problems would be just as great, if not greater.

HarveyTheRabbitt said...

Brad,

First, I am genuinely heartbroken. You allow a woman (Sonya) to come on your site and bash me, yet if I reply to her unkindness, I will be trampled by her husband and liberal cohorts. I read a comment stream on SBC Outhouse I mean Outpost where Sonya got involved and one man responded to her. Brad they crucified that poor fellow and dared him to return. I am not sure but I bet they put CB on his trail.

Second, I tried to post on Wades sight concerning the McKissic question, but he removed it and now it says removed by author. How does he remove a statement and make it look like I did it? If Wade has any integrity at all I would like for him to answer these 3 questions.

1. Wade do you deny that you and your traveling buddy have been traveling and talking with pastors in Texas in an attempt to raise support for San Antonio?
2. Wade do you deny that you and/or your little buddy spoke with McKissic within an hour after the SWBTS chapel service? Remember there are phone records even for cells
3. Do you deny that you have already had at lest 1 conversation concerning running McKissic for president in San Antonio?

Harvey

SonyaD said...

Volfan/Harvey,
I am not offended, just troubled how you can continually accuse Wade or Tom of deleting comments and such. You posted numerous times in disagreement with Wade in August. You were reprimanded by some because of your rudeness and yet others agreed with you. Wade's blog is filled with people who disagree with him and say so openly. Your characterization makes it sound like this isn't so.

It seemed to come to a head when you accused Wade of admitting on his blog that he had a "private prayer language." When you were asked to either apologize or provide evidence where this took place, you apologized (August 25th post, comment section) and admitted that you were wrong. After the end of your somewhat curt apology, you said, "this will probably be my last comment in here. all i see in here is whining and complaining and griping and argueing [sic]. i dont [sic] that it benefits my spiritual life at all. in fact, the devil just uses it to try to drag me down. so, i will leave you all with the argueing [sic] and the malcontent [sic]. bye....God bless you all.

Mon Aug 28, 04:56:34 PM"

Also, I am a little confused about your begging Brad to delete my comment because I disagreed with you. You accused Wade and Tom Ascol of doing the same thing. And exactly how was I unkind? You have said a few times on Wade's and Tom's blogs that you sometimes come across as strong and just tell it like it is. Are you the only one allowed to do this?

As for the comment by the gentleman on my husband's blog (September 15th), he either unintentionally or intentionally misrepresented what I said. Usually when people see such blatant twisting of the truth, others will jump in and defend them. I would like to think that it would have happened whether it was a woman or not. Also, I don't recall anyone "daring him to return." They just corrected his mischaracterization. In addition, I would always expect my husband to come to my defense, but that isn't what you have described. He did not "trample" Johnny in any sense; he and others provided correction to the statement, as did I.

Since neither my husband, nor his "cohorts" (as you say) are "liberal," I wouldn't be surprised if they deleted every comment that you ever posted. This is simply another example of the name calling that you deny that you have done.

David Rogers said...

Brad,

For some reason, I am having trouble writing what I mean to write. The correct reading for the "correction" I reference in my previous comment should be:

"In my opinion, it is not objective to claim that the examples given, on their own, even if valid (to which I will respond later), are sufficient to warrant the claim of 'systemic problems.'"

volfan007 said...

i dont know about yall, but i have a huge problem with non clerical individuals administering the two ordinances of the church if they are women!!!!! the bible clearly speaks against women pastors.

also, i have a huge problem with cp monies going to start charismatic churches. we are not pentecostals....we are not assembly of God churches...we are southern baptists. if they want to start charismatic churches then they need to ask some pentecostal type church to support thier work financially.

also, i went to wade's blog. i see many liberals/moderates lining up with wade and rallying around him. why? i remember during the conservative resurgence that so called conservative men voted along with the liberal crowd...liberal on first tier, second tier, third tier, and the tampa bay tier, and on every other tier that you can name. i cant understand how a truly conservative, bible believing man can join with those who deny the clear teachings of scripture.


just the ponderings of a hillbilly in the hills of tn,

volfan007

David Rogers said...

Vol fan,

As I read it, the Bible does indeed indicate that elders/pastors/bishops should be men. But nowhere does it say that only elders/pastors/bishops should administer the ordinances.

Also, who said anything about CP monies going to start Charismatic churches? By the way, what is your definition of a Charismatic church?

volfan007 said...

sonya,

for one thing, you are putting harvey and me together as if we are the same people...we are not. harvey is harvey....i am volfan.

for another thing, wade and tom deleted me often. i was not name calling nor being rude. they just didnt like what i was saying. and, they just deleted my posts. simple as that. if it was deleted, how do you know what i said.

thirdly, my apology to wade was sincere. and, i mistook his defense of ppl for him doing it too. for that, i apologized....sincerely. i didnt know that you could look into the heart of someone and judge thier motives.

fourthly, of fifth, or wherever i am at.....i was called everything in the book at wade's and tom's blogs....everything from an ignorant hillbilly to a meany...to a being uncooperative...to everything inbetween. i noticed that wade and tom just smiled and nodded at those posts. those people were rarely gotten onto or deleted for thier attacks against me and my motives. also, wade deleted one of his own posts where he really blessed me out....then he deleted it later..so that no one could see it. this is all the truth.


again, ma'am, if i am speaking too strongly to you....i apologize. i was raised a little rough up here in these hills, but i try to be a true, southern gentleman.

have a great day,
volfan007

volfan007 said...

a charismatic church would be a tongue speaking church. they also could emphasize on healing and jumping around or rolling around on the floor and such. but, a tongue speaking church would be enough.

correct me if i am wrong, but i dont remember any woman baptizing anyone in the nt. nor do i remember a woman being in charge of the Lords Supper.


volfan007

Anonymous said...

Volfan

I am with you some things, just be careful not to make blanket statements. I would tend to agree with you in one way; I would feel uncomfortable having females admin the LS or Bapt, but where does Scripture state the 2 ordinances of the church must be carried out by pastors?

The BFM2K does not either. Read 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.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

Neither does the BFM2K definition of church:

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

volfan007 said...

i agree with yall that only men should be pastors. and, i agree that the bible doesnt teach that only pastors should baptize and adminster the Lords Supper. in fact, deacons have baptized in my church for me.

but, there are some roles i would reserve for men....being leaders over the whole congregation. personally, i would not want a woman to step into that kind of leadership role. thats my personal opinion.

volfan007

David Rogers said...

Vol fan,

I hate to be so pedantic, but your answers sort of oblige me to...

What is your definition of a tongue speaking church?

Besides Jesus in the upper room, where does the Bible ever speak of a man "being in charge of the Lord's Supper"?

Anonymous said...

Volfan

Can you demonstrate from Scripture that the LS and baptism are clearly suppoesed to be admin by males? Again, that I disagree with you; I would feel uncomfortable too, but being uncomfortable and stating something is wrong are 2 different things.

David Rogers said...

Vol fan,

I respect your personal opinion, and if you are head pastor of your church (I can't remember right now if you are or not) I would defend your right to enforce that opinion in your church.

I myself would feel uncomfortable with a woman officiating the Lord's Supper or baptizing, if I were currently pastoring a church.

But do you think your personal opinion should be the criterion for practice in the IMB?

volfan007 said...

harvey,

i cant believe that sonya would mistake me for a six foot pooka who is sippin on moonshine. i dont drink.

also, although i am 6'1" and wiegh as much, or more than a pooka. i dont have big ears. neither am i pink. and, i sure dont live in russia. they talk funny over there. i cant understand a thang they are sayin.

harvey, i apologize for you being confused for me. you are obviously much more intelligent than an ignorant, rough as a corn cob, hillbilly.

i hope you can recover from this to hop and play again someday.

your servant,

volfan007

ps. we should rabbits around here and we cook them mainly by frying them. but, we wouldnt do that to you, harvey...wink, wink.

volfan007 said...

that "should" should be shoot....we shoot rabbits here in tn.

volfan007

volfan007 said...

david,

i am the senior pastor of a church. and, i appreciate your view concerning pastoral leadership.

a tongue speaking church is where the people speak in tongues....are taught to speak in tongues. and, i would consider a ppl the same as tongues.

also, how is ppl a private, personal thing if it's taught and preached about? is it not public at that point? i mean, if its personal and private...then should it not stay that way? why does it need to be brought up at seminary chapels and on the floor of the sbc and preached in pulpits?????? if it's truly private?


also, baptism was always done by a man....do you not agree? i realize that the only example of a Lords supper being done was by the Lord Himself. but, do you see a woman doing it in the nt church? do you see a woman leading in something such as this in the nt church? i doubt it. this is probably one of those things that they thought would be understood.

after saying all that....i agree that the bible is silent about that, and it's left to personal conviction.

in terms of the sbc imb making it something policy....we can make policy over whatever we deem as important....can we not? can we not insist that churches being started by cp monies be done a certain way? if we want them to be non charismatic churches...then we can do so...and its ok. now, if some dont like our policies, then they are free to go elsewhere....are they not? who says that we are obligated to support every brand and view of theology that comes down the pike? if a snake handler wanted to start a snake handling church in romania, then let him go for it. but, he should not expect sbc folks to fund it. and, there's nothing in the bible that says snake handling is wrong. but, i wouldnt be for supporting it....would you? also, i am not for supporting charismatic...tongue speaking...churches. i would not be for starting five point churches either....but thats my opinion.

volfan007

SonyaD said...

Volfan/Harvey,
The reason why I included both of you is because I believe you are one and the same. I could very well be wrong. Your wording and style of writing are very much alike. Also, you seem to be able to "call Harvey up at will."

I found numerous posts where you WERE rude and called people "winos" and used other mischaracterizations for disagreeing with your interpretaion. I will be glad to copy and paste them here if it would help refresh your memory. Truthfully, if what you had said was worse than what was left on the comments, I can certainly understand why you were deleted. You lash out at people verbally, call them "liberals",
"winebibbers" and use other derogatory terms, then conveniently become the victim when you are rebuked by anyone. It does cause one to question your credibility. If you desire to present a persuasive argument, debating intelligently will get you a lot further than hiding behind a pseudonym calling people names.

Brad, I thank you for allowing me the freedom to post this. I do understand that it is entirely off topic and for that I do apologize.

David Rogers said...

Vol fan,

Would you consider a church where the validity of all of the spiritual gifts for today is taught, and that tongues is just one of those gifts that God might sovereignly choose to give to you, or might sovereignly choose to not give to you, to be a "tongue speaking church." What if there were some members who discretely practiced a PPL, and the pastoral leadership knew about it, but did not call them down for it? Would you consider that a "tongue speaking church"?

As I understand it, the "private" part of PPL refers to the actual practice. That is, it is done in private.

As far as only men baptizing, I would have to do an extensive concordance check to verify, but it seems like on only 3 or 4 occasions in the NT is the gender of the baptizer referenced. For me, this is not conclusive evidence that baptizers were always male.

As far as SBC and policy, yes, the convention, through the democratic processes, appointments, committees and boards, is free to make the policy decisions it chooses. I believe there should also be room to express disagreement with decisions made, and to try to convince others of why they were wrong.

The SBC as a body may indeed choose to go beyond the BFM 2000 and get narrower and narrower. I, for one, hope this will not be the case, and am doing what I can to prevent that from happening.

martyduren said...

Brad-
It is very interesting to me that when Ben Cole posts a list of questions with an invite for any interested party to contact Dr. Patterson to verify the truthfulness thereof, you accuse him of "slander," yet when you post a list of questions:

(1. Did Wade and or Ben talk to McKissic before the chapel message at SW?
2. Was it planned?
3. If so was this not a political maneuver on their part to undermine both the integrity of the chapel service as well as the President of SW, and further to make tongues a central and divisive issue in the SBC?)

You say "not to read anything into it, I'm just asking questions."

You can't have it both ways. If Ben slandered, so did you. Actually, you did worse: you judged the hearts of two men (which is expressly forbidden in scripture) by assigning political motives to their supposed actions, while Ben did not ascribe any motive at all to Dr. Patterson.

You also state to either Harvey or volfan:
"You introduce an interesting scenario. Running McKissic as President. Hmmmm. I heard Wade had someone in mind.

I would be curious if he and McKissic had phone conversations or e-mails before the SW chapel...perhaps a three-way with Mr. Cole? I wonder?"

You have accused me of hosting gossip on my blog, yet you have done the same thing here.

Just to answer the faithful, Wade answered all these questions on his blog: No, No, and No.

Harvey-
It would have been hard for anyone to have spoken to Dwight McKissic within an hour following chapel. Both Dr. Patterson and Dwight have affirmed that they ate lunch together in the presence of Mrs. Patterson, during which time the subject of the chapel sermon was famously not broached.

Whether Ben or Wade phoned McKissic's office within an hour, I do not know, but if they did--SO WHAT? That proves nothing except that they wanted to speak with him after the chapel service.

Lastly, anyone who thinks that Wade Burleson or Ben Cole or Frosty the Snowman desires to attempt to run a candidate against Frank Page in an incumbent year has lost their gourd.

I would not put it past a group of Fundamentalists, however, to put up a candidate against a conservative, bible believing, mission promoting inerrantist because they do not believe him to be conservative enough.

HarveyTheRabbitt said...

Sonya,

Let me clarify several things.

1. I never asked Brad to delete your blog!
2. I am not VolFan. I do not even know who he is.
3. I never said the things you said that I said. So get your facts straight.
4. Wade and Marty have both deleted my comments that were not derogatory in any way. I simply asked questions that they did not want to answer!
5: You said "It seemed to come to a head when you accused Wade of admitting on his blog that he had a "private prayer language."

I did not know Wade has a private prayer language, but nothing surprises me.

If you think Wade is a man of integrity, then encourage him to answer my questions from above. Remind him that there are phone records. This is no joke!

Rabbitt Out

Ps. Marty sorry for the SBC Outhouse remark earlier. That was unkind and the Lord has convicted me of my ways. I am genuinely sorry, and will try to never let it happen in the future. Sometimes I become so frustrated with you and Wade because all I am honestly seeking is the truth. I hope someday we can stand beside each other on the convention floor in harmony. However, if CB finds my Rabbitthole first, I will see you in Glory.

Harvey

HarveyTheRabbitt said...

Marty,

I just read your post which is just above my post. I am afraid thart you and I are distracting from the main issue here. I think Brad is trying to shed light on the truth of Eitels research. Brad I am sorry for the distraction.

Also Marty, I honestly tried not to respond to Sonya because if I were married I don't think I would like anyone being rude to her. If I have offended Sonya, I am sorry.

I do not know you, but I think you have been sucked into this mess with Wade and there is nothing me or anyone else can say to open your eyes to the truth. I deeply regret thit my brother.

If you see CB tell him I am moving my Rabbitthole to Birmingham. Maybe I will blend in if I am right under his nose.(a poor attempt at humor to lighten the situation)

Harvey

HarveyTheRabbitt said...

Sorry for the mispelling.

I meant this not thit. I am so far underground hiding from the hitman that I have lost my sight in one eye.

Harvey Rabbitt

tim rogers said...

Brother Brad,

Brother Marty just pulled one of the oldest political tricks in the world. He just identified anyone that feels led by God to present a name before the convention as being a fundamentalist that does not believe in Missions because they would dare run against Dr. Page.

By doing this he has hedged a position that will place anyone that may feel led by God in the precarious position of being fearful that others will attack their motives. And he says you are judging men's hearts.

Blessings,
Tim

Anonymous said...

Marty:

Ben Cole said:

"I am angry that he has worked so diligently to ruin lives and destroy careers and I have sworn on the altar of God almight eternal hostility to every effort of his that threatens to undermine and compromise his legacy as a godly reformer and supplant it with the testimony of a power-hungry, insatiable witch hunter.

Have you ever read The Crucible by Arthur Miller? It is a gut-wrenching scene with Reverent Parris is exposed for his witchhunting ways, but at the end of the play, the whole town is better off than the woodpiles fall into disuse and manipulative men are stripped of their office.

If you have difficulty understanding my allusion, I suggest you read this and see the parellels between Rev. Parris, Joe McArthy, and then draw your own conclusions about my sentiment concerning Patterson’s purifying programme for Southern Baptists."


Is that not judging the heart- a man who desired to destroy careers?

MArty, I have been onto everyone about this specifically for months. What you write can be taken from any number of my comments to you guys. You have from the beginning assume malicious intent from Patterson and Eitel, doing the very thing you decry here. It is amazing to me how you guys gloss over that long diatribe on your site from Cole about Patterson's alleged sins and motivation, yet equivocate based on SEMANTICS!

The altar a man swears on to destroy another is the same altar by which judgment is distributed to any man who partakes of the Lord's supper yet has unforgiveness in his heart toward his brother.

I think everyone needs to take a step back from this before we make the SBC look like the pansy it increasingly appears to be.

Is this the SBC I am apart of? Is this the one I had in mind when applying to seminary? No. God help us if it is.

brad reynolds said...

Marty

Now that you bring up Ben…let us remind everyone what was said ON YOUR BLOG, After you publicly signed your name to a paper (let us recall, I did not) which says we “commit ourselves to confront lovingly any person in our denomination, regardless of the office or title that person holds, who disparages the name of our Lord by appropriating venomous epithets against our brothers and sisters in Christ, and thus divides our fellowship by careless and unchaste speech.”

Would you not characterize Ben’s comments as such, “I am angry that he (Dr. Patterson) has worked so diligently to ruin lives and destroy careers”

I asked you to keep your written word and remove his comments but you chose not to and then my friend you have the audacity to come here and confront me. Well I’ll let you deal with such duplicity…however, I will be glad to distinguish some differences:

1. Ben thinks he knows the answers to the questions he asked and therefore they were asked for reasons other then obtaining the answers.
2. I do not know the answers to the questions I asked and therefore I legitimately desired answers.
3. When I got answers: I stated clearly to all – Drop the ponderings of these questions – they have been answered by Wade in the negative and thus all concerns should be put to rest.
4. You have falsely accused me by stating “You judged the hearts of two men by assigning political motives to their supposed actions.” I did no such thing: claiming I did it does not make it so.
Asking them questions and pondering that IF they answered in the affirmative then another question needs to be asked concerning implicative political motives is not the same my friend. Now there is no need to apologize for I understand the nature of blogging but let’s try to not rush to accusations without foundation…its what gives blogs a bad name and undermines the integrity of the blogger.

Finally, if Ben and/or Wade spoke to Dr. Mckissic within an hour after chapel that would beg some questions, my friend. Further, are you implying that they have not thought through a scenario where they might be willing to run Dr. McKissic?
BR

brad reynolds said...

David
To mention all the problems they knew would get M’s in trouble, so they could only give most credible examples that would not cost M’s their jobs. Point being: Again, no one has demonstrated these to be isolated incidences.

Now, to the foray you and VolFan are involved in. If there is not pastor and a woman gives the ordinances and teaches the meaning of them is she not functioning in the stead of a pastor? Does this not present problems with BFM2K?
BR

brad reynolds said...

Marty

ColinM shared more of the vitiolic language by Ben posted on your blog...which is still there in spite of the Memphis Declaration.

I have one question if what Ben said is not an application of the langugae you men were going to guard us against exactly what would cross the line?
BR

martyduren said...

Harvey-
Sonya addressed you and she's own her own with her conversations. Ya'll have been civil so I'm not butting in; probably wouldn't anyway unless there were factual errors such as...

You did misread her statement. Wade Burleson did not admit to having a PPL, it was just the opposite. Volfan made the accusation and Wade called his hand on it.

You left a misleading statement hanging as truth when it is obvious error, but nothing surprises me.

You also question Wade's integrity for not having answered your questions when I clearly stated that he had answered them. The exchange from Jim Stewart on Kerusso Charis:
"Wade,

These questions have been asked on another site, and I for one would like an honest answer:
1. Did Wade and or Ben talk to McKissic before the chapel message at SW?

2. Was it planned?

3. If so was this not a political maneuver on their part to undermine both the integrity of the chapel service as well as the President of SW, and further to make tongues a central and divisive issue in the SBC?"

Again, Wade answered "no" to all three.

Second, both you and Brad are thanked for your concern that I have been sucked into something ("hoodwinked" was Brad's term). I disagree.

I have deleted exactly 1 of your comments at my blog. There was no truth in it, it was filled with calling people "liberals" (as I recall) and it contributed nothing to the conversation.

Finally brethren, you say,
"Sometimes I become so frustrated with you and Wade because all I am honestly seeking is the truth."

If you are honestly seeking the truth, then you should be just as frustrated with Brad, Les, Tim and Jeremy as you are with me and Wade.

brad reynolds said...

Tim

Good point...I heard many bloggers claiming we need more than one candidate...now they don't want more than one...HMMMM

By the way, For the Record I have told Dr. Page how grateful I am for his leadership and at this point I am definitely voting for him. I will obviously reserve the right to change my mind based on appointments etc. But I think he will lead and hold the line of inerrancy which will make most SB proud.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Marty
Notice my comment at 10:02 PM long before your accusations, I said Wade answered no to the questions.
BR

Further, I will gladly state to everyone I have always been treated fairly on your site. You have never removed one of my comments. Dr. Ascol has and Wade has (If Wade has his doctorate I apologize, it should be Dr. Burleson), but you have not. That is an example of your search for truth which in and of itself is an example.
BR

martyduren said...

Dang-
A lot can happen while a guy is writing a comment! This will be my final one for this thread.

Tim-
Wrong. Again.

You said, "[Marty] just identified anyone that feels led by God to present a name before the convention as being a fundamentalist that does not believe in Missions because they would dare run against Dr. Page."

That isn't what I said; go back and re-read it.

Everyone over the age of 10 knows that historically, the President of the SBC is given an unopposed second term. Until, that is, during the resurgence years when the moderate/liberal group ran candidates about 5 times during the off year, lost and then ran the loser against a first time conservative the next year, losing yet again. I did not say that anyone who wanted to nominate someone is a Fundamentalist, only not to be surprised if a group of Fundamentalists did so.

For the record, if either Ronnie Floyd or Jerry Sutton had won in G'boro, I would have supported their re-election by acclamation which I will also do with Frank Page.

In 2008, I'll be happy to see multiple candidates for every office, just as I have stated in the past. For that matter, I'll be happy to see multiple candidates for all other offices in 2007.

ColinM-
As you note from my blog, I did not affirm what Ben said in that particular instance, and would not have said it myself. I did not read it as you did initially, but can see how it comes across that way.

I stand corrected in my statement concerning Brad's judgement being singular. Now will you confront Brad about his judgement on Wade and Ben?

However, Ben stands, or falls, on his own in that statement. If he asks me to delete it, then I will. Otherwise people like yourself and Brad can question him as to how his words and attitudes are reconcilable to the Memphis Declaration.

As to whether this is the SBC you are a part of, I can't answer that. I might be better or it might be worse; it depends into which dark corner you are peering.

Brad-
Thanks for the opportunity to respond and I'm really sorry that I overlooked your earlier answer to Wade's issue. I wish that Harvey would have seen it as well before he questioned Wade's integrity. Looking back, Harvey had repeated those questions just before my long post and I guess I was focused on that comment. Sorry.

Also, thanks for not deleting my comments ;^)

As for you concerns about Ben's comments on my blog, see my response to Colin above.

I'm outta here...

Anonymous said...

Marty,

I suggested to commentors on this site not to assume motives because it is to the detriment of principles which are espoused here and elsewhere.

However, I never confronted Ben Cole. If he really believes what he wrote, one of you will need to take that lead. So if you are keeping score...

If you want to get picky, Brad urged everyone to tone down the accusations, and he, to his credit, told everyone to put to rest the conspiracy allegations. Nothing of the sort was done on yours, Wade's, or anyone ele's blog that is sympathetic to your principles.

Frankly, I got tired of being treated like my comments were the "schoolboy's pathetic remarks," whilst you come and rehash much of what I have accused many of you with for several months.

I respect you and Wade, as do I Brad and manny of the guys on either side- I have lost great respect as of late for certain individuals who have used philosophy to support their actions and unduly exposed sin or assumed sin of other brothers- but I love every single one of you. Frankly, I am sick, and I know exactly which direction I will try to influence the students of SWBTS---

the biblical one.

Anonymous said...

that is, "else's" and "many"

CB Scott said...

Rabbit Guy,

Did you say you are not married?

If so that means there will be no Mrs. Rabbit Guy or any little bunnies to morn your passing, right?

That makes things easier:-)

volfan007 said...

david,

it's hard to hear tones of voice and the looks on people's faces as we write in here. so, i just want you to know that if you were at starbucks with me...i would be buying you a caramel macchiato or a chocolate chip frappucino. i would not be yelling or screaming or hitting you on the head with a kjv bible. lol.

that being said....i believe we need to understand that when i talk about a tongue speaking...i am speaking about the ecstatic jibberace of the charismatic churches...not true biblical tongue speaking(known language unknown to the speaker).


also, in my church, i have at least one member who practices a ppl. he is one of my biggest supporters. as long as he truly keeps it private...we're fine.


sonya,

a winebibber is someone who drinks fermented wine....a winebibber. a liberal is a liberal too. just as i am a hillbilly. thats just what i am. i can live with that.

at least i am not a pooka.

volfan007

volfan007

tim rogers said...

Brother Marty,

You said; "I would not put it past a group of Fundamentalists, however, to put up a candidate against a conservative, bible believing, mission promoting inerrantist because they do not believe him to be conservative enough." Therefore, if someone feeling led by God to ask someone else to allow their name to run, and the other someone feeling led by God allows their name to be placed in nomination, according to your statement, the person making the nomination is part of a group of Fundamentalist that is opposed to Frank Page because he is not conservative enough. Be it further Therefored, anyone placing in nomination anyone else for President will be doing it because they believe Frank Page is not conservative enough, according to your statement.

Of course this is just the HO of one that may not be over 10 years old.


Blessings,
Tim

Anonymous said...

Marty,

Without the convenience of deleting, modifying, and reposting my comment, let me retract my statement about how I have been treated by you and others. You and the others have always treated me with respect. I apologize. I know you want to to the best thing for the Kingdom.

brad reynolds said...

David

I have a question for you. Is there any evidence that the NT church practiced a PPL without the public speaking in tongues? Are they not intricately related in 1 Cor 12-14?

If the two are the same gift expressed differently then does that not open the door further than a PPL?

As one missionary e-mailed me this week (asking that I guard his anonymity) when he confronted the PUBLIC speaking of tongues by one of our M's he was told "Our President has a PPL, what is the difference?"

If however, you maintain the two "tongues" are different then I have another question. Was there any other gift given that was used Privately and not publicly and for personel edification but not edification of the church?

Thanks
BR

David Rogers said...

Brad,

Sorry, but to me the weight of the evidence given is just not sufficient to prove the point supposedly being made. I understand you think differently. I guess this is the type of case a "jury" would have to vote on.

And, while I agree the situation you mention about a woman giving the ordinances and teaching the meaning of them would not be the norm in most Southern Baptist churches, many situations overseas, for various reasons, do not conform to the norm of SB churches in the States. And, no, I don't believe this presents problems with the BFM2K.

David Rogers said...

Vol fan,

If you would come out behind your anonymity, I would probably take you up on that chocolate chip frappucino someday.

Just curious. If your PPL-practicing church member were to tell you he felt called into foreign missions, how would you advise him?

David Rogers said...

Vol fan,

I forgot to tell you I'm a Florida Gator football fan, and Memphis Tiger basketball fan. You might want to reconsider your Starbucks offer. :)

David Rogers said...

Brad,

It seems to me that "public tongues" and PPL are indeed different manifestations of the same spiritual gift. Having said that, I would also add in that 1 Cor. 12.10 talks about "diverse kinds of tongues." Though we don't know what this means, I think what 1 Cor. 13.1 says about "tongues of men" and "tongues of angels" may well provide an important clue.

The difference between Dr. Rankin's PPL and the missionary in question's "public tongues" is that one is against IMB policy and the other is not. As I understand it, the reason stipulated for the policy against "public tongues" is because it is controversial, and could lead to conflict on the mission field between IMB colleagues, not because it has necessarily been deemed to be unbiblical.

I am open to correction, if I am wrong on this.

Grosey's Messages said...

I note that you asked if Wade has his doctorate.
brad reynolds said...
Marty... Dr. Ascol has and Wade has (If Wade has his doctorate I apologize, it should be Dr. Burleson), "

Please see my question of Wade and his reply

" Wade Burleson said...
Grosey,

Lest you continue to become irritated, I have a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration with a minor in Corporate Finance."
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2006/09/ask-any-question-weekend_15.html

In My Honest opinion, if you guys could help him get his MDiv, he may be a little more hospitable to the conservative position.
:)

volfan007 said...

david,

i am pulling for the ky wildcats even as i type. i too pull for the memphis tigers...if they arent playing the tn vols.

i would advise my ppl member according to imb policy. if they allowed him to go, then so be it. if they didnt allow him to go, then so be it. personally, i still would not want my cp dollars to go to someone starting churches where they were taught to speak in ecstatic jibberace. even though i love and respect many who are into this extreme in theology.

also, i agree with brad on the men leading the ordinances....and it would be a teaching type situation in doing these ordinances...since they do teach the congregation as they are done. and, of course, with the pastor being the leader of the church...he should do it.

well, i sure would like a chocolate chip frappucino right now. and yes, we hillbillies know about starbucks.

volfan007

sbc pastor said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
HarveyTheRabbitt said...

CB,

why is it that you are out to get me? Surly there is bigger game within your sights. I am a skinny 5'11" pooka. Not worth much on the open market.

I do not even have a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration with a minor in Corporate Finance like the esteemed theologian Wade Burleson.

I am certain that such a worthy theologian would look better on your wall than me.

By the way did you notice that he never answered my questions. My questions were different than the ones he answered.

1. Wade do you deny that you and your traveling buddy have been traveling and talking with pastors in Texas in an attempt to raise support for San Antonio?
2. Wade do you deny that you and/or your little buddy spoke with McKissic within an hour after the SWBTS chapel service? Remember there are phone records even for cells
3. Do you deny that you have already had at lest 1 conversation concerning running McKissic for president in San Antonio?

You know where I am coming from. Is that why you are tracking me?

Harvey Good Day

brad reynolds said...

David,

Thank you for your response. However, I am confident that the “many situations overseas that do not conform to the norm of SB churches in the States” were known by an omniscient God when He inspired the writing of Paul in 1 Timothy.

If my (or the members of the BFM2K committee) struggle with women pastors was cultural rather than Biblical we would not be having this conversation.

I am not sure that circumstances/situations (where women perform the duties and act in the stead of pastors) should be read into God’s Word as exceptions. This is my struggle.


Also, concerning tongues my question was/is “Was there any other gift given that was used Privately and not publicly and for personal edification but not edification of the church?”

If not then is that not a “red flag” concerning our interpretation of the private gift. Should we not be more careful about drawing inferences from the abuses of the Corinthians.

And is that not also what the Trustee committee was doing with their PPL policy (trying to stop abuses of tongues)?
BR

brad reynolds said...

Harvey
You are on to something here.

And for those wanting to chastise me for allowing these questions (which I do not know the answer to) on my blog...ask Wade to answer them and I will gladly post his answers!!!

He can dispel any questions or concerns of politics by simply answering those questions.

Here in the no spin zone we allow and answer all questions (save those which are purposely slandering others - in other words questions asked by someone who thinks he already knows the answer, to one who has never been on a blog and thus could not answer, for the purpose of implying things which are not true)...we admit when we are wrong...and we set an example of open dialogue, because we are honestly searching for truth.
BR

Jerry Corbaley said...

Dear Marty,

I look forward to attempting to repair some bridges between us in a personal manner by email, phone or in person.

However, I am compelled to respond further in this venue for the same reason you stated above. My purpose for responding is that erroneous statements about me should not be allowed to stand here unchallenged.

Thank you for your thorough response. While the issue regarding the meaning of my motion to remove Wade Burleson from the IMBoT will have to wait until later, my assertions regarding why I will no longer comment on your blog can be addressed right now.

In fact, your response in your comment (above) demonstrates exactly what I was saying. You prove my case. You have just done it again. I can at least take comfort in the fact that you are not doing it on purpose; if you realized what you were doing you would never have posted that response. You are an intelligent and highly motivated Christian, I’m hoping and praying you can consider a perspective other than your own.

In my comment (above) I asserted “It would seem that he (Marty) will actively seek and protect trustees who will willingly violate board ethics and impugn their character if they do not comply.

In my comment (above) I stated that you offered to protect my anonymity if I wished to disclose any privileged information about internal IMB matters. You commented above, “If I am in error (-) then please email me the text of the motion. As with other sources, you will remain in absolute confidence and never be revealed”. At that time we both believed the text of the motion was privileged information. Is it okay to tempt someone to be unethical if you ask nicely and say “please”?

So you confirm that you offer to protect an anonymous source of privileged information on internal IMB matters, and that you have other sources. Since you were the first to contact me, how many other trustees have you contacted to seek information (nothing wrong with that!)? How many others did you offer anonymity to? How many of the trustees you initiated contact with knew that you had been the leading blogger of assertions of corrupt motives within the IMBoT for many months? You are an avid seeker of information. I assume you proactively contacted quite a few.

Now, I also said (above) that you impugn their character if they do not comply. Have you said anything on your blog about the character of your anonymous sources that violated IMB ethics? You seem to trust their character and therefore their testimony; is it because they tell you things you can use to further your political cause? Yet with me, you host and facilitate discussions that impugn my character. Then, just before the Spartanburg meeting, you remind everyone of my violation. Is that done to keep the fire burning?

In your short comment above you managed to impugn my character quite a few times. Shall we review?

You say I “slam you using half-truths and distortions”. I am “rewriting history”. I am “not interested in the truth at all”. I am “deluded”. It does not “surprise you” that I “decontexted it”. I am “dead wrong on every count”.

Perhaps I should not expect a fair shake at sbcoutpost.

Again, the issues you raised (above) regarding my motion will follow. By the way, you admit above that you chose the form to present it, and that you only changed it so I would not be offended. I would prefer that you changed it because you prefer the truth. Brother, the form you posted was influential in forming and expanding a deterioration of trust in the international missions enterprise of the SBC. The form you “chose’ in your own wisdom caused damage that remains to this day. Your statement regarding not questioning the integrity of the IMBoT is disturbing in view of the contents of your blog over the last year.

David Rogers said...

Brad,

I will try to answer your questions.

1. I am trying to decipher exactly what message you are trying to communicate when you say:

"However, I am confident that the “many situations overseas that do not conform to the norm of SB churches in the States” were known by an omniscient God when He inspired the writing of Paul in 1 Timothy."

Maybe I am missing your implication, but I want to assure you and everyone else I accept the plenary inspiration of Paul in 1 Timothy (as well as the other 65 books of the Bible). What I fail to see is how what I have written may in any way contradict 1 Timothy (or any of the other 65 books of the Bible). But, maybe that is not what you meant to imply.

2.Regarding "circumstances/situations where women perform the duties and act in the stead of pastors," I have been thinking through what the Bible reports, and, as a matter of fact, I cannot remember one time (other than Jesus Himself, as the Chief Shepherd) where a "pastor" either baptized someone or officiated the Lord's Supper (Paul was an apostle; Philip was a deacon). This does not mean I believe that pastors never did this. But it does mean that I think the biblical evidence is far from conclusive that baptizing and officiating the Lord's Supper are the "duty" of a pastor.

3. Regarding your question on tongues, since I answered that I do not believe in "two tongues," I assumed that question was not directed to me.

My answer to your question, in any case, is: I think there are some private benefits, and edification, if you will, to the gift of teaching, for example. A teacher will usually have greater insights into the truths of God's Word that they should be able to apply to their own spiritual growth, as well as to that of those whom they teach publicly. The gift of celibacy, for example, also has a very definite private use. I would say the gift of "faith" would also likely be used for personal as well as public edification. Quite possibly, as well, the gift of "discerning of spirits." Although this is perhaps a bit more of a stretch, I can even imagine situations where "the word of wisdom," "the word of knowledge," "gifts of healing," "working of miracles," and "prophecy" might all have some personal edification involved.

4. I, thus, do not see PPL as an "abuse" of the gift of tongues.

If that is what the majority of the BoT saw as their motivation behind the new policy, then they have a different interpretation of the related texts than I do.

5. Do you think my interpretation places me outside of the bounds of SBC orthodoxy?

brad reynolds said...

David

Since you do not believe in “two tongues” then by definition to have a PPL is also to have the gift of speaking in tongues publicly…this was the problem. Not PPL, but those claiming a PPL and then speaking publicly in tongues which has long been against policy of the IMB. In fact, I believe Dr. Parks sent a RL with the authority to “fire” a missionary when they heard of his use of tongues on the field.

Concerning the daily duties of pastors in the NT, I’m not sure we are given a detailed description. What we do know is that pastors were the OVERSEERS of the church…this obviously included the most important events. I feel certain that the two ordinances that JESUS gave the church would be included as important events in the life of the Church which the OVERSEERS oversaw.

Thus, the question remains, if a woman is overseeing the important functions of the church then is she not functioning as the pastor even though she may not have the “title.”

Further, in 1 Timothy Paul says he would not have a woman teach over a man in church…is there not teaching going on at the Lord’s Supper?

The question of your understanding of God’s Word placing you outside the boundaries of SBC orthodoxy is not the issue. If you signed your name affirming all of the BFM2K then the question is answered.

The issue, however, is whether the IMB Trustees have the authority to create policy which they feel will allow missionaries to be more effective for the SBC. I say YES. Some say, in so doing they have narrowed the participants who are paid, by my giving, and again I say “Yes they have.” But this is not necessarily an evil thing. As Les pointed out on his blog…if the NOBTS Trustees accepted a policy which forbade students who use tobacco from being students then they are narrowing the participants but this is not necessarily bad. The BFM2K doesn’t speak to this issue but I feel the Trustees have the authority to make such policy without the convention voting on what policies should be included in NOBTS handbooks, or SEBTS handbooks, or IMB guidelines, etc…etc. Such would cause chaos at our conventions.

BR

David Rogers said...

Brad,

1. What is said is "one gift, two different manifestations of the same gift." Is it not possible to have a "gift of tongues" and choose, out of respect for policy, and out of respect for those who may disagree with the validity of your gift, to only manifest that gift privately?

2. As far as "overseeing" the ordinances, from our own cultural and ecclesiological tradition, what you say would seem to make sense. However, I have a feeling the actual observation of the ordinances in NT times was quite a bit different from that we observe in typical SB churches today. The Lord's Supper, for instance, from all indications, seems to have been celebrated in the context of a complete meal in a home. There was not necessarily someone who stood in front of a group of people sitting in rows, who said: "take eat," etc., and quoted from 1 Cor. 11. I am not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. This is the way I normally officiate the Lord's Supper. But biblically, we are told how Jesus did it in the Upper Room, but not how the disciples did it afterwards. Thus, though i would agree there is a didactic element inherent in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, I do not necessarily make the leap to saying this necessarily means a woman "officiating" (I'm not sure if I really like that word, but for lack of something better I will use it for now) implies "teaching over a man."

3. To tell you the truth, across the board, I personally take a pretty radical view on supposed clergy-laity distinctions. Once again, this may go against many of our cultural and ecclesiological traditions, but I do not believe it goes against the NT.

4. In a strict sense, the BoT has the "authority" to demand that all missionaries sign a statement saying that "pickles have souls." But that does not mean that if they were to do that, that I would be wrong to protest, and try to raise the consciousness of Southern Baptists about why this was not a good policy.

brad reynolds said...

David

1. If the gift of tongues were from God then would the manifestation not be from God.

Hence, one would not have the privilege of deciding when the manifestation occurred (publicly or privately), unless of course, as you suggest, individuals could decide when and when not to manifest it.

Which begs the question of “from whence the manifestation occurs (God or man).” As well as begging the question of whether one can choose to not manifest the gift privately, for the benefit of their authorities.

2. Do you not believe if a woman oversees (NT term for pastor) the most important functions (ordinances Christ commanded) of a church that has no pastor she is serving in the stead of pastor? If not, what makes one a functioning pastor? Is it a title?

3. There is a difference between the distinction of clergy/laity and the distinction between men/women.

4. Ad-absurdum illustrations (pickles have souls) of the authority of Trustees does not invalidate the concern I have of Trustees like Wade Burleson removing the integrity of the Trustee system by taking legitimate ministerial policies to the convention floor. Can you imagine us arguing over every little detail in the SE handbooks from the convention floor? Can students wear shorts? If so how short? Etc.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Tim Rogers has an excellent post at:
http://southernbaptistinnc.blogspot.com

Great work Tim
BR

HarveyTheRabbitt said...

Brad,

I think you are correct, I must be on to something seeing that CB is speechless and Wade refuses to answer.

Oh well I guess we will see McKissic in San Antonio.

Harvey

David Rogers said...

Brad,

1. Am I understanding you correctly? Are you really insinuating that someone with a legitimate gift of tongues from God would not be able to control when they manifest it or not? I think you need to go back and read 1 Cor. 14.28 & 32 a little more carefully.

2. To my understanding, a pastor is a recognized spiritual leader, who watches over the flock, making sure that wolves and false sheep do not come in to do damage, is responsible to make sure the flock is properly fed, and who is accountable before God for the spiritual welfare of his flock. I would agree that it would not be abnormal for all of this to include overall supervision of the administration of the ordinances. But, on the other hand, I don't see the NT as being so clear on this, as to not make room for possible exceptions.

3. My point here is that, if there is no distinction between clergy and laity, then the argument about whether women should fulfill "clerical" roles or not becomes moot. I think, in our Western churches, we often view the administration of the ordinances through our "clerical lens."

4. Obviously Wade Burleson does not consider the new policies to be "small details." And neither do I. I believe some very important principles for the future of the SBC are at stake.

Tim Batchelor said...

David,

Can you clear something up for me? When you state, "if there is no distinction between clergy and laity,...." are you suggesting that there is no difference?


Thanks.

Tim

CB Scott said...

Rabbit Guy,

I am not speechless, but have rather chosen to read the exchange between Brad and David. It may bring light to something I am interested in.

You have to admit there is just so much exchange that can take place between a grown man and a boy dressed in a bunny suit and then there is really nothing left to say.

cb

David Rogers said...

Tim Batchelor,

I am not saying there is not a special role of elder/pastor/bishop in the church. As I said earlier: "To my understanding, a pastor is a recognized spiritual leader, who watches over the flock, making sure that wolves and false sheep do not come in to do damage, is responsible to make sure the flock is properly fed, and who is accountable before God for the spiritual welfare of his flock."

What I am saying is I believe there is no spiritual caste system, and no "priestly functions" that are not shared by the entire congregation. While it is true that some elders "labor in the word and doctrine" and that all elders ought to "hold fast the the faithful word as [they] have been taught, that [they] may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers," these are not ministry roles that are exclusive to elder-pastor-bishops.

In my opinion, one of the main errors of the Roman Catholic system was the transferral of the OT priestly system into the NT church. While, as heirs of the Radical Reformation, we have broken with a good bit of Romanism, I believe we, even as Southern Baptists, are still beset, in a lot of our traditions, with a mindset rooted in the clergy-lay divisions propagated originally by the RC Church.

Also, a practical consequence of this is, I believe the office of elder-pastor-bishop is a local church office, recognized by the local church in which one is presently serving. Strictly speaking, if a pastor is, during a period of time without a church, in my opinion, during this period of time, they quit being a pastor; and then, whenever another church recognizes them as their elder-pastor-bishop, they begin to fulfill the role of pastor once again.

Paul said...

Brad, you wrote: "To mention all the problems they knew would get M’s in trouble, so they could only give most credible examples that would not cost M’s their jobs. Point being: Again, no one has demonstrated these to be isolated incidences."

The other point is the one I hear David making - no one (including this second paper) has demonstrated these to be systemic problems. This paper, citing one or two instances in each category (out of 5000 field missionaries) only proves that what is true in your church and mine is also true on the mission field. Some people have odd beliefs and practices. It does not demonstrate that the problems are systemic.

I'm not saying that such can not be demonstrated. It sounds as if you know more than you have said. Perhaps those who contributed to the paper do as well. They just haven't published all that they know, for whatever reasons. But as an outsider looking in - one who does not have privileged information that might put someone's job at risk - the paper fails to make its own case in any definitive way. I think David's response contributes to the weakness of that case, in my own opinion.

Without that information it will, frankly, be impossible for anyone to demonstrate that what they claim is not true. For the same reason it will be impossible for anyone to demonstrate that what they claim is true. All we are left with are the small samples of cases cited, the less than a dozen (out of 5000) missionaries who would confirm it to you, along with the dozen or so (out of 5000 missionaries) who deny that they have witnessed any of those problems in their own context who have confirmed that to others.

Jerry Corbaley said...

David,

I think it is clear the gift of glossolalia can be controled. Yet 1 Cor 14 makes it clear the gift is for edifying the church, and that the one speaking in glossolalia should pray that he could interpret. In view of God directions, it would seem such personal refusal to express the gift could be called "quenching the Spirit".

antonio said...

volfan007,

Do you take up an offering or tithe in your church?

Grosey's Messages,

You said, "In My Honest opinion, if you guys could help him [Wade]get his MDiv, he may be a little more hospitable to the conservative position."

What does having a seminary degree have to do with buying a cup of tea in China?

Grosey's Messages said...

Thanks for your comment Antonio,
I guess obviously it has nothing to do with buying a cup of tea in China. It refers to a previous statement on this blog.
But thank you for introducing a new topic :D
:)

Anonymous said...

Antonio,

Studying the Word of God in a seminary environment has plenty of benefits. For one Wade could gleen from the wisdom of men who have dedicated their lives to understanding the truths of God's Word.

However, I guess he has enough wisdom on his on. Of course so did Jim Jones and David Karesh.

James T. Kirk

volfan007 said...

antonio,

yes, we take up an offering in our church. why?

volfan007

volfan007 said...

james t. kirk,

you are very true. where's spock these days?

volfan007

antonio said...

Guys,

Look at the context. I don't deny the benefits of seminary or any type of sound Biblical education. The problem with the statement is thinking that seminary is going to change a man. Wrong, only the Holy Spirit can change a man. I had written that so that maybe some would think. In the same light, I know a lot of people many of which hold these cherished doctorates whom I am not impressed with their attitude. Attitude is what this is about. I believe probably the same as most of you guys on many issues but the problem is how people are attacking the issue. I see a lot of 'I am not conceited, I am convinced', when we could use a lot more of the Love of God. Personally attacking someone publicly does them no good nor us any good. The world sits and watches our conversations, many of whom are not Christians and many of whom are. But, if they read these, what makes them want to be a part of something called Christianity.

antonio said...

volfan007,

Sorry, I left you out while ago.
The reason I ask is that you said that there of no examples of women leading the Lord's Supper or Baptism. Where are all of the examples of taking up offerings in the New Testament? (yes I believe in tithing. I affirm the BFM2000.)
antonio

volfan007 said...

antonio,

there were many offerings taken up in the nt. times. different churches took up offerings to support paul at times, and he bragged on them for doing it. thus, the first missionary supported by the home churches.

also, it talks of the pastor being taken care of financially by the church in the nt. how are they gonna do that if they aint taking up an offering of some sort.

anyway, we werent talking of taking up an offering here. we were talking about women leading out in roles that would obviously be leadership type roles...possibly even being teaching roles...in the church. i think that i can very safely say that women did not do these things...the ordinances..in the nt era of the church. can you see a woman doing these things back in that day and time? i dont think so.

also, i said that this is my personal conviction about men leading in these ordinances...since the bible does not really say that only a man should do it. i personally believe that these should be what a man does, and my church beleives the same way. i am very uncomfortable with women taking on these roles on the foreign field as our sbc missionaries. i believe it sets up a real problem later with the church understanding that women should not be pastors, nor deacons, nor teaching over men.


volfan007


volfan007

antonio said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

volfan,

you asked "you are very true. where's spock these days?"

I think he and the liberal pastors W, B, and M have been out drinking and twisting up fat daddies.

James

Ps. James Kirk really is my name. I get ribbed about it all the time.

antonio said...

Brad,

That's my point. It's a personal opinion, where as there is plenty of evidence to support the taking of offerings and tithes. So, at what point should our personal opinion start governing the lives of others. Leading a Baptism or the Lord's Supper does not constitute being a pastor. When you speak the two, you speak them together and in response to the paper and have repeated this a couple or so times. This leads me to infer that you push for the IMB to forbid any woman to Baptise or give the Lord's supper. We agree that the Bible speaks clearly of a man holding the office of a Bishop, but it is a personal opinion of the a person whether or not a woman can baptise.

Also, who does say that the IMB is planting Charismatic churches? I do not hear or know of this happening in the MAC region for sure.

You need to get a blog and show up on the net so we can at least put a picture on the peace of paper we throw darts at :)

antonio said...

Oops, meant that for VOLFAN, by the way I'm a fan also.

brad reynolds said...

David
On question 1 – that’s my point – abuses of tongues.

2. Since the Lord’s Supper is also the place for accountability and discipline then one who oversees should be a recognized spiritual leader who at that moment is looking over the flock, guarding against wolves by withholding the Lord’s Supper via the church’s vote, would you not agree? Also, how responsible is the pastor for the flock’s spiritual well-being…where is their responsibility?
3. Perhaps the “western” churches have not viewed the ordinances through clerical but biblical lens since the ordinances, as very important witnesses of the church, are to be overseen and the term pastor means overseer.
4. So, if a Trustee believes tobacco (or dress or GPA) is not a small issue we just have free-for-alls?
BR

brad reynolds said...

Paul,

The instances cited are drawn from multiple individuals, from numerous different regional areas, over more than a decade. Surely, all the M’s Dr. Eitel spoke to over these years were not having the same coincidences. Further, let’s not forget Robin Hadaway was a RL and worked in 3 different regions with 20+ years with the IMB, moreover in a 10 month period 3 student units were fired at the MLC because (according to them) they either asked questions or didn’t participate in “mock” house church services where women presided over the Lord’s Supper.

BR

brad reynolds said...

Antonio

Good thoughts. However, theology is as important as attitude IMHO…thus seminary education. Quite honestly, I struggled along time with many of Wade’s comments. I couldn’t figure out if he was neo-orthodox or just theologically niave…I am coming to believe he is theologically niave because he seems to claim inerrancy and those who seem to know him claim he is conservative. But theological niavette is dangerous.

Concerning the ordinances, the point is that the pastor is the overseer of the church, and I know of no function of the church that is more important to oversee than the ordinances given to the church by Jesus Christ. Sure we can claim, “he oversees the souls of the flock” but how is that expressed…is it not partially expressed in accountability at the Lord’s Supper and association with Christ at baptism.
BR

Tim Batchelor said...

Brad,

A friend of mine told me a story about a church that split off a church that we both served. The new church was trying to be contemporary and culturally relevant so they decided to put the ladies of the church in charge of the Lord's Supper. After all, the Lord is a celebration and usually women are responsible for planning such events. Everyone arrived at the service prepared but were somewhat surprised to see that the ladies had prepared cake and punch as the communion elements. I do not know how that went over in the service but I would've passed. If I had been the overseer I would've passed out. Overseers are indeed charged to lead. They are responsible for putting untrained unqualified folks in charge. That's why I can't agree that any church member can baptize a new convert in his swimming pool or observe the Lord's Supper with a few friends in his home. In ordinary practice they are ordinances of the church and not individuals.

Perhaps the trouble comes when in a missions setting (and particularly cpm methodolgy) where there is no overseer. Perhaps the lack of leadership is what left the Corinthians is such an awful mess.


Tim

antonio said...

Brad,

What is IMHO? Though I feel that I may feel stupid when you tell me.

Anonymous said...

Brad,

I agree with you on many issues, but I don't agree with you on this one.

We often use green tea and rice cakes for the elements in our rural house ch's here in East Asia. Mainly because that is all that is available on the local economy. There is wine available but we made a conscious decision not to go that route.

The Lord's supper is something we do in rememberance of what Jesus did for us on calvary. To specify that there is a "correct" form is moving close to the slippery slope.

If I were present at that service, I would would have chuckled at the choices the ladies made in their chosing of the elements and then bowed my head and perpared my heart for communion.

Informed M

Grosey's Messages said...

Yeah, mate, I understand, we had a Baptist church here in the city go for coca cola and chips for the Lord's Supper, the pastor NEVER where's shoes (not even for funerals of those outside the church).
Now I have been in PNG where communion was red cordial and dried bread (nothing lasts where there is no refrigeration), however being blatently against the elements used in communion pointing to the Saviour because we wanna be "hip" or "cool" or trendy is well, to my old mind, undignified.
By the way, no one asks the guy to do funerals anymore, everybody knows he doesn't care for or respect the people.
I think every person that has attended that funeral has at sometime or other complained to me of the behaviour.
Steve in Australia

David Rogers said...

Brad,

1. Did not the old policy adequately deal with "abuse of tongues"?

2. In situations where a church decision needs to be made about whether to admit someone to the Lord's Supper, due to discipline questions involved, I would agree with you, that the "supervision" of that decision is indeed a pastoral (and thus, male) responsibility. I'm just not sure if being the person "in front" of a group, who happens to explain the Lord's Supper, and pass out the elements, and says "take eat," etc. necessarily involves the same pastoral authority.

3. Maybe if we could agree on the definition of the term "oversee," especially in light of various cultural contexts, we could make some good progress in understanding each other's positions.

4. That is a tough question you ask. I believe each one of us needs to be responsible before the Lord regarding the issues we choose to address and how we address them. I do agree that, as NT Christians in general, and especially as Baptists, taking into account our heritage, and generally acknowledged church polity, there needs to be a legitimate place and time for "principled dissent." Now, not everyone is going to agree on whether someone else's dissent is "principled" or not. That seems to be "the nature of the beast." May God help us all.

David Rogers said...

Regarding the question of proper observance of the Lord's Supper, and the elements involved, I think we as Southern Baptists need to be especially humble, taking into consideration:

1. Most churches do not use unleavened matzah, which would, if we really take original cultural context seriously, the most correct thing.

2. Most churches do not use a "common loaf" or "common cup," which is taught in the Bible, and actually has important symbolism attached.

3. The whole question of "wine" or "grape juice" at the Lord's Supper is another issue altogether, with many ramifications. But, I, personally, find it hard to believe the "wine" used in the NT church for the Lord's Supper was not real wine.

4. The Lord's Supper in the NT was celebrated in the context of a full meal, in peoples' homes.

Am I saying, thus, that if we don't do the Lord's Supper just like they did it in NT times, we are off-base or doctrinally deficient? No. I believe we must give freedom, and adopt a humble attitude in such cases, realizing we may not be as perfect as we think we are, and we don't have a right to demand a standard of others that we ourselves do not meet up to.

Tim Batchelor said...

No one here needs a lesson on the proper observance of the Lord's Supper. At the same time I would point out that I Corinthians 1 Cor 5:7-8 provides significant insight into both the elements and focus of the Lord's Table saying, "Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." To use leavened elements either bread or wine negates the symbolic instruction of the elements on the purity of the body and blood of Jesus.

In cultures where unleavened bread cannot be bought, it can certainly be easily made with any kind of flour. The symbolism is too important to be lost to convenience. Neither Jesus or Paul taught us to use wine but "the cup." It would seem that gives some freedom to use anything without leaven as the drink. AS for the sharing element, while by example we have the use of a single cup, we do not have any instruction on that matter. It would seem that either a single cup or a single source gives a sense of commonality. Because the church provides the same elements from the same serviceware we communicate "communion." If every individual brought their own we would violate the sense of "communion." Last night as I was running a few miles it hit me that Paul's emphasis on examination and cleansing to Jesus' washing the disciples feet prior to the Lord's Supper are one and the same teaching. Self examination and heart preparation are as important as the supper itself.

Because there is no precise prescription for the Lord's Supper in Scripture I do believe there is a degree of freedom in its proper expression. At the same time, we do well when by faith we seek to experience and express fully the Lord's Supper's intended meaning.

Tim

Wade Burleson said...

Mr. Harvey Rabbit,

I was asked by a couple of individuals via email to read this comment section and respond.

You seem to delight in making absurd statements about an alliance with Dr. McKissic, Ben Cole and myself. I have never met Dr. McKissic, did not even know he was going to speak at SWBTS until the day of, and the only conversation I had with the good Dr.McKissic prior to his speaking engagement at SWBTS was when he called me last January to offer his concern about the direction of the SBC.

You say you have phone records? Wonderful. It's obvious then there has been no conversation with Dr. McKissic. By the way, I would be delighted for you to pay the bill for me if you don't mind. :)

Dr. Frank Page is a wonderful President and will be reelected in San Antonio.

I hope that answers your questions. I do not need to know who you are.

God knows and I am quite comfortable with that.

In His Grace,

Wade

Anonymous said...

volfan007 and Brad

What do you think of women Professors in our Seminaries?