Friday, September 01, 2006

Southern Baptist Bloggers Sound False Alarm

As I perused some Blogs this week I was literally amazed at what appeared to be a collective heart attack stemming from the events that occurred in a Chapel service at Southwestern Seminary. Amazingly it wasn’t the content of the message, nor even the wisdom of attacking the actions of the Trustees of a sister institution which received the Shock and Awe of some bloggers; it was the fact the Seminary President removed the Internet streaming of the message.

If I were to write a summary of this week’s Southern Baptist blog world I think it would be: “In a rare and unusual incident many bloggers experienced what was first thought to be a collective and serious cardiac arrest brought about by a coronary thrombosis, however, after careful inspection it appears to have been nothing more than an intense occurrence of dyspepsia caused by an excessive and immediate release of thermal oxygen.”

Now, lest I offend some of the well-meaning bloggers who assumed this chapel event was Big News, (because other bloggers were making it big) allow me to state I am not speaking to you. I am however, addressing those in the SBC who know that Dr. Patterson’s actions were not earth-shaking, and yet they blogged in order to make news. It reminds me of a newspaper that has no news, so they make a minor event a major story.

Let’s review the facts:

1. Chapel speaker uses chapel time as an opportunity to attack the policies of the Trustees of a sister institution (Interestingly, this was not the big news according to many of the bloggers – in fact, I have not read any blog post that has challenged the wisdom of the speaker assuming such freedom. If a chapel speaker did that in a chapel I attended, my first question would be WHY? What purpose lay behind the use of chapel for such an expression that could be viewed as political? How did those words bring positive press and thereby grow the institution to which he was entrusted by SB?
By the way, I operate under the assumption that Dr. McKissic is a man of God who loves God dearly, has pure motives, and may not have considered the repercussions his statements would generate. Therefore, I refuse, and encourage everyone to refuse, to characterize him in any way other than a child of the living King – my frustration is not with him for I have committed far worse errors in my life. My frustration is with some of the bloggers who want to widen our tent to the point we lose our heritage and our distinctives as Southern Baptists.)

2. SW President removes the internet stream of the chapel message in order to apparently reveal that Southwestern Seminary does not make a habit of approving chapel messages that attack the actions of Trustees of sister institutions. The message, however, is still ATTAINABLE through Southwestern Seminary.

I just don’t get the outrage at the actions of the administration at Southwestern. In defending Dr. Patterson’s actions our current Southern Baptist president Dr. Frank Page says, “It is very encouraging to know that Southwestern Seminary joins this president in strongly asserting that they do not need to be in a place which ‘appears to be critical of the actions of the board of trustees of a sister agency,’” He even prophetically warns these bloggers who are on a feeding frenzy by stating, “While some may question the handling of this situation, please remember that they (Southwestern Administration) are trying to be fair, even under great pressure.”

The volcanic eruption displayed by some bloggers is just inexplicable to me. It’s not as if an unreached people group has been reached, or a revival broke out in New York, or even that a soul was saved from his wretched sin. I’m greatly confounded at their reaction.

Quite frankly, their hyperventilation would be hilarious were the implications not so serious. That which apparently lies behind the brouhaha this week is not outrage at the removal of a message from on-line access (which would be laughable, since it can readily be accessed other ways) nor even a desire to widen our tent to other neglected SB.
Rather what lies at the heart of this eruption is an apparent desire to malign those who labored in building our current tent (conservative resurgence), and then to use such hyped antagonism to remove our tent and give us a different one. In my opinion what lies at the root of this blogging hyper-activity is a hostility towards our current leadership and a desire to remake Southern Baptists into a conglomeration of Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians and Cooperative Baptist Fellowshippers.

The issue is not: can SB cooperate on the mission field with some of those who differ with us in doctrines such as: receiving the second blessing of the Holy Spirit, women pastors, eternal security of the believer, or the inerrancy of Scriptures. (While I would struggle with cooperating with some of these on the mission field…that is not the issue.) The issue is: do we want to use CP funds to pay those who differ with us on these issues. Some say yes…they claim we should stop using the word inerrancy because it is divisive (so is the word “sin” – should we stop using it?). They say we should use CP funds to pay those who speak in tongues, as well as those who believe in women pastors. I say NO. It is not who we are. (Don’t erroneously claim that "SB have not historically held the speaking in tongues as a disqualification for employment by the IMB"…WE HAVE…check our IMB policies!).

We are not Pentecostals, we are not Presbyterians, we are not the CBF, WE ARE SOUTHERN BAPTISTS.

While I consider many of those in these other denominations my brothers and sisters in Christ and am able to cooperate with some of them in reaching souls, nevertheless I am a Southern Baptist. I have friends in some of these other denominations and I thank God for their ministries and their faith but we differ on certain aspects of ecclesiology, pneumatology, soteriology, and missiology.

My point: if you want to be a Pentecostal or Presbyterian or CBF missionary, or if you want to support them, there is a mission agency for you, but IT IS NOT THE IMB. The IMB is for Southern Baptists and who we have been historically.

For those critical of Dr. Patterson please see Bart Barber's article "We Played the Flute for You..." available at http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com

86 comments:

sbc pastor said...

Brad,

I too agree that it would have been more appropriate if Dr. McKissic had chosen another avenue to express his concerns to the IMB instead of criticizing their policies from the pulpit of SWBTS – an agency of the SBC. Sadly, the loud cries of “wolf” emanating from the blogosphere have once again proven to be false calls. Thus, it appears that there is a contingency of bloggers (although one that is representative of only a small percentage of Southern Baptists and whose conservative number is rapidly dwindling) that appear to have a vendetta against Dr. Patterson, displeasure with the BF&M 2000, and animosity towards anyone associated with the Conservative Resurgence. Why??? It appears that this bandwagon, for lack of a better term, is sympathetic to the moderates and liberals that are disgruntled with the conservative direction of the SBC. Thus, they desire to "broaden the tent" so that other "conservatives" (their word) that do NOT affirm the inerrancy of the Bible can once again "cooperate" with Southern Baptists (please note several of the most recent posts on my blog for further information). Thanks and God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

brad reynolds said...

JLG
I think you may be right concerning some of these bloggers. It astounds me how sweet they appear to be towards men like Dan Vestal, Winfred Moore, and Russell Dilday (men who left the SBC because they could not affirm inerrancy) and yet how antagonistic they appear to be toward one of the architects of the conservative resurgence, and then claim to be one of us. Astounding. I agree with you though - I yhink more and more Southern Baptist are noticing and are unhappy with this trend.

Jim Champion said...

On the other hand JLG, we as a convention have reached out our hands to African American's and have tried to heal our rifts with them. Historically they have a tradition of private prayer languages, and are much more open to women in ministry. Pastor McKissic is a leader and if I am not mistaken past president of the SBTC, yet he has private prayer language and women ministers on his staff - Education and Finance if I read is web site correctly. Pator McKissic has also said that if SBC seminaries are not open to issues such as private prayer language - which are not prohibited by the BFM, he would not feel comfotable directing African American students to the SBC seminaries.

I disagree that there is any sort of vendetta against Dr. P going on - he is a self procalimed lightning rod who knows that any publicity is good publicity. He made a decision that some agree with some disagree with. In the old days - less than a year ago, before blogging, and before SWBTS put its chapel's up on the internet, there would have been nothing reported or it would have been a blip on the radar. Dr. P. by inhbiting speech (I dont think censorship is the correct term to use) drew more attention to the speech than it would have garnered in ordinary circumstances.

the result is the standard group of Paige's boys leaping to his defense, and the group that quesitons everything, questioning everything.

I myself am enjoying it - Long live free speech!

brad reynolds said...

Jim
I must admit the hyper-activity and fomenting at the mouth by the bloggers is quite entertaining...however, it is telling to hear the removal of a message from the internet because of the accusations against Trustees of a sister institution being called "inhibitive speech" when the sermon is still available at SWBTS. Even more telling is when one argues that the support of such professional decorum is nothing more than Paige's boys leaping to his defense - nice ad-hominen.

By the way - I never knew Dr. Frank Page was Paige's boy.

Finally it is most telling when one says "the group that questions everything, questions everything" - when that group no where questioned the wisdom of the speaker in the first place - they just seem to question everything the leaders of the conservative resurgence do and question nothing, men like Dan Vestal do.

Most telling indeed, my brother.

Speak on:)
BR

euroclydon said...

Dr. Patterson is the PRESIDENT of SWBTS. If he wants to pull the plug on a chapel message, he has the authority to do it. I, as Pastor of a local church, have the RESPONSIBILITY as well as the AUTHORITY to censor those comments that I believe would be harmful or could be harmful to the future of this local fellowship. If the deacons, elders, others deem it inappropriate, or just don't like it, come to me personally before lobbing a scud in a business meeting. Dr. McKissick was out of line, plain and simple.

euroclydon said...

Sorry Dr. Reynolds. Did not mean to post without a sig.

Jim Stewart

Jim Champion said...

Brad

I think Frand Page's comment was directed at both sides. It is well docuemtented that Dr P distributed Keith Eitels white paper that was also critical of the IMB.

By the way, Nathan Finn has an excellent post up on his blog dealing with conservatives and moderates working together, and his reasoing why moderates should not occupy leadership positions in the SBC. As you can expect, I dont agree with all of his points, but I encourage all to take a look and weigh in.

Last point - Dr P is a great wordsmith, I think that he could have left Pastor McKissic's chapel sermon up and put a disclaimer up that the views expressed while scriptural and valid, and not in conflict with the BFM 2000 are not generally held standards within the SBC.

I think that SBC leadership is slowly learning that it is a new day in communication. People do not rely nearly as much on Baptist Press - nor do they standard print media for news. I venture to say that BP would have never even covered this had not blogs taken off the way they have.

Thank you for allowing me to express my views on your blog

Jim

brad reynolds said...

Jim
Dr. Patterson distributed the paper to the Trustees - those who should recieve it - I think Dr. Page would agree. I certainly don't believe he would be critical of operating within the Trustee system.

Other than that - excellent points made in your last comment - and I appreciate your honesty and clarity.
BR

tim rogers said...

Brother Brad,

In the 80's/90's the false alarm was "censorship". It went something like this; "free and faithful baptist have always allowed the public to debate issues and when those issues are not allowed, the one witholding them are afraid their views do not hold up."

While Rev. McKissic is free to interpret Scripture from a tradition in which he was raised, there are certain elements of tradition we need to reject. Would these same people advocate me espousing scripture contains arguments for slavery just because I was raised in a tradition where the KKK was a dominant force?

We are now in the same argument today that was argued back in the 80's and 90's? The question that needs to be answered by SB is not what has been placed before us. The question placed before us by the bloggers false alarms seems to be; "What is Censorship?" The question SB's need to answer is, does a SB Agency President have the authority to address items that he deems inappropiate because of harm due a sister agency?

brad reynolds said...

To all
You should read Bart Barber's article today...EXCELLENT!!!

It is entitled "We Played the Flute for You..." and is found at http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com

Tim
Good point...to limit a President from doing what he sees best for both his institution and the SBC reminds me of - Bart's Post:)
BR

CB Scott said...

Does this mean that Dr. Patterson will cease to involve himself in the structure of sister institutions? You are right, Brad, this is a trick question.
So act like you do not realize it and answer it for me:-)

cb

brad reynolds said...

CB
I don't think I can answer that any better than Bart Barber has...please see his post...I gave the link above.

I will say I have personally asked the President at SWBTS his advise concerning my teaching - I guess the fact he gave me advice means he is involving himself in a sister institution.

Shame on those trustees for asking his advice - Let's make a resolution at next years convention. Let's resolve "No one may ever consult one of our greatest theologians and one of the chief architects of our convention because such consultation is unwanted by us."

You know me and I am not coming after you...but I really think it wise to seek his advice on many issues, even if I'm a Trustee of another institution. Are SB too stop seeking the advice of men like he and Dr. Mohler simply because they are Presidents of one of our institutions. Should SB not have consulted Boyce on matters within the convention simply because of his seminary position?

Hope this helps you know where I'm coming from
BR

Timothy Cowin said...

Brad,

Are you seriously implying that Patterson's and Eitel's efforts in attempting to change policy and direction at the IMB was merely responding to a request for advise?

Anonymous said...

where in the BFM is the issue of tongues addressed?
-Dan

tim rogers said...

Brother Timothy Cowin,

I am in no way trying to answer for Brad. I am just someone on the outside looking in and have to remember that in everything that I comment on.

As one who does not know any of the leaders on a personal level, I ask one question: Do we know that a Trustee did not request the Eitel papers to be disseminated to all of the Trustees? Dr. Eitel's research was a result of what apparently was a request and concern raised by someone that knew Missionaries were being taught that New Church plants would be okay if women pastored them. Something completely outside of the BF&M2K.

If I was in a position to get research done on something that was outside of the BF&M, I would get the research done. I have to always remember that I am not "in the know" on many issues.

Allow me to respond with a question to you. Do you feel exposing false teaching is wrong? Or is your main concern more in the manner in which it proceeded?

Cliff4JC said...

Dr Brad & JLG

JLG, your assemement the Wade's conservative following is dwindling is "spot on!" Count me in that group! I am very uncomfortable with 2 things that I see emerging from Wade:

1. Hatred for the "estabolishment."
2. The tent including moderates.

Dr. Brad,

Par your rules, allow me to ask for some clarifications.

"We are not Pentecostals, we are not Presbyterians, we are not the CBF, WE ARE SOUTHERN BAPTISTS."

1. Who are the "pentacostals?" and would you prefer they leave SBC life?

2. Who are the "presyterians" and would you prefer they leave the SBC?

Joy,
Cliff

Cliff4JC said...

Question:

I made this observation to Tim yesterday. For many in SBC life, tongues IS a "first tier" issue isn't it?

I think Dr. Mohler is on to something. I think it is time that we sit down and define who we really are and what our distinctives will be. Whether folks want to admit it or not, many define them differently. I remember being told by Dr Akin that the BFM framers purposefully avoided certain controversial subjects in order to not offend and allow each individual church the right to be who they were.

How much diversity do we tolerate? Many true conservative inerentists simply disagree on certain subjects. I think it's time we spell out what the essentials really are. (Please don't tell me the BFM does this! That’s a pot with holes in it! The BFM does NOT address tongues and whether a person should be excluded from service for it. etc...) Wouldn't it be wise of us to come together and hash these issues out once and for all?

Joy,
Cliff

CB Scott said...

Cliff,

I am not Brad for which I am sure he thanks God. I would like to take a shot at answering part of your question.

Some Baptist are folks that lean toward Pentecostal theology. That is a theological position and not very political.

Some Baptist are folks that lean toward Calvinistic theology. That is a theological position and not very political.

Some Baptist are CBF and no longer part of the SBC. They chose to leave the SBC for mostly political reasons with very little theology for their departure. CBF is a mind-set based on little theology.

Calvinism and Pentecostalism are theological mind-sets based upon a particular interpretation of the Bible.

The SBC does hold strongly to a theological mind-set. The folks that could not live with that theological mind-set left and became the CBF and other various things.

It was an honest thing for them to do.

I will work with a CBF person in the ways I can to advance the Kingdom of Jesus. I do not, though, want him or her running the SBC or trying to change the historic theology thereof.

(and there is a historic theology of which is very much reflected in the theological positions of all SBC institutions today.)

We have some political problems and willfully, sinful men in our institutions that need to be addressed, but our theology is sound.

My goal is to get the political problems out of the way that we may spread the gospel to all creatures as instructed by Jesus.

Brad,

Forgive my answering a question directed to you. I just could not help myself. Also, your martial arts training is no doubt becoming strong. You handled the "trick Question" well by using my move against me. Well done. I will return with a new move later:-)

cb

Timothy Cowin said...

Tim,

Let me be tranparent here. As a son of a missionary couple that was basically driven off their field, because of IMB's New Directions, I am in full agreement with the concerns of Dr. Patterson and Dr. Eitel. I am not in agreement with clandestine tactics. Be bold, be open, publicly expose from the pulpit, use the press, talk about it, let everybody in the convention know what the issues are.

If they had done this, Rankin would have been gone by now.

Blessings,

Timothy

tim rogers said...

Brother Timothy,

Tactics are what I believe we all need to address. At the same time I am very careful to address a tactic to someone. By addressing tactics we are also addressing motives. I, for one, am not ready to address anyone's motive, especially when one gives a reason for their actions.

Blessings,
Tim

Cliff4JC said...

Tim C,

Yes! Open and bold. I like it! Even if I don't like the results, I can respect open and bold tacticts! Say what you want, work for what you want and let the chips fall where they may!

CB,

I've really come to like reading your posts! However, I already knew the info you shared. I also agree with your assement concerning the CBF folks. We must not forget though, that not every neo-orthodox believer has left the SBC. Their are many still here hoping to undue the resurgence.

My questions to Brad are more pointed. In his post today and in a comment, he made reference to the SBC not being Pentacostal, Presbyterian or CBF. The heart of my question to him is clear to him in light of previous conversations he and I have had. (I think) And before I respond I wanted to make sure I fully understand him.

Joy,
Cliff

Cliff4JC said...

Jim,

you said..."I disagree that there is any sort of vendetta against Dr. P going on"

Brother, what planet have you been on??????? LOL :)

I could easily direct you to numerous blog sites where it is painfully obvious that their is a "vendetta" agianst Dr. P. I give you the benefit of doubt; maybe you just haven't been to those sites.

BTW...Do you mind me asking respectfully what your definition of a conservative moderate is? If you do mind, please don't be offended and simply ignore me!

Joy,
Cliff

brad reynolds said...

Cliff

Good and fair questions.

To answer your first question…if someone feels more comfortable around Pentecostals or Presbyterians than they do around Southern Baptist then I think they have answered your question addressed to me.

Second, there is a major difference with a broad statement, which can encompass many SB and more narrow policies that apply to individuals SB employ. Would you be willing to make the faculty handbook at Southeastern Seminary the new BFM? I certainly wouldn’t. I fear the dress and behavior codes might disenfranchise many Southern Baptist. In fact I wouldn’t want the convention to debate from the floor what policies should and shouldn’t apply to the employees at SEBTS.

Having said that if some individual blogs about how wrong he thinks a policy is, I suppose the convention, if it chose to address it could…but until this year we have trusted our Trustees or we have replaced them…but we haven’t removed their responsibilities.

The point? I think Trustees are in their full right to develop policy that they believe will maintain the integrity and the mission of their institution in concert with what they feel SB would affirm, by in large. Nothing the IMB Trustees have done is at odds with its historical policies, nor with SB distinctives, nor, in my opinion with what the majority of SB would affirm for those who they pay.

Cliff, I’ve been to every convention since ’88. I think it very unwise to debate from the floor the policies of all of our institutions, and I don’t think our discussions would be Christ-honoring to the watching world and press. If the convention is to make the policy decisions for our institutions then we have just removed the purpose and integrity for the Trustee system.
BR

Jim Champion said...

I am a conservative moderate. I think that if you look across the great state of Texas you will find that a most if not almost all churches that are in the BGCT would classify themselves as conservative moderates. On theological issues you will find no problems with us at all, we are innerantists and hold to the fundamentals of the faith. What we do not buy into is the politics of the conservative resurgence. We stay with the BGCT - flawed as it may be, because of the ministries it performs across the state of Texas, as well as the state baptist colleges. The breakoff SBTC is also a fine convention, however it puts most of its efforts into church planting. For the most part we have no problems with the BFM2000 - although my pastor thinks that it may stray a bit into modalism in dealing with the trinity.

You will find very few liberals in SBC churches in the state.

By the way - If Pastor McKissics sermon was to controversial to give away for free, why is the seminary charging $9.95 for it?? Kind of makes you go Hmmmmmmm :)

Charles Henry said...

Hello,

Before I start, let me say that I believe the Word of God is true, innerrant. I would most likely be lumped in with the rest of the "conservatives" or "fundamentalists."

Sorry for this wooden post, but I know of no other way to get my point across.

1. The SBC is fundamentally a democractic institution. This is the same for its member institutions (ie. IMB, NAMB, etc.).

2. The authority the leaders of this instutition possess are given to them by the people who vote for them.

3. The power actually lies in the people who do the voting, they vote people in who they think will make wise (and hopefully biblical) decisions regarding the institution.

4. If the leaders make bad decisions the people have every right to question the decisions being made.


Here is the main points,

If your position is that it is wrong to question the decisions being made within the institution, then you have to hold to the position that the "conservative resurgance" was also wrong.

Further, if your position on a theological subject comes strictly from the tradition of the denomination you belong in, there is something wrong. If you remember, the "tradition" of the SBC had changed drastically over the past 50-100 years. From slavery to liberalism to conservatism.

Frankly, I do not care what the SBC says on any topic, I care what the Bible reads on every topic. I am a SBCer because I agree with the stands they take on the issues that are clear in the Bible (i.e. I adhere to the BF&M).

I have never heard anyone make the argument (before today) that cessasionism is a SBC distinctive.

As Dan eluded to above, if this is a SBC distinctive, where does it appear in the BF&M (the only document every SBC must affirm to be a SB)?

God Bless,
Charles Henry

brad reynolds said...

CB

I'm not sure I will be ready for your next move...take it easy on me bro:)

Timothy,

I will be responding to your first question soon...I am verifying my information. Thank you for your transparency.

I know there has been much misinformation concerning Dr. Patterson and Eitel and I will be addressing this soon. This misinformation has led to the charge of "back-room politics."

One of the good things that has happened because of Wade and others is that more is coming out in the open. And there will be even more - I promise. I am confident when all the cards are laid on the table the critics of Patterson and Eitel will say "WOW - I was wrong and I sure didn't know that was happening."

For those of us who love Truth and I believe you do...we have nothing to fear.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Charles
Welcome and thoughtful comment. I shall try and alleviate most of your concerns, and do so in honor of your format:)

1. I do not think it is wrong for individuals to question decisions made by an institution. I believe it is wrong for institutions to appear to be critiquing other institutions. To me this is totally different from SB saying lets change the direction of our convention.

2. My positions of Theological subjects have their genesis in Scripture…thus I choose to be a SB because many of their historical and current positions match what I see Scripture to be teaching. Were we to start changing some of our positions, which I believe come from Scripture I would raise my voice.

3. I don’t believe I said cessation is a distinctive of Southern Baptists and I hope no one else infers that. Our IMB policies have historical maintained that one could not be a Missionary and speak in tongues. Please see my other comments posted here regarding the difference in the BFM as a broad statement unifying Baptists and the more narrow and yet historical institutional policies.

Hope this helps
BR

brad reynolds said...

Jim

If Southwestern had not made the tape available people would complain censorship...they make the tape available and now you wonder why?

Come on brother...let's remember Dr. Frank Page's words.
BR

Timothy Cowin said...

Brad,

Amen to that. In the mean time, good missionaries, who could not tolerate "messy doctrine" to quote what New Directions says will be present in indigenious church plants, are being maligned and run off the field.

Forget the behind the scenes stuff, give me the day when men like Criswell would stand behind the pulpit at the SBC Convention ie pastor's conference, (I remember as a kid being taken to almost every convention from the mid 70's on) and call out the issues specifically.

Timothy Cowin said...

Brad,

Correction, the IMB allowed people to have a practice with tongues,as long as they kept it private.
That was changed last fall.

brad reynolds said...

Timothy

I will recheck but I believe the policy forbade the gift of tongues but not necessarily a private prayer language.

In fact, some missionaries were relieved from their duties years ago because of the gift of tongues, if memory serves me right some were even released for their private prayer language although that wasn't spelled out in the policy...but I'll check.

BR

Jim Champion said...

Brad -

It was an attempt, lame as it may have been at humor

Jim

Cliff4JC said...

Allow me to be more specific with my question.

Dr. McKissic- Tounges Speaker
Cliff Easter- Calvanist

We are both more comfortable with Southern Baptists than we are with Pentecostals and Presbyterians.

Where do we fit in Dr. Brad Reynold's vision for the SBC?

Joy,
Cliff

Timothy Cowin said...

Brad,
Here is the direct quote from the policy,

"In terms of general practice, the majority of Southern Baptists do not accept what is referred to as “private prayer language.” Therefore, if “private prayer language” is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC. "

Before this policy, as long as you did not believe that tongues was normative for all and kept it private, you could serve. Post policy, NEED NOT APPLY.

This is not right, in my opinion. Your previous statement about the history of the IMB regarding tongues is not correct.

brad reynolds said...

Jim

Pardon, I don't always catch E-humor.

Timothy,
Actually there was some type of policy years ago where in Dr. Keith Parks upon hearing of a missionary speaking in tongues sent a Regeional Leader with the authority to fire the individual...I'm not sure what the policy was but it existed.

Then the current President developed a 1 page written document for M's to sign, without the approval of the Trustees, (which stated what you said).
Although this document was never official policy, nor even known or voted on by the Trustees, it functioned until numerous complaints of public tongues were made known. The M's were being relieved and the Trustees wondered why this was becoming a problem...they were then made aware of the document and a subcommittee wrote some guidelines. Guidelines allow more wriggle room than policy. Nevertheless, the Administration was not happy with the guidelines so he took them to the full board, but the board, rather than affirming the Administration affirmed the other Trustees. Thus, in an ironic turn of events, the Administration's desire to remove the guidelines actually resulted in their becoming policy. It is public knowledge that the Administration has been publicly critical of his bosses (Trustees) decision.

I will be posting on this and the Letter from Eitel to the board soon. For now, let me spell out quickly the way the letter developed.

1. Trustees contacted Eitel for a possible interview for Avery Willis' position.

2. Eitel prepares a paper of talking points for the interview. He was to address: where the IMB had been, where it was and where he thinks it should go.

3. He develops his talking points from: a) feedback from dozens of Missionaries and Students on the field and at the MLC; b) His observations from his recent sabbatical in East Asia; c) 18 years of short-term Mission work.

4. At root in the paper was a discussion between Keith Parks and Adrian Rogers concerning what unites SB. Parks claimed it was missions; Rogers claimed it was Doctrine. Eitel felt Rogers to be right and sited evidence of unorthodox practice on the field.

5. WEEKS after Eitel wrote the paper he told Dr. Patterson about it over dinner one night. Patterson asks to read it. Next day Eitel sends it to him.

6. Some in the Administration at the IMB do not want Eitel interviewed for the position and work toward that end.

7. Patterson tells Eitel, if you don't get interviewed it would be good to send the paper to the President and the Trustees anyway.

8. He was not interviewed.

9. He sent the paper to the President and the Trustees.

10. The IMB administration claims the paper was not accurate in some ways.

11. Some trustees ask Eitel for clarification.

12. Eitel works with former RL Robin Hadaway and Paige Patterson on a second paper citing and documenting numerous on field incidents which support the statements in the first paper. This paper is sent to one of the Trustees who asked them questions. He sends it to the President and the other 87 Trustees.

As I said I will post more on this later - and I have the documentation.

Interestingly to note however, is that with all the complaining of Dr. Patterson and Dr. Eitel only 1 person has called them about what has been said and he did so because two of his colleagues on the field refused to believe what was being said of these men because they knew them.
This person was shocked to find out no one else had even cared to ask Patterson or Eitel...they just assume what the Blogs say is correct.

Even more interesting and ironic is Wade's call for people to confront people privately before making public accusations but he has not called Patterson with his concerns on how Patterson handled the Chapel service nor about his concerns of Patterson's and Eitel's percieved involvement in IMB.

Hope this helps
BR

Timothy Cowin said...

Brad,

Great info, thanks, I think this is the day of open dialogue and communication. It is hard to be quiet in these days. It would be helpful if those who are first persons in all of this would just come out and say what they know or feel.

Cliff4JC said...

"Even more interesting and ironic is Wade's call for people to confront people privately before making public accusations but he has not called Patterson with his concerns on how Patterson handled the Chapel service nor about his concerns of Patterson's and Eitel's percieved involvement in the IMB."

AMEN!!

Dr. Brad...For give my ignorance: What is the MLC?

Cliff4JC said...

Forgive more ignorance:

What Year was that?

Cliff

brad reynolds said...

Timothy
The first persons that I know, have not come out for a few reasons:
1) They really don't want to hurt the administration of a sister institution, nor do they want to add fuel to the accusations that they are trying to run off the administration, nor run things from Ft. Worth.
2) They believe that the bloggers will twist whatever is said and they really don't have the time to answer every blogger.
3) no one has asked them...If you set up an appointment to speak with them I am certain they will arrange their schedule for you.

But my friend I will be openning more eyes soon:)

Cliff
MLC is the Missionary Learning Center in Richmond.

Also, Dr. Eitel was first contacted in '03 for the interview. The events took place mainly from the fall of '03 through the spring of '04.

The tongue policy was no back door to get Rankin it was Trustees responding to Missionaries being released for speaking in tongues this came to their attention in '05.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Cliff

Your question about where You and McKissic fit in my SB I think is obvious to you from conversations we have had. Certainly you fit in...but as far as McKissic is concerned certainly he realizes the majority of SB don't necessarily agree with him on the tongues issue and we have historically had a don't ask don't tell policy in the IMB which I think most SB are comfortable with...the problem as we have seen lately is that policy is impossible to implement.

How does a missionary begin sharing theology with his new convert without inevitably sharing his amazing experiences and belief in tongues. This was the problem which led to the review of the Presidents one page document and led to guidelines then to policy, etc as explained above.

The problem with private prayer language was exemplified in SW's chapel. One who has it inevitably becomes a proponent of it and I think SB by in large have a problem with paying a missionary to promote tongues with his convert even if it is in his private discipleship closet.
BR

sbc pastor said...

Brad,

In regard to your statement:

"The problem with private prayer language was exemplified in SW's chapel. One who has it inevitably becomes a proponent of it and I think SB by in large have a problem with paying a missionary to promote tongues with his convert even if it is in his private discipleship closet.

I agree wholeheartedly. BTW, I have linked to this thread on my most current post, "The Beauty, and Truth, of Satire." Thanks and God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

brad reynolds said...

Cliff
I have a question or two for you now:)

Would you open our mission board up to Pentacostals and Presbyterians? Would you widen the SB so that we become three denominations in one? If not how would you distinguish who we pay with CP monies?

Just curious
BR

CB Scott said...

Cliff,

My eyes have been opened to something. I usually know what is going on in the SBC,, but I did make a bad mistake back in the beginning of all of this stuff.

I knew we had hired some very questionable facualty in our institutions and that really bothered me.

It is not time to say what bothered me about them. I am waiting for another "shoe" to fall before talking about that matter.

What I have been shocked about is the fact that so many SBC pastors hold such foreign positions to historic Baptist theology.

I got into this because I know that we have men among us in leadership that are willful in their misdeeds and I know others are aware of this even if they deny it.

Also I got into it because a bunch of Boot Strapping-Boloney Eaters were trying to railroad a fellow trustee because he asked too many questions and would not play in their raindeer games.

I am finding I disagree with said trustee on issues more and more as time goes on, but I will protect his position to the end unless he commits a sin that he must be removed for and I frankly do not think he is of that nature so I will be "dancing with the girl that "brung me" to the dance" even if she has a little BO:-)

I consider people like Ben Cole, Tim Rogers and Brad Reynolds my friends no matter if I do not agree with each of them on some things.

The truth is that we are all part of a group (very large group) that has benefited greatly from the conservative resurgence. The truth is that we may fight and scratch but any of us would laugh if anyone called one of that large group neo-orthodox.

The place I find myself in is that I am at justifiable odds with some that I once greatly respected as leaders. I still love them as brothers and I have and would defend them if they are accused of that which they have not done. I call on them to repent of that of which they know full well they are guilty of in their roles as leaders.

At this point they are hollow leaders and whited graves and they know it.

cb

sbc pastor said...

CB,

In regard to your comment:

CB: “I am finding I disagree with said trustee on issues more and more as time goes on, but I will protect his position to the end unless he commits a sin that he must be removed for and I frankly do not think he is of that nature so I will be ‘dancing with the girl that ‘brung me’ to the dance’ even if she has a little BO:-)”

Any trustee of an SBC entity that considers others to be a “conservative” in spite of the fact that they do not affirm the Inerrancy of the Bible has bigger problems than just “BO.” The Inerrancy of the Word of God is THE fundamental doctrine. There are NO fundamentals of the faith in a Bible that contains boo-boos, accidents, mistakes, and errors. Truly, that type of “cooperation” does indeed “stink.”

Is this the type of individual that should be serving as a trustee of an SBC entity? Absolutely not! If your dancin’ buddy smells that bad, perhaps you should give up dancing. Just a thought and God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

sbc pastor said...

CB,

Perhaps you should check out the last 5 entries on my blog - your dancin' partners may have some other thoughts that you might find disturbing. God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

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

CB
You can dance with her but I'm coming after anu Trustee or employee who signed the BFM but does not believe it in totality...I think it is unethical and wrong and sets a standard for liberals to sign it since they don't agree with it...apparently your dance partner may not have a problem with liberals signing it since inerrancy is a word we need to stop using because it is controversial.

Also, whatever sins you KNOW some have committed do you know their motives and more importantly do you know they have not repented?

Love you my brother...but personally I think some people have tried to use you...maybe not but as I'm on the outside looking in I think so.

As you can see from my facts in the comments above...what really happenend with the Trustees - Eitel and Patterson was not what the blogs including Ben's have reported.
BR

CB Scott said...

Brad,

I am very tired of some "playing" with the concept as I am sure you are. You know I believe the historic definition and have defended it my whole Christian life.

I believe that if you put your name on a document you are bonded to the content of said document. Yet, I also know what I know about other things and that cannot be "washed" away either.

Brad, I still believe we who claim to be called out by God

(and there is a call no matter what David Black is teaching those poor kids to the contrary)

are to be of a different nature. We are to seek to walk before God and man as something that is holy and true. I am the worst of the litter, but I try to beat my low-life self into submission to Christ everyday.

I do not make my charges lightly and the ones I actually make are true and I know it and so do those that I make them against.

If there is anyway you could possibly show me I am wrong I will gladly stand down and make restitution.

cb

Cliff4JC said...

Concerning Tounges: I realize that I am making a federal case out of a policy that will only effect a VERY few people. I just think those people are worth it. What I mean by that is; I am not asking the IMB to open it's arms to "charasmatics" in general. Only those who are solid in their theology in all other areas and who recogonize that tounges is what Paul called it...a LESSER gift. If a person realizes this, is willing to understand that he is going as a Baptist missionairy, not use the gift in public and not make a big deal out of teaching it: I submit he would be more helpful on the field than non tounges missionairys! (When they encounter the abuses of pentacostals on the field, they will be able to teach how the gift should be used responsibly!) I understand the animal I just described is few and far between. But for the few, I think it terribly irresponsible of us to simply say; this is the way we have allways done it! The argument from history is weak! I would much rather be known for being Biblical than Historic. Historically, SBs were racist slave owners. I'm glad we have come into the light on this one. I say with Paul; "Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind," as it relates to these non-essential issues. My fear is, for some reason, tounges has been elevated to an ESSENTIAL issue in many SBC circles. My question then is; why tounges? Why not premillenialism? Why not closed communion? Why not our view on divorce and remarriage? I simply don't get it.



Disclosure: I don't speak in tounges and I don't want to. I think scripture clearly teaches us to seak other gifts. I think almost everybody involved in tounges speaking publicly is doing so in a way that dishonors scripture. I believe their is a miniscule amount of people that would meet my requirments. I just think we need to be careful not the throw the baby out with the bathwater on the grounds that we have historically not been a charasmatic denomination.

Cliff4JC said...

Dr B,

When we first met, I accused you of painting with a broad brush and over generalizing those you disagree with. I said to you then that I thought you try to put people in a box that's two small sometimes. I fear your comments about presbyterians and charismatics and your follow-up question to me may be doing this agian. This is what I have been trying to get at. I'm trying to let you clarify your own position rather than jump to my own conclusion (par your good rules! :)

My anwer: OF COURSE NOT!!!!! It's a ridiculous proposal!

I am not Presbyterian! I could list the reasons why but I'll spare you. I am a Baptist. Always have been. But, your post and later comment left me wondering if you were talking about the rising number of Calvanists in the convention when you said we are not Presby. I was trying to get an anwer without coming right out and saying it.

I'm assuming that men like McKissic are allowed to participate in the convention but not be sent by the IMB. Should a tounges speaker like himself be allowed to serve as a Trustee to one of our institutions?

Should calvainists be missionaires? Trustees? Etc...

Looking forward to your anwers...

Joy,
Cliff

PS: Brother Volfan...please don't respond to my post :)

brad reynolds said...

Cliff

First my brother, let me caution you about claiming, “historically, SBs were racist slave owners.” I see two problems with that statement: 1) categorizing SBs at a certain period of time as slave owners; when in reality there may never have been a time when the majority of SBs were; and 2) Apparently assuming all slave owners were racist. I have no problem with saying “in our past we did not stand against slavery and some SBs were racist slave owners just as some SBs today are still racist.” I know of no time when SB declared they stood for racist slave owning – I do know of a time when we felt one should not be unable to be a missionary just because he owned slaves.

Now to the real issue. Tongues is not an essential issue for most individuals I know. In fact I know of no SB personally (and I know a lot of SB) who believe it is…so I think your fear is misplaced. However, for me, the sufficiency of Scripture is an essential. This leads to concern over the correlation between tongues and new Words from God which are many times elevated above Scripture.

The concern of the charismatic influence is a great concern of mine. As Dr. Eitel notes in his second paper to the IMB Administration and Trustees (which by the way never addressed tongues) one of our missionaries was exorcising demons out of her curtains. Now while that may seem harmful and even humorous at first glance, I don’t think it would be quite humorous in an animistic context. Talk about syncretism between animism and Christianity.

My point being…inevitably one who has tongues will teach their new converts the joys of such and I for one do not want SB missionaries doing that and I feel many SB agree.

I don’t have a problem with a missionary teaching “God’s Word is sufficient and I think it teaches closed-communion” or “I think it teaches one can be divorced and remarried for Biblical reasons” (while I may or may not disagree with these concepts they are not correlated to experience superceding Scripture…tongues is).

Hope this helps.
BR

brad reynolds said...

Cliff

Some may infer things from what I say but I do not intend to (nor do I think I do) paint with a broad brush.

I do see a growing trend among some Calvinists who appear to want to talk about Calvinism more than Jesus and seem more concerned with converting people to Calvin than to Christ…but I don’t believe that about many many Calvinists I know. I also see a trend to move us to a three-office convention (Pastor, Elders, Deacons) rather than the two offices spelled out in the BFM. For those desiring 3 offices in the church rather than 2, they would be more comfortable with Presbyterians than with the BFM…furthermore, since we have always been a mission organization, anyone who would desire to convert someone to their soteriological system rather than to Christ would also probably be more comfortable somewhere else.

Should Calvinist be missionaries? I certainly hope so.

Should they be employed by SB or serve as Trustees? I don’t see why not, provided the can sign the BFM2K and abide by IMB policies.

Should a tongue speaker serve as a Trustee? No problem here, if he can sign the BFM2K.

There is a difference in missionaries paid by SB teaching new converts tongues and an individual serving as a Trustee who affirms tongues.
BR

tim rogers said...

Brother CB,

Look at what Brad said; "Love you my brother...but personally I think some people have tried to use you...maybe not but as I'm on the outside looking in I think so."

I know you are not a weak person. When someone says, others are being used, it does not mean they are weak. Brother, you KNOW so much more than I do about the situations we find ourselves disagreeing. As you and I have discussed before, the Memphis Declaration has been signed by some past movers and shakers and others that are political savvy enough to lead a Richard Nixon re-election campaign and get the man re-elected.

My point is that this movement is about more than principled dissent. That may be what you see it as and that is the way the leaders have presented it. You are free to see it that way. However, from one outside looking in, this movement is not about principled dissent. Just look at the attacks I endure when I disagree on some of the leaders blogs.

Blessings,
Tim

Cliff4JC said...

Point 1: I stand corrected…but you got my point.

Though you claim not paint with the broad brush, I say respectfully, “there you go again!” LOL

You said: “However, for me, the sufficiency of Scripture is an essential. This leads to concern over the correlation between tongues and new Words from God which are many times elevated above Scripture.” Straw Man!! Yes, most charisma tics make this mistake (even though they don’t admit it) but not ALL!!! This is what I meant by throwing the baby out. I know a number of SBCers who Baptist to the core; yet they practice a “PRIVATE” prayer language. I realize they are in the great minority; but why should we disqualify them based on a fear they will allow that practice to turn into the abuses you spelled out? Each of them would be appalled at the abuses you rightly fear on the mission field. They would not identify themselves with people like that all. They would be offended that just because they pray in tongues privately you would accuse them of being included with the demons in the curtains; a word for God above scripture crowd. Honestly, I was considering asking one of friends to come to the blog to weigh in. However, if he reads this statement “(while I may or may not disagree with these concepts they are not correlated to experience superceding Scripture…tongues is)…he would probably have a coronary on the spot! Since I love him and would miss him; I’ll not invite him. Brother…there is way to much assumption in that statement!

Your concerns about trends in the Calvinist movement are well founded. My hope is that we (Calvinists and non-Calvinists) will remain such good friends that we will be able to warn each other of our short comings. I man told me once that I true friend is the one who will tell you that you have snot coming out of your nose when you’re in the pool! As my true friend; warn me of my snottyness! Also, be man enough to take some helpful criticisms in return. I think if we stop competing and being suspicious; both sides would be great help to other. For example; Tom Ascol’s motion from last year spot on! I hope all of us; both sides; will head it well. I think we make much better friends than enemies. I would just like to see leadership on both sides become more vocal to this end. It’s time the Paige Pattersons of the world stood up and said stop the Calvin bashing. It’s time the Mohlers of the world stood up and did the same. I hope the Patterson/Mohler dialogue at the Convention was a start.

I see a consistency problem with having a person as a trustee who doesn’t qualify to be sent. Honestly, I think if you can’t qualify to be sent by the IMB; teach at a seminary etc; you shouldn’t be on the controlling board. (Not that you must have a Phd; but that you meet the theological requirements etc.) Somehow, I think these issues should be made more “consistent” even if I don’t like the result! (see, I’m trying to be consistent! LOL)

Joy,
Cliff

PS: It's saturday! We should be watching football!

volfan007 said...

brad,

amen to your post....and again, i say, amen! it's true that we are not pentecostals, and we sure dont want to be liberals.

we have a certain blogger or two who have attracted the charismatic crowd and the liberal faction in our sbc who would take our beloved sbc down.

thank God for a voice of sound reason like yours. keep speaking up.

volfan007

brad reynolds said...

Cliff

First let me say I am watching football as I write. Texas = 49 North Texas = 7
:)

Second
I purposely used the word “many” in may statement in order not to paint with a bruch that is too broad. I do believe there should be a “concern over the correlation between tongues and new Words from God which are many times elevated above Scripture.”
By correlation I mean “many times” when you see one you see the other although it is not every time.

I apologize for being clearer…perhaps it would be better to state using educational research language “there appears to be a correlation between tongues and new Words from God, however, it is not a direct correlation because there are outlying cases, nevertheless there is a statistically significant difference between those who practice tongues and receive New Words from God and those who do not practice tongues and receive New Words from God.”

Hope this helps:)

Please feel free to correct me anytime..I would appreciate it.

I would see a consistency problem with a Trustee serving on the IMB and not being able to affirm policy also…however that wasn’t your question…your question was could he serve as a Trustee and I said I saw no problem. You didn’t ask if he could serve on the Trustee Board of the IMB. However, personally, I wouldn’t even have a problem with that, is it inconsistent perhaps, but they have many other policies that the Trustees may not necessarily meet and we have a faculty handbook (policy) here at SE that our Trustees may or may not meet.

BR

IN HIS NAME said...

Brad, Why don't you and some other trust God to do His Work thru the Holy Spirit? God chooses His Missionaries by convicting their Hearts to Go. We Baptist are trying to say no!!!!, we choose….

God has given a wake=up call.

Love
In Jesus Name Wayne

IN HIS NAME said...

Tim Rogers,
Why did you not post this comment on your Blog???

My comment (“ “)
(“I'm a Food for thought kind of person, as I read a lot and like to share thoughts. The Word of God says it better than I can say it.
So forgive me for stepping on toes by using the Bible.

A Brother in Christ for Truth”)

Love
In Jesus Name Wayne

brad reynolds said...

Wayne
I do.

Having said that…I would never tell any person who felt God calling them to be a missionary (which for the record I think he calls all to be going) no. Nor do I think any Baptist I know is saying No.

I say GO.

But I also say don’t ask SB to pay your salary unless you are SB and can abide both by what we believe (BFM2K) and our policies for missionaries.

God bless
BR

Cliff4JC said...

IHN

In all fairness brother: Joseph Smith believed God was "calling" him. There must be some standards. We are debating what they should be.

Brad,

Hookem Horns! (Texans! Geez)

Thank you for the clarification. You'll have to forgive me for my imprecision! I have found the further I go from my seminary education; the duller the scholarly part of my mind becomes! Check my transcript...it wasn't that sharp to begin with!

I agree with your clarified statement. Now; the point at which we most likely depart (apart from Mack Browns boys) is what to do with the statistical minority of SBCers that what to be missionaries. I think we should find a way to allow them to serve through the IMB. Strict guidelines/policies should govern against any abuses of course. But by all means; let them serve.

I'm thinking through the trustee issue. I think I would feel better about it if we made some sort of policy that says it's ok. It would be less "inconsistent" at that point. Integrity would prevail.

BTW...I'm baptizing my two oldest daughters in the am! Wow. Since I'm not a Presbyterian; we are not baptizing my third daughter...she's only a year and half! :)


Joy,
Cliff

Cliff4JC said...

Volfan,

Thank You.

Cliff

Charles Henry said...

Brad,

Thank you for your kind reply - and kindly doing so in the formatted I posed before ;).

I am glad that we both agree that the BFM2K does not speak of the use of tongues (publicly or privately).

Just so you understand where I am coming from, I felt that you (and others) were saying that cessasionism was a SB distinctive because of your claim that the IMB historically held to the position they hold (regarding tongues).

I can only assume that they hold to this belief because of their cessasionist beliefs (correct me if I am wrong, for I know of no other reason to hold to that belief).

Basically my assumption (perhaps a wrong assumption) was that if this is seen as a historic doctrine held to within the SBC then it is assumed to be a SBC distinctive. That assumption was only fueled by your statement "We are not Pentecostals, we are not Presbyterians, we are not the CBF, WE ARE SOUTHERN BAPTISTS." Which seemed like you were saying they affirm the use of tongues (or whatever), we do not - which would then make it a distinctive.

I, myself, am not a cessasionist but at the same time I do not practice tongues. I am curious, I have never sat down and talked to a cessasionist regarding their position. I am not sure if you take requests or not, but I would love to see you write a blog (or at least reply to this comment) about the position you hold to and what scripture(s) teach cessasionism.

God Bless,
Charles Henry

sbc pastor said...

Charles Henry,

Although my views on cessationism vary somewhat slightly from Dr. Barber's, you may want to check out his discussion on the subject at this link:

http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2006/09/posteriori-cessationism.html

God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

CB Scott said...

Brad,

I just finished the Barber post. The flute played a sour note. You know this is not all about Dr. Patterson and you know I do not hate him in any way nor does Ben. For that matter neither do Art, Marty or Wade.

I cannot speak for others. I do think that the flute was playing a campaign song more than anything else. That is an opinion and nothing more.

cb

volfan007 said...

go vols!!!!!!!!!!!what a spanking we gave california!!

bring on the longhorns!

volfan007

Grosey's Messages said...

AMEN guys (ooooops was that painted with too broad a stroke?)
Good material Brad.
Steve

brad reynolds said...

Charles,

The best on-line paper on tongues I know of is found at:

http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/SpeakingofTongues0902.pdf

Hope this helps


CB
We shall disagree in part. I don’t think you hate Patterson, but I do think there is a huge anti-Patterson sentiment behind this movement.


Volfan
I was so glad to see you win against a team in the consistently over-rated PAC-10.
Be that as it may, my friend, be careful what you ask for…the Longhorns are not the Golden Bears:)

BR

brad reynolds said...

Charles
The comment format broke off the webaddress. Let ne try this again.
http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/
SpeakingofTongues0902.pdf

CB Scott said...

Brad,

I agree. I know there is a strong anti-Patterson movement out there. Nonetheless the men I named are not haters of Dr. Patterson.

In truth each of those men have openly defended Dr. Patterson in my presence against charges that were leveled against him of a false nature.

I cannot speak for everyone, I know my desire is to see certain things cleaned up within the SBC. I must admit, though, that some have attached themselves to that which started as a call to repentance for their own purposes.

cb

Cliff4JC said...

Brad,

Thanks for the heads up on Bart Barber's blog. His position on Tounges is quite helpful! Count me in the cautious but open minded crowd!

Joy,
Cliff

volfan007 said...

i agree that there is a huge anti-patterson movement afoot. in fact, there is a big movement afoot to get rid of all the good ole boys...as they are perceived...who are in charge of things now. the ones who dont like patterson and the conservative resurgence gang leading the sc are wanting to turn our sbc into a number of things. some want us to be a denomination of five point calvinists. some want us to turn more contemporary. some even want us to include the moderates who sided with the liberals back in the 70's and 80's. some want us to even become charismatic. there are many groups out there getting into bed together right now. and, it's a little freaky when five pointers join with tongue speakers and contemporary worshippers in order to throw the old guard out.

you know, it's kind of funny to me that all this started happening after dr. adrian rogers died. what do yall think?

a very happy volfan after saturdays good ole woodshed whippin of the golden bears,

volfan007

ps. smokey can bring a longhorn down.

volfan007 said...

that sc is supposed to be sbc.

sorry...typo

volfan007

IN HIS NAME said...

volfan007,
Do you think your name is in the Lamb's Book of life?
If so and I Pray so, how and when did your Name get in that Book?

Food for Thought

In Jesus Name Wayne

CB Scott said...

Things were happening long before the death of DR, Rogers

cb

volfan007 said...

in his name,

i know that my name is in the Lamb's book of life. the Lord promised to save all those who call upon Him for salvation. i called upon Him for salvation...in response to His calling me...some 25 years ago.

are we told anywhere in the bible when our names are written in the book of life?

i believe... from heaven's perspective....my name was as good as written in the book before the foundation of the world. God foreknew me. God planned to save me.

from earth's perspective...down here where we live here and now...my name was placed in the book the nite i put my faith in Jesus back in 1981. that was the nite that i got saved.

one thing i do know for sure...my name's in it. i know the Lord. praise His name.


volfan007

ps. i know that five pointers may have a hard time with the fact that predestination and election are true, and the free will and responsibility and choice of man are also just as true. but, they are true...the bible teaches both.
i am sorry that some cant see that and try to fit God and the bible into thier system. again, a very wise old prof. in seminary once said...calvinism and arminianism are young men's religions.

David Rogers said...

Vol fan,

I have it from reliable sources that my Dad recommended to several on the IMB BoT that passing the new policy on PPL was not a good thing. I'm not saying that he had enough influence to have kept it from going through, though. There are those in the leadership positions of the SBC who would like to take the Conservative Resurgence beyond what my Dad ever envisioned.

We all know he was a man of great conviction who believed strongly in the authority of God's Word, and not compromising one bit on essential doctrine. At the same time, though, he was a conciliatory person who knew how to distinguish "hills that were worth dying on" from those that weren't.

In this sense, especially, I believe my Dad's leadership is missed. The two sides in these new issues are becoming more and more polarized. I believe, as my Mom said at the Pastor's Conference in Greensboro: "Adrian Rogers would not have been a part of what is going on in some parts of our convention today, getting narrower and narrower about very highly interpretive issues."

brad reynolds said...

CB

Things were happening long before the passing of Dr. Rogers. I spoke with Bob Sorrell after the convention and he said that much of what occured this year would not have occured at Dr. Roger's been there...I agree.

David

Welcome. Perhaps you can clarify something for me. It seems that the PPL policy came as a result of Trustees responding to the abuses of tongues on the field and M's being released from their assignments. A sub-committee developed guidelines since the only thing they had been using was a "don't ask don't tell" type policy which had been developed by the administration without the input or knowledge of the Trustees and obviously wasn't working.

The administration did not like the guidelines and took them to the full board late last fall for reversal...ironically the board chose to support the sub-committee rather than the administration and thus made the guidelines more binding by making them policy. Since it was late last fall, how did the timing work with your father's influence? and did he oppose the guidelines and the policy or just the policy.

Thanks for letting us know. Many of us admire your father and your entire family.
BR

sbc pastor said...

Brad,

I believe that my most recent post, "Patterson Spots Falling Star," may be very much relevant to this topic. God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

David Rogers said...

Brad,

I am unable to confirm or deny the order of events you give related to the passing of the IMB policy.

Also, since the policy was passed and made public after my father's death, I never had occasion to speak directly with him about it.

What I can tell you is:

1. As far as I know, he was not actively involved in trying to influence the IMB Board of Trustees on any policy. I am aware that some had personally asked him what he thought, and, as a word of personal advice, nothing more, he had indicated his misgivings related to the (at that time) possible new policy.

2. My father's view on tongues was not strictly cessationalist. He did believe and teach that tongues were known, translatable languages. It would probably be accurate to classify his view as what some on other blogs are calling "semi-cessationalist" or "a posteriori cessationalist". I am aware this is slightly different from my own view.

3. When Jerry Rankin's name was being proposed as possible new IMB President, my father did not see Rankin's acknowledgement of having a PPL as disqualifying his nomination. After that time, both my father and mother became/have become good personal friends with Jerry and Bobbye Rankin, and were/have been very supportive of their ministry and leadership at the IMB.

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

Amy
Perhaps you can e-mail Jeremy your concerns. Please know I will be glad to post any substantive disagreements. Thanks for stopping by.
BR

brad reynolds said...

David

Thanks for the help. Your father's view of tongues was very similar to what mine is.

I have very high respect for Dr. Rankin and know he is very much loved and adored by many Missionaries which in and of itself speaks volumes.

My concerns with the IMB has nothing to do with personalities. Sometimes, when we focus on personalities either positively or negatively it clouds our judgment...I sincerely desire to approach this as objectively as possible. Thus, the personalities involved are very secondary to me...the future and direction is what is important to me.

Thank you very much for your service. I know the Lord is honoring you.
BR

Cliff4JC said...

Brother David,

coincidentally...(meaning off the subject) I have a dear lady in our church who went to high school in Florida with your father. She brought her year book by the office one day. Our whole staff gathered around like a bunch of children on Christmas morning! The pictures of your dad as a high school athlete were priceless!! Know that many of us have great admiration for your entire family!

Joy,
Cliff

Todd Nelson said...

Brad and all,

Allow me, please, to give a flesh and blood example of a "tiny minority" in the SBC. I come from a 150+ year line of Southern Baptists. I am a two-time graduate of SWBTS ('86 and '94). I deeply appreciate my Baptist heritage, especially the emphasis on the Word and missions. I was called into the ministry in 1981 as a 19-year-old college student, and I have always been a biblical conservative and a champion of the Cooperative Program and missions.

In 1993 I came to the conviction through intense Bible study and prayer (and through researching and writing my PhD dissertation on hermeneutics and missions), that all the gifts of the Spirit as described and utilized in the NT are for today, as are the ministry activities of our Lord Jesus and His apostles.

In June of that year, in my quiet time, the Lord confirmed for me my belief in His Word and answered my request by giving me a new language for private prayer. It is not "ecstatic" but it is a welcome addition to my prayer life. I don't make a big deal out of it, I've never used it in public, and I don't push it on others, although I do teach that it is for today and that it is permissible to ask for it.

I do not consider myself charismatic or Pentecostal. Instead, I find that I identify with men like Dr Rankin and Dwight McKissic. I am a Baptist who believes in the validity of all the spiritual gifts listed by Paul, including the biblical use of a private prayer language:

"If I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don't understand what I'm praying." (1 Cor. 14:14)

"If no one is present who can interpret [a public message in tongues], they must be silent in your church meeting and speak in tongues to God privately." (1 Cor. 14:28)

BTW, I didn't find these verses referenced in Dr Yarnell's paper. Furthermore, I find that, just as Dr Yarnell argues that charismatics reason first from their experience of tongues rather than from Scripture, so does he seem to argue first from his lack of experience of tongues, rather than from Scripture first. In other words, his presuppositions as a non-tongues speaker are no less influential than the presuppositions of one who does pray in tongues. In my case, I came to my interpretation before the experience and with no one laying hands on me or praying over me.

In 1994, after many years in the candidate pipeline as a seminary student and pastor, I was rejected in the process and labeled "Pentecostal" with no chance to clarify or defend my theological position. I was told by the IMB consultant to go back into a pastorate and they'd take a new set of references when my theology had "settled down".

Well, my convictions have not changed since then, and therefore, I am still unqualified for appointment as a SB missionary. I don’t know how many others have been rejected or terminated because of similar beliefs or practices; we probably are a small minority. But I find it sad and disappointing, nonetheless.

God in His grace opened another door for us in 1998 to come to Malaysia as a missionary associated with a former IMB missionary and his church in Singapore. We have planted two churches since we came eight years ago. I am still serving the second one, an international church, as senior pastor. It is a Spirit-filled multi-denominational church with converted Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and expatriates from all over the world, even some Southern Baptists! You can check us out on the web through my blogger profile page.

I'm really sorry this is so long. But I thought it might help to put a face and a real situation on the minority position.

Blessings,
Todd Nelson

Cliff4JC said...

Todd,

I pray God's continued blessings on your ministry my brother.

Joy,
Cliff

Todd Nelson said...

Cliff,

Thanks for the encouragement, brother. May the Lord also bless you, protect your family, and empower the students under your care in Metropolis.

For Jesus' maximum glory in the nations!
Todd