Posted on 06/03/2008 2:24:42 PM PDT by Between the Lines
A group of Southern Baptists are revisiting a controversy by calling their international missions agency to remove restrictions from candidates who speak privately in tongues and have been baptized by immersion following conversion, but was not baptized by a proper administrator or another Baptist who believes in eternal security.
Thirty-seven former Southern Baptist missionaries, former International Mission Board trustees and Southern Baptist pastors have signed a statement expressing their "strong" disagreement with a 2005 decision by the IMB trustees that ruled out the appointment of missionary candidates who practice speaking in tongues in public or a "prayer language" in private and who have not been baptized properly, according to the new guidelines.
"We are alarmed at the reports of the rejection of otherwise worthy candidates and reports of individuals who will now not even bother to apply to their own denomination’s missions organization, lest these guidelines disqualify them," the statement, which was released Monday, says. "We are dismayed that one of the results of the implementation of these guidelines is the loss of valuable, faithful IMB personnel."
"Let us as Southern Baptists not purposefully turn away any qualified worker who has heard and obeyed the call to 'Go,'" the statement reads.
The signatories argue that the International Mission Board's guidelines for candidacy stray "far beyond the parameters" set by the Southern Baptist Convention's statement of faith - the Baptist Faith and Message.
In 2005, the International Mission Board stirred debate when it adopted a policy that barred missionaries who practice private prayer language. The agency already had policies in place barring missionary candidates who practice public glossolalia (speaking in tongues) but went further to ban those who practice it in private. The adopted baptism guideline stated candidates must have been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church of another denomination that practices believer's baptism by immersion alone and the administrator of the baptism must believe in eternal security.
Amid ongoing debates, IMB trustees revised the mission board's policy in May 2007, terming it "guidelines" rather than "policies." But the agency retained much of the original wording and reaffirmed the main provisions of the "guidelines."
Paul Chitwood of Kentucky, chairman of the trustees' mission personnel committee, said "the rapid spread of neo-Pentecostalism and its pressure exacted on new churches in various regions of the world warrants a concern for the clear Baptist identity of our missionary candidates."
"Furthermore, the diversity of denominational backgrounds among missionary candidates requires a clear baptism guideline to guide the work of our candidate consultants as they consider the qualification of candidates," he said at the time of the revision.
The revisions, which came after a year of review, were not made to create further controversy but rather to bring the study on the matters "to completion" and allow the agency to focus on its world mission task, Chitwood also noted.
But many Southern Baptists do not feel the matters are settled and remain concerned over the restrictions.
Signatories of the statement calling for a reversal say they are "disturbed" that the guidelines have led to "the intrusive scrutiny into the sanctity of the personal prayer closet."
"Many faithful brothers and sisters who are members of Southern Baptist churches differ on this issue as they seek to live out their lives in obedience to Christ," the statement continues. "The Bible at no point raises this issue to a matter of primary doctrinal importance, thus it should not disqualify any godly missionary candidate for service with the International Mission Board."
They further argue that the baptism guideline places the IMB board in the position of "dictating to local churches what constitutes a legitimate Christian baptism."
"With no anecdotal evidence from the field of wide-spread charismatic practices within our missionary family, and acknowledging that Southern Baptist churches are competent to judge the biblical nature of their members’ baptisms, we strongly urge Southern Baptists to seek the removal of these controversial and superfluous guidelines from use in the candidate approval process," the statement reads.
Since the new guidelines were put in place, Southern Baptists have remained divided on whether the IMB trustees acted appropriately.
Frank Cox, pastor of North Metro First Baptist Church in Lawrenceville, Ga., who is running for presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention, believes the trustees "acted in line" with their responsibility and that their action on the issue of baptism and private prayer language "was appropriate in keeping with the doctrinal integrity as to who we are as Southern Baptists," according to Baptist Press.
Meanwhile, William L. (Bill) Wagner, a former Southern Baptist missionary who is also up for SBC president this year, doesn't believe the trustees' action was appropriate.
"We have lost some wonderful missionaries because of this decision. We already have the Baptist Faith and Message document. It has served us well. We do not need to add to it," Wagner recently told Baptist Press. "I know much about this action at the IMB, and I feel that there was too much political reasoning involved in the decision. We as Baptists need to put politics aside and get back to our main task of winning people and making them disciples."
Despite disagreements, the group of signatories – which are being added to – asserted their support for the missions agency and commended the more than 5,000 IMB missionaries who have committed to spreading the Gospel.
Baptist ping
The SBC is not an organization of "Charismatic" churches. We believe that the gift of tongues was a temporary gift to spread the gospel quickly to other languages. Thus at Pentecost, everyone heard Paul speaking in their own languages.
One reason we believe it was a temporary gift, is the following scripture said tongues would cease. And if you look at church history, it did. With the exception of a brief come back in the third century under Tertullian (sp?) and then again in the 1900's tongues was absent from Christian history after the time of the apostles.
1Cr 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away.
Since no one can understand the reemergent tongues, we question whether or not it's the same as the pentecostal gift.
Also there were pagan religions that practiced speaking in tongues at and before the time of Christ, so there seems to be some kind of emotional outpouring that can manifest as tongues that is not necessarily of the Holy Spirit.
The SBC is clear, we don't see any advantage to using tongues publicly. Paul ranked it as the least of the gifts. If you want to practice tongues in private and believe that it's the same as the original gift, that's between you and God. If you want to do it publicly as a SBC missionary, you're in the wrong organization.
Has knowledge vanished away? I don’t think so. I’ll just keep speaking in tongues.
Thanks
Read Acts 8 - the believers in Samaria had it all.
1) Complete belief in the Message of Philip (The Gospel of Jesus)
2) Water Baptism in Jesus Name
3) Miracles and Healing
4) Yet we are told plainly that they had not yet received the Holy Ghost.
What were they missing?
I find that very significant.
The Lord waited until the time was right for a visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit upon Gentiles to show the world that the Gentiles were accepted under the New Covenant.
You seem to be implying that one-time delay means something more is required for Christians today to receive the Holy Spirit.
Scriptures says the Holy Spirit is given to all Christians. Are you implying that because there was no tongues that in 1900 years of post-Christ History there were no Christians? Or that Christians who don't speak tongue aren't Christians and don't have the Holy Spirit?
You directied post 5 to yourself? Did you mean to?
I hope God richly blesses you too!
They didn’t have tape recorders back them. But there were some wire recorders at the turn of the last century.
The only wire recorded stuff I have heard about are the Bennedetti recordings of Charlie Parker solos.
those don’t count as speaking in tongues though.
I like gregorian chants though. Eeery.
Thanks for the Blessings. Coming right back at you. Richly.
A lot of knowledge has vanished.
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Considering that “tongues” meant languages and what passes for “tongues” today isn’t language, I have no problem with the stance of the SBC.
Then one could go back to the biblical injunction regarding “tongues”. If an interpreter is not available, the speaker is to be silent as NOT TO PRODUCE CONFUSION.
Are you implying that because there was no tongues that in 1900 years of post-Christ History there were no Christians? Or that Christians who don’t speak tongue aren’t Christians and don’t have the Holy Spirit?
Please, Hold your horses. I have a friend who tells me that when ever two or three are gathered together in his name....
there is an argument.
I try really hard not to follow that.
Wherever you are at in Christ. Keeping going and I’ll try to stay right behind you.
They did to Duke Ellington fans.
Yes but he stated unequivically that “Music was his mistress.”
Come to think of it - Elington fans did call it Chinese Music.
Oh yeah. I remember seeing an old clip of Ellington fans at the Savoy saying they hated it - they couldn't dance to it. Nobody can jitterbug that fast.
I think there is music now that nobody understands, perhaps not even the artists themselves. Does that count?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.