New Policy: Southern Baptist Missionary Candidates Can't Speak in Tongues

Beliefnet ^ | Nov. 23 2005Beliefnet | Adelle M. Banks

[tutstar]

The Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board has adopted a new policy that forbids missionary candidates from speaking in tongues.

The policy, adopted Nov. 15 during the board's trustee meeting in Huntsville, Ala., reflects ongoing Southern Baptist opposition to charismatic or Pentecostal practices.

[Matchett-PI]

:)

[Tuxedo]

As I define "denomination" the Baptists are one, as are Catholics, Presbytarians, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. If you bond together under a banner, you are in a denomination. IE: an organized religion. I choose rather to enter into a highly personal relationship with God. Yes, there are provisions of God's law that I probably violate (we all sin), but I can sleep at night not worrying about "doctrinal matters" and church politics. Be it the Baptists, AOG, or whatever televangelist you see who has a church - it is organized by men, and often has rules defined by men. Many could be grey areas in the Bible that are subject to interpretation - which I believe "speaking in tongues" is one of those grey areas. If it weren't a grey area, there only be a handful of churches across the country. I suspect this sort of thing has happened often throughout the years. Yes, I also agree some can appear cultish - but this is certainly not confined to those of the Charismatic movement. The basics are in place, brother - we are saved because of God's grace - of a gift freely given to all mankind. We can disagree about whether or not tongues are divinely-inspired forever and a day - but it ultimately isn't going to change where we end up when it is that time. As I said - the SBC can do whatever it pleases and it is within their right to do so - much as the Catholic Church can disallow gay men for the priesthood. Equal protection under the law does not apply to churches. It is this kind of argument that prevents me from joining a church. I will always find something I can't stomach - showiness, too much self-righteousness, questionable preaching, blasting other Christian faiths, etc.

Pentecost was the first time men were filled with the Holy Spirit, and tongues were evidence of such. The fact that it happened to the Apostles does not exclude it from the rest of us. My arguments about healing need not be mocked. How do you know? I have had X-rays show growths that after a session of praying in tongues to God about something I wasn't able to describe, simply vanished when X-rays were taken again. You can call it what you will, but I call it a miracle - at least it was to me.

Bottom line is - none of us know for sure when it involves a grey area. You could also argue you must be baptized (full immersion) in order to be saved - and that area is also somewhat grey. What really gets me is we spend all this time nit-picking other's beliefs and the rest of the world just sits back and laughs on their way to hell. If we ever decided as a group to really bond together - Christians would never get the ridicule they get from the media, Hollywood, and atheists. We would be respected and listened to. But, alas, that is not meant to be.

[Eagle Eye]

The people at Pentacost heard NOTHING of the Holy Spirit Baptism that was to occur

Oh Really???

Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence

You really don't know this topic very well. It isn't recorded, but I'll bet that when Jesus told them that they would recieve (gr: lambano, subjective reception) holy spirit that he also taught them what to do and how to do it. Something tells me that Jesus didn't leave it all up to chance, that he prepared his disciples.

Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Contrary to what you said, those disciples at Pentacost were ready, willing and able to recieve. Unlike you, they believed the word of the Lord.

[George W. Bush]

Go check the story of Paul's experience and tell me the part of what you wrote that is incorrect.

You really are patient and apt to teach, a quality I admire. We can all argue about theology without end but should always defend the accuracy of biblical accounts, just as you are doing here. The story of Saul of Tarsus was carefully recorded and transmitted to us and the details are not ambiguous in the way theology can be.

[Eagle Eye]

Quoting from Luke....I mean the movie Cool Hand Luke:

What we have heayah is a failure to communicate!

There's definately limits to these written exchanges. I know what I mean to say yet sometimes what I meant isn't what is received.

Anyway...

Clear Christian terminology, in this case, is what I'm looking for. Most Christians I know, refer to the un-saved as non-believers.

I'd agree. Normally this is the case. In the case of 1 Cor 14 the context is 'in the church' which means within the saved people. The unbelievers are those who are saved but not taught.

Secondly, The phrase, "those who believe more" leads me to believe that you are saying that the gifts you get are dependant on your "level" of belief. Like I said before, you either believe or believe not.

I didn't mean 'more' in terms of quantity of faith but in terms of more of God's word. Kiddy garden vs high school vs grad degree.

The 'gifts' are not dependent on your level of belief but your use of them certainly is. It isn't likely that you are going to work miracles or healings or cast out spirits if you don't know that it is possible.

One need not speak in tongues to be saved, the Bible in Acts is clear on that. But one can only speak in tongues if one has God's spirit which means one is saved.

A car without a battery can't operate the horn or lights. But jus because the lights aren't on doesn't mean that the battery isn't there.

Regarding tongues as the 'least' of the gifts because it is listed last, that is illogical and rubbish. That's the type of thing we see from those who deny the Bible and God's promises and their attempt to diminish God's will.

Is the Gospel of John the least of the Gospels?

Is the Book of Revelation the least of the books of the Bible?

Pretty silly notion, isn't it? Something in every list has to be last and there is a common term, "Last but not least".

Thanks for your response and good day!

[Chaguito]

Professional wrestling is a scam. That doesn't make college wrestling a scam. (BTW I'm not a tongues speaker.)

[George W. Bush]

As I define "denomination" the Baptists are one, as are Catholics, Presbytarians, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. If you bond together under a banner, you are in a denomination. IE: an organized religion.

Baptist churches are generally owned by their members and entirely controlled by their members. We join in association with other Baptists in a general minimalist reading of scripture and we try to be ruled only by scripture.

Since our churches are not owned by the denomination, we can't be kicked out and our building seized. This happens in the liberal denominations where the liberal denominational leadership votes a change like Episcopalians recently voting in a gay bishop). There are churches who objected enough that their clergy and members are going to be ejected from the premises and the denomination will send a new preacher to build up a new sodomy-friendly church. You simply can't do that with Baptists The entire thing would break apart. That is part of what we mean when we say we are not a denomination. Part of Baptist tradition and doctrine is independently owned and governed churches and we base this on scripture. Of course, they can also be unnecessarily divisive at times. But that is the lesser evil, far better than losing the entire 'denomination' to unbiblical beliefs and practices.

My arguments about healing need not be mocked. How do you know? I have had X-rays show growths that after a session of praying in tongues to God about something I wasn't able to describe, simply vanished when X-rays were taken again.

We have a man in our church who was, five years ago, given twelve days to live, an undiagnosed cancer at an advanced stage. His grieving wife was planning his funeral. And he's still with us. A miracle many would say and I don't doubt it. Now, he has recently had recurrence of cancer and is being treated. So we might bury him yet. Or maybe he'll end up carrying my casket. We just don't know.

But he didn't pray in tongues. Neither did his wife or anyone else (but I am going to ask around to make sure). So if he didn't pray in tongues and survived all these years after given a death sentence like that, then can you tell me that it was the tongues with which you prayed that were effective? Or was it simply carrying your needs to God in prayer? Even silent prayer?

I believe in the power of the prayer, not the secret supernatural power of babbling. Exactly how do all of you charismatics treat the deaf and the dumb. If they can't speak, they can't speak in tongues either. If they can't hear babbling, they can't be prophets to interpret the babble. So they must be some kind of second-class charismatics or something.

Or are you asserting that God would heal everything if only we prayed in tongues and asked for healing? I don't think so. And I'm betting plenty of charismatics have tried it and failed.

If we ever decided as a group to really bond together - Christians would never get the ridicule they get from the media, Hollywood, and atheists.

This sounds like such a worthwhile goal. But this is what so often really bothers me with charismatics, this holding of ideas and goals that are nowhere found in scripture. Scripture tells us plainly the world shall always hate us, that our savior shall always be despised by others, that we are, in effect, living in enemy territory. Baptists believe this is true. We don't expect the love or respect of the world. We should always conduct ourselves to be as beyond reproach as we can but we should not expect to be popular or respected or listened to. Only God can accomplish such things.

I don't want Baptists to be popular or respected. I want them to win the souls that God may send within our influence, those whose hearts God has softened toward Him.

[luckystarmom]

"Done properly, there is no emotionalism, no loss of control, the speaker speaks controlling rate, volume etc, no rolling or shaking, and what the speaker speaks will have a form and candence that marks it as a language as opposed to baby talk style gibberish. But rememeber, some languages will sound like gibberish to the non-speaker."

This is how my minister has explained it. I visited one charasmatic Methodist church in college, and they were "speaking in tongues". However, I was saved, and it freaked me out. That church believed that speaking in tongues was a way to show you were a believer.

I figure if it freaked out a believer than it probably wasn't from the Lord. I never went back to that church, and it scared me to death. I still don't know what was going on at that church.

I'm going to a Vineyard church now, and I was concerned about it being charasmatic and like the one I visited.

So far, I've been going there for a few years now, and there has only been one instance of someone "speaking in tongues". Someone said that while they were praying a word came to their mind that they did not understand. The person who had the word asked if anyone could understand what it meant. We prayed, and someone said they thought it meant something. (I don't recall what it meant.)

That was my one and only experience with "speaking in tongues" in the Vineyard.

We've prayed for healing of people. I would say the most miraculous event has been a woman who had a tumor on her spine. She had surgery, and it went well. She didn't die, and the tumor wasn't cancerous.

Also, the main result from her surgery has been the outpouring of kindness from the people of our church. We've arranged for at least 2 months of dinners for her family.

Our minister says that we should be open to the gifts from the Lord, but they shouldn't be the focus of our worship or our life with Christ. I think he is correct, and I think it is substantiated in the Bible.

[luckystarmom]

You have just stated my thoughts on the situation perfectly. Thank you.

[whispering out loud]

just for the record, we are physical beings, as well as spiritual beings, ..."love the lord with all of your heart mind soul and strength." We do have a spirit, "the spirit is willing but the flesh is week" if you deny that we have a spirit, then what sets us apart from the animals? God created us with an eternal spirit. Therefore we are spirit as well as flesh. Oh and also just for the record ecliptic I have at no time said that tongues were required for our salvation, nor have I stated that all Christians should speak in tongues. My only statement through this whole thread has been that we as Christians should not judge or condemn other Jesus following Christians for their methods of worship. It is no persons Individual right to dictate to another person how they should worship. That is between them and God.

[ScubieNuc]

You are welcome.
;)

Sincerely

[RaceBannon]

And still, no one knew what He meant with the cloven tongues of fire, did they?

Did they know they would speak in tongues?

Did they know just what their future was?

No, but the Charismatics of today think they can spread this activity through tarrying, through laying on of hands, all something that ended over 1900 years ago.

It is not me who does not know the subject.

Peter himself said that the prophesy was fulfilled on Pentacost, not being fulfilled today.

(Acts 2:14 KJV) But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

(Acts 2:15 KJV) For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

(Acts 2:16 KJV) But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

(Acts 2:17 KJV) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

(Acts 2:18 KJV) And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

(Acts 2:19 KJV) And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

(Acts 2:20 KJV) The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

(Acts 2:21 KJV) And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

That prophesy was fulfilled on Pentacost, and Peter said so.

[tutstar]

Forgot to salt that post, huh?

[tutstar]

Yep....If anyone is interested in this interview, the gospel was sorely neglected Joel Osteen "True or False" (Interview With Larry King Almost Alive)

[chronic_loser]

chiliasm is not dispensationalism. please refrain from saying that it is. there are many historical premillenialists (all of them before the 1800s) who did not hold to some of the more distinctive doctrines of premillenialists.

Also, no matter what I or others may think of the validity, consistency, historicity, and bibical accuracy of dispensationalism, it is NOT a "heresy" and you do those people a grave injustice by such a gratuitous insult. To attempt an ad hominem argument like that of Cerinthus (who, believe me, had other theological problems than chiliasm!) or the Ebionites is not exactly fair. It is like the (accurate) statement from the dispensationalists that "all the liberals are a and post mils" While true, it is a duplicitious argument and has nothing to do with whether either side is biblical. Remarks like that (from both sides of the aisle) are one of the reasons why neither side can discuss the matter.

I myself lean towards amillenialism, and have read all the patristics stuff you cite and a good deal more. However, some very good and sincere early church fathers, who could eat our lunch intellectually and theologically, were chiliasts.

You should repent of the tone of your post.

[Zechariah11]

Thanks for a very fine post.

[chronic_loser]

That prophesy was fulfilled on Pentacost, and Peter said so.

That is one slippery slope you are on, there, pal [grin]. If you start saying that the NT tells us that it contains the normative hermeneutic for interpreting OT prophetical passages, you might wind up with Waltke.

[Tuxedo]

You'll recall I said "alas, it is not meant to be"... so I am not some lofty dreamer here. I know what fates awaits us as well as the rest of the world and how it is all supposed to shake out. With regards to my personal healing experience, I only prayed in tongues as I wasn't certain how to be specific and felt the leading to do so. Now, that being said, I certainly do not see tongues as a requirement - it is a gift, freely accepted should one choose to - and I have no quarrel with those that choose not to believe - but I object to trivializing it or "demonizing" it by people who seem to be trained to have that knee-jerk response.

Thank you though for your info concerning how Baptist churches are "structured". I have also no personal quarrel with Baptists, who have led many to salvation. I also can understand your hostility to the charismatic movement - as there are many examples of showmanship, perhaps even some plots by some rogue groups to "take over" churches as you claim. This is what happens when you let religion control your life, rather than simply submitting to God's will.

As to charismatics and those deaf and dumb - as I said, it is hardly a requirement. Not everyone who attends a charismatic church speaks in tongues - or is expected to (certain denominations excepted). I was a skeptic once as well... but sometimes enough evidence can be persuasive. And this I got outside of any church environment.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Babble like an idiot on the subway, you get arrested, do it in a Southern Baptist church and you get respect!


LOL

(Catholics! We can drink and gamble in church and still go to heaven!)

[RaceBannon]

Well, since Peter said so, I guess that settles it