Posted on 06/05/2003 6:34:10 AM PDT by sinkspur
Forty-three Southern Baptist missionaries lost their jobs in May because they refused to sign a controversial faith statement that opposes women pastors and says wives should "graciously submit" to the servant leadership of their husbands.
Susie and David Dixon, missionaries in Madrid, Spain, received notice on Susie Dixon's birthday that they had been fired, after 15 years of service.
"I felt like I was excommunicated from the denomination I had been nurtured in all my life," Susie Dixon said in a telephone interview from Madrid. "I've gone through the whole gamut of emotions -- grief and anger and denying this could really happen, to sadness that it could come to this."
Since January 2002, overseas missionaries have been pressured to affirm the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement, and most of the more than 5,000 missionaries have done that. But this spring, all missionaries were told they must affirm the statement or lose their jobs.
The firing of 13 missionaries and the resignation or retirement of 30 others serving in places such as the Ivory Coast, Spain and Japan widens the split between moderates and conservatives in the nation's largest Protestant denomination.
"We grieve over this," said Jerry Rankin, president of the International Mission Board in Richmond, Va. "We regret losing any missionaries, but we must move on. Our focus now is not on those leaving but in giving nurture and care to those still in the field."
At least 77 missionaries have left in recent months because they reject the statement, the largest exodus of Southern Baptist employees since the moderates and conservatives began pulling apart more than 30 years ago.
Many are now looking for other ways to support their missionary work.
Moderate Baptists say conservatives have made what was meant to be a general profession of Baptist doctrine into a binding creed with specific prohibitions and a litmus test for employment. They say the statement is sexist and elevates the Bible over personal experience with Jesus.
Rankin said that affirming the faith statement shows accountability to the denomination and that missionaries have been required to affirm Baptist faith statements in the past.
The statement is not a creed because it is not imposed on individual Baptists or their churches, Rankin said.
Other Baptist employees, including professors at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, have also been fired or forced to resign because they disagreed with changes in the Baptist doctrinal document.
Susie Dixon, who turned 51 on May 7, said she started thinking about becoming a missionary when, as a teen-ager, she went on missions to Mexico with the First Baptist Church of Midland. She met her husband while they were attending Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth.
David Dixon, 54, who served eight years as pastor of Iglesia Bautista Central west of downtown Fort Worth in the 1980s, was academic dean and professor at the Spanish Baptist Seminary in Madrid. He said he and his wife chose to be fired, rather than resign, to show support for the thousands of other Southern Baptists who also oppose the new faith statement.
"Of course, it is disappointing and it hurts, but we knew our convention in the states was moving in this direction," David Dixon said. He and his wife, who taught at the Madrid seminary, hope to return to Spain and continue their work using other avenues of financial support.
Baptist missionaries in Japan have particularly objected to sections of the revised doctrinal statement relating to women because many Japanese Baptist churches are led by women pastors.
Two missionaries to Japan who were fired, Ron Barrow-Hankins and his wife, Lydia, an ordained minister, said in an e-mail that they could not affirm the faith statement because it denigrates the role of women.
They said the statement reflects "blatant sexual discrimination" and "rewrites the role of every missionary woman in the field. Its marriage and ministry restrictions spell a setback of generations for the liberating power of Christ in the lives of women."
The moderate-led Baptist General Convention of Texas has established a $1.3 million fund to offer up to a year's assistance to missionaries who have lost their jobs. So far, more than $500,000 for housing, medical help and other needs has been allocated to missionaries who have been fired or resigned, said Steve Seaberry, an administrator of the fund.
Moderates in other states have pledged to help, and individual churches are expected to support some of the missionaries who want to remain in the field. The Park Cities Baptist Church in Dallas, for example, will allow the Dixons to stay in the church's missionary residence this summer when they return to the Metroplex.
"I think there will be a variety of responses to help these missionaries who had to leave," said Keith Parks, a moderate leader and former president of the Southern Baptist missionary agency. "Some institutions overseas have said they will assume financial responsibility to keep the missionaries."
Other displaced missionaries have found work with other church organizations.
Ron Gunter, a missionary who resigned, was formerly in charge of work in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Moldova. He now represents the Baptist General Convention of Texas to churches in the Houston area.
Gunter, who served as pastor at the River Oaks Baptist Church in Fort Worth before becoming a missionary, also said that affirming the statement would be like accepting a creed.
"We Baptists have no creed but the Bible," he said.
Umm...let's see... More than 5000 missionaries and other staff, 77 who have left because of the statement, and another 43 (unless they are part of the 77) brings the grand total to 120 out of more than 5000, or less than 2.4 %. The percenatage might actually be lower depending how many of the 43 are also a part of the 77.
It seems as if most Southern Baptists have no problem with this statement, and it speaks well to their screening process for missionaries. It also sounds as if the minority have a voice that is beyond their actual influence, because i don't see this as an issue with that small of a dissent. This is not a case of Athanasius Contra Mundos, it is a case of some people who cannot abide by the rules of the organisation that provides their support. Well tough!
........................................Well said!!!
Maranatha!
(Romans 10:17)
CDL, #22: "it is a case of some people who cannot abide by the rules of the organisation that provides their support."
Corin, #25: "If that's what their doctrine states and if the missionaries stand as their reprsentatives, then the missionaries should uphold the doctrine."
At first, I was pretty upset that missionaries were fired over not signing the BFM. However, the more I have thought about it over the past several weeks, I agree with the comments you guys have made.
When someone joins my church, they are required to attend a 2-hour new member class and sign a new member covenant. The class is a detailed discussion about what we believe and the biblical basis for our belief. The covenant states what we believe and what we expect from members. We do not consider them "officially" a church member until they have completed both.
I had a discussion this past week with one of our staff members who is very upset about missionaries being fired because they would not sign the BFM. I mentioned our new member covenant to him and asked him the difference in missionaries having to sign the BFM, and new church members having to sign the covenant. He thought about it, said it was a great question and he would have to give it some thought.
Our new member covenant defines what we believe about salvation, baptism, tithing, and other biblical doctrines, based on what we believe to be biblical standards. If someone does not agree with what we believe, why would they want to become a member of our church? Same with the BFM. If someone does not agree with the doctrines outlined in the BFM, why would they want to be a missionary aligned with SBC?
But In 1 Timothy he wasn't just talking to married women.
1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
One must be careful when interpretting verses out of context with the rest of the text. I could make the argument that women without children can't be saved using 1 Timothy 2:15.
1 Timothy 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
But I think that's taking it out of context.
You could, but then you'd have to argue that a woman needs to get pregnant, even if out of wedlock, and I don't think Paul is making that argument :)
Our new member covenant defines what we believe about salvation, baptism, tithing, and other biblical doctrines, based on what we believe to be biblical standards. If someone does not agree with what we believe, why would they want to become a member of our church? Same with the BFM. If someone does not agree with the doctrines outlined in the BFM, why would they want to be a missionary aligned with SBC?
Exactly!
Maranatha!
(Romans 10:17)
"I entrust to your care Phebe, our sister, who is a deaconess of the church which is at Cenchrea," (Romans 16:1.)
In general the Aramaic language is a useful suppliment to Hebrew and Greek especially when studying the New Testament. Most biblical scholars will attest that Jesus and his followers spoke both Aramaic and Hebrew, and that early biblical texts were written in all 3 languages. The Christianity the spread into Europe tended to follow the Greek versions after a while, but the Christianity that went East continued to use the Aramaic versions.
Anything that is not specifically permitted is forbidden.
The other is marked:
Anything not specifically forbidden is permitted.
You can place all Christian churches on a line somewhere between these two poles. (I personally apply the 2nd rule, with the added proviso of "use your head and heart.")
Where does this moderation come from? God's word is very plain on this issue: women are not to speak in the church; a Bishop (means the same as pastor) is to be the husband of one wife. No variables are offered, nor are any examples given in scripture of women in authority.
This position is not well thought out. At that time an unmarried woman would only be seen with her parents in the church. It was all a family thing. An unmarried woman would never have been allowed to speak in public at all.
What is the Biblical injunction for childrens' behavior (especially male children) in church? I don't want to know what the culture of that day thought. I want to hear chapter & verse.
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.