Core Value # 3: The Great Commission

A desire to see the Great Commission fulfilled, and concomitant desire to see the kingdom resources God commends into our hands used with the best stewardship possible.

I love the following quote by Bethlehem Baptist’s Missions Pastor Tom Steller in the "Afterword" from John Piper’s Let the Nations be Glad…

Not every Christian is called to be a missionary. But every follower of Christ is called to be a world Christian. A world Christian is someone who is so gripped by the glory of God and of the glory of His global purpose that he chooses to align himself with God’s mission to fill the earth with the knowledge of His glory as the waters cover the sea. Everything a world Christian does he does with a view to the hallowing of God’s name and the coming of God’s kingdom among all the peoples of the earth.

The fulfillment of the Great Commission is one of my primary core values, and most certainly one of the primary core values of Southern Baptists as well. Why does the Southern Baptist Convention exist? Some would say because, at a certain point in history, Baptists from the North didn’t want to send slaveholders as missionaries, and Baptists in the South didn’t think that should be a barrier to missionary service. This is true. But, beyond that, why did the Triennial Convention, the predecessor to the SBC, before the 1845 schism, first exist?

I believe, in regard to this, the words of Ellen G. Harris, researcher from the University of Virginia, are instructive:

No denominational unity existed among Baptists in America prior to the middle of the eighteenth century. Local Baptist churches determined their own policies without any connection to other Baptist churches or to any sort of governing organization. During the eighteenth century, some Baptist churches began joining together in local associations, but by the early nineteenth century only 115 such associations existed in the United States, and their activities were primarily limited to debating theological issues.

The growth of denominational organization among Baptists in America during the nineteenth century was a product of the simultaneous growth of interest in foreign mission work. Both trends -- the growth of bureaucratic organizations and an emerging interest in foreign missions -- affected not only Baptists but were at work throughout the larger American culture during the nineteenth century.

It was not until the 1814 that interested Baptists in the young republic formed a national organization. This "General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America for Foreign Missions" (also known as the Triennial Convention) convened in order to pool resources for the support of Baptist foreign missionaries Luther Rice and Adoniram Judson. Given Baptists' fundamental beliefs in the individual's ability to communicate directly with God and in the independence of the local church to set its own policies, the Triennial Convention that formed in 1814 was a completely voluntary organization that exercised no control over matters of theology. Its sole purpose was the financial support of foreign missions, and supporters of its work could be found in local churches and associations throughout Southern and Northern states.

The point I am trying to make, here, is that we as Baptists churches work together with other Baptist churches, in the Southern Baptist Convention, primarily, so that we can be more effective and more efficient in our efforts to contribute towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission. We are not like some other denominations that have other theological or ecclesiological reasons for their existence. If it were not for our desire to be more effective at the task of obeying the Great Commission, we could just as well continue on as independent Baptist churches, with no organizational tie beyond the bond of Christian love that links us together with the entire Body of Christ.

By no means, though, am I meaning to minimize orthodox biblical doctrine as a key element of our working together. If we did not have a common doctrinal foundation, we would run the risk of working together to fulfill a mission that we each understood differently. Unquestionably, what drives us in our commitment to world missions is our previous commitment to the Lordship of Jesus and the authority of His Word.

But, we could potentially be just as committed to Jesus and the authority of His Word, and yet live out that commitment in the world in which we live, as independent churches. What motivates us to work together, as Southern Baptists, is our desire to be more effective in our efforts to work towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

Now, it would require empirical research beyond the scope of this post to conclusively demonstrate greater effectiveness in Great Commission work by means of cooperative efforts of Southern Baptists than by the theoretical efforts of the same churches working independently towards the same end. However, I believe such greater effectiveness to be practically self-evident, and have previously defended this point on other posts here and here.

It is interesting to note, at the same time, that a significant argument was made, at the time of the founding of the SBC in 1845, that dividing from Baptists in the North would actually help to further the cause of world missions. Walter Shurden, for example, in a Winter 2002 article in the Baptist History and Heritage Journal, observes that William Williams, one of the first four professors at Southern Seminary, while preaching the 1871 SBC annual sermon, "gladly quoted at length from a Northern Baptist newspaper of April 1845 which argued that the division would aid the cause of missions by causing both groups to double their efforts."

The truth is, there may be, at times, strategic warrant for working in separate organizations. It has been observed, albeit ironically, that one of the best methods of church growth, many times, are church splits.

What I believe we must ask ourselves as Southern Baptists, though, when faced with the possibility of narrowing parameters of cooperation in world missions, is not only does it help to further the cause of planting more Baptist churches around the world (which, in and of itself, remains highly doubtful, in my opinion), but also does it help to bring us closer to what I understand to be the "end-vision" of world missions, as expressed by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 1:13: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.

I believe that a consistent application of each of the three "core values" I have been defending recently on this blog hinges on a proper recognition of the importance of the other two. You cannot be truly faithful to the authority of the Word of God without at the same time working towards unity of Christ’s Body, and seeking to be obedient to the Great Commission. Neither can you build an adequate foundation for Christian unity, if you don’t base it upon orthodox biblical interpretation, or carry it forward by a joint commitment to the cause of world missions. By the same token, a zeal for missionary advance that has lost its biblical moorings, or tends more towards sectarianism than the edification of Christ’s Body, the Church Universal, is, in my opinion, largely misguided, and even runs the risk of proving counterproductive.

Core Value # 2: Christian Unity

A desire to honor the desire of Jesus that his Body may be one, and that we not divide unnecessarily over 2nd and 3rd tier issues (recognizing at the same time the complexity of many 2nd tier issues).

I believe Tim Sweatman’s comment on the "Core Values" post is especially apropos at this point:

"I share these core values as well. Numbers 1 and 3 have always been central to me, but it's only been over the past year or so that I have come to recognize the importance of Number 2."

I appreciate Tim’s honesty here. I believe that, as Southern Baptists, we have traditionally emphasized both denominational unity and local church unity, but many times, at the expense of the wider-scope unity of the Body of Christ. Actually, in my opinion, to emphasize either of these first two, outside of the broader context of the unity of the Body of Christ, may even serve to hurt the cause of true unity. The unity for which Jesus prayed in John 17 was the unity of His entire Body.

Traditionally, the unity of the Church has been a "core value" of Christians down through Church history. The Apostles Creed includes among those points of doctrine singled out as being the most essential of all: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic (or universal) church, the communion of saints."

Martin Luther was deeply troubled over the prospect of causing division within the organized "Church" of his time. John Wesley never intended on founding a new denomination. Even the early Anabaptists, under the spiritual guidance of Michael Sattler, in the Schleitheim Confession of 1527, declared:

"So it shall be and must be, that whoever does not share the calling of the one God to one faith, to one baptism, to one spirit, to one body together with all the children of God, may not be made one loaf together with them, as must be true if one wishes truly to break bread according to the command of Christ" (thanks to Alan Knox for the quote).

Yet, for some reason, true Christian unity has come to be the "Cinderella" doctrine, as it were, of Southern Baptists. There are certainly reasons for this. In order to defend the biblical doctrine of believers' baptism by immersion, Baptists, for centuries, have had to suffer the scorn and rejection of much of the rest of Christendom. In more recent times, the Ecumenical movement advocated by the World Council of Churches has, while giving much emphasis to unity, compromised, at the same time, on biblical authority, and other crucial points of Christian orthodoxy. As a reaction, I believe that, at times, Christian unity has tended to get "swept under the carpet," as it were, in Southern Baptist circles.

Yet, the truth is, it is impossible to truly be faithful to the authority of God’s Word, and the Lordship of Jesus, and at the same time, not care deeply about the unity of His Body. There is a delicate balance that must be maintained. I am not advocating an accommodating stance on doctrinal error. False unity, based on error, is, in reality, no unity at all. Yet, we must, as Dr. Albert Mohler has recently reminded us, know how to distinguish correctly between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd tier priorities of Christian doctrine. The only ones of us who agree about 100% of our interpretation of the Bible are "spiritual robots."

The tricky point, at times, is correctly dividing between 2nd and 3rd tier issues. It is almost impossible, for instance, to work together to plant churches with those who have different convictions as to the basic nature of Christian baptism. I have known of churches that tried to get around this by practicing both believers’ baptism and infant baptism, according to the preference of the individual (or, in the case of those favoring infant baptism, the parents). What really ends up happening, though, in such churches, is that both sides end up compromising on their convictions.

Even in cases like this, though, when there are legitimate issues that would give credence to the need for separate congregations, care must be taken to maintain a spirit of cooperation and mutual support towards other groups of believers who, in essence, are cherished members of the same spiritual family. Also, while recognizing the existence of authentic 2nd tier issues, I believe that if we are to truly honor the Lord’s desire for unity in His Body, we must be especially vigilant to not allow issues that biblically warrant no more than 3rd tier status to be elevated to 2nd tier category.

I am glad to see a new generation of younger Conservative leaders (and some not so young) within the SBC who are finally waking up to the relative importance of Christian unity. The path will not be easy to find, due to the other false paths that have muddied the water (WCC, et al). But I am beginning to see encouraging signs that perhaps the time is finally drawing near for "Cinderella" to "go to the ball."

Core Value # 1: Biblical Authority

A desire to properly understand the message of God's Word and submit to its authority in my daily life.

Inherent in this statement, are several key concepts. My submission to the Word of God is my practical application of the Lordship of Christ in my life, which, as a Christian, is my bottom-line loyalty and first core value. At the recent Spanish Baptist Convention, in one of the messages given from the platform, it was mentioned that in all of the Baptist Confessions of Faith up until the New Hampshire Confession of 1833 the article on the authority of the Bible did not come first in the list, but somewhere further down the line, after articles on the Person of God, the authority of Christ, etc. It was stated that this was a reflection of "landmarkist" tendencies among Baptists in the States at that time. If my memory of history doesn’t fail me, the "landmarkist" movement didn’t really gain steam until several years after this. I can see, however, how this placement may have been a reflection of growing concern over theological liberalism, which was blossoming in several circles of Europe at this time. (Perhaps some of you "church history buffs" can help me out here.)

From my understanding, it is impossible to divorce the authority of God from that of His Word. It is true that in Jesus, and the New Testament, we have the key for properly understanding and applying the message of the Old Testament in our lives today. But, when I place as the first core value my submission to the authority of the Word of God, I believe this is nothing more than the manner in which I submit to that of its Author, and show my love and allegiance to Him.

Also, if the authority of the Word of God is so important for me, I want to do everything I can to understand properly its message. It is not good enough to give "lip-service" to the Word of God, and then, by means of shoddy hermeneutics, do blatant violence to what it is meant to say to us. At the same time, I realize my understanding of God’s Word will never be infallible, this side of heaven. I therefore, must be somewhat flexible in my demands for conformity on matters on which others, who have the same love for the Word of God, and the same desire to take seriously its message, come to different conclusions.

I believe that the Baptist Faith & Message does a good job of summarizing key doctrinal issues originally communicated to us in the Bible. Although the BFM is not infallible, my study of the Bible, up to this point, has led me to adopt personal beliefs in line with all of those stated in the BFM, with the exception (as previously stated on this blog) of what I believe to be a misguided affirmation of "closed communion." As long as Southern Baptists are willing to accept my convictions on this matter, though, I personally don’t see this particular wording of the BFM as a big enough issue on which to part ways.

As a follower of Jesus Christ, who is committed to understanding and obeying His Word, I, at this time, feel at home in the Southern Baptist Convention. In the eventuality my sincere understanding of the teachings of God’s Word were ever to begin to conflict unreconcilably with standards imposed by the SBC, the logical response, in my mind, would be to search for a "spiritual family" (within the larger context of the Body of Christ around the world) more compatible with my convictions. I remain hopeful that day will not come anytime soon.

Core Values

Among my most important core values, somewhere very close to the top of the list, come:

1. A desire to properly understand the message of God's Word and submit to its authority in my daily life;

2. A desire to honor the desire of Jesus that his Body may be one, and that we not divide unnecessarily over 2nd and 3rd tier issues (recognizing at the same time the complexity of many 2nd tier issues); and

3. A desire to see the Great Commission fulfilled, and concomitant desire to see the kingdom resources God commends into our hands used with the best stewardship possible.

It is these very core values that lead me to continue to be a Southern Baptist, and at the same time, voice my opposition to the recent policy changes at the IMB, and now, for all practical purposes, at SWBTS. As long as serving under the auspices of the SBC continues to be the best option for applying in everyday ministry and practice these core values, I hope to continue to serve the Lord from this valuable platform. Whenever the day comes (hopefully never, this side the Lord's return) when this is no longer the case, many of us, who are in agreement with what I say here, may need to seek together a better way to be faithful to these core values.

A Tale of Two Conventions

After an extremely God-blessed and anointed time at the Pioneer Evangelism seminar at the Spanish Baptist Union’s home mission workers’ retreat on Wednesday and Thursday, I am now at the Spanish Baptist Union’s annual convention, which lasts until Sunday. Thanks for your prayers during the home mission workers’ retreat. God was with us in an unusual way, and I believe we are going to see some wonderful results in the years ahead from the things we all learned during this time.

Having recently attended the Southern Baptist Convention in Greensboro this past June, I can’t resist making a few comparisons to the Spanish Baptist Convention in Gandía. Whereas in Greensboro, there were more than 11,000 registered delegates, in Gandía there are just over 200. Whereas in Greensboro, everyone was spread out between a number of hotels, and ate in many different restaurants, in Gandía, everyone is in the same hotel, and we all eat together. An interesting cultural note is that, in typical Spanish style, there are bottles of wine automatically placed on all of the tables at the hotel restaurant (of which the great majority, with the notable exception of IMB missionaries, partake). There is also almost certainly a greater diversity of theological views on various subjects represented among the delegates and other attendees at the Spanish Baptist Convention than among those at the Southern Baptist Convention. Among the group, there are a smattering of female pastors. The great majority of Spanish Baptists have no problem with that. Spanish Baptists continue to form a part of the Baptist World Alliance, and have a hard time understanding why we, as Southern Baptists, do not. Of the churches that are growing, it would probably be a fairly safe estimate to say that the great majority are quite open regarding their stance on the practice of miraculous gifts. No entity of the Spanish Bapstist Convention would ever dream of eliminating someone from service because they admitted to having a "private prayer language." In Gandía, there will likely be no politicians giving speeches, but there is expected to be a lively debate regarding whether Baptist churches and/or entities should accept government subsidies for church-related social aid and cultural activities.

The truth is, although I have lived for the past 16 years in Spain, my personal views on many (not all) of these topics align more closely with those of the majority of Southern Baptists than they do with those of the majority of Spanish Baptists. Many Spanish Baptists are aware that, in general, IMB missionaries take a different view on some issues than they do, yet are open to cooperate with us, and respect our views, provided we remain open to cooperate with them, and respect their views. Many of my closest friends in the world, as well as servants of the Lord for whom I have a deep love and respect, are here present at the Spanish Baptist Convention.

Wolfgang Simson, author of the book Houses that Change the World, and one of the most influential leaders in the worldwide House Church movement, says some things in his book, and in person (I have had several opportunities to hear him), that are very insightful, and, I believe, helpful, as we are working to see the Great Commission fulfilled. He also says some things that, in my opinion, are a bit too radical, and of which I am not completely convinced, from the standpoint of a proper contextualization of biblical ecclesiology. However, there is one thing I heard him say on one occasion with which I am in complete agreement. Upon being asked "What is the best thing we as Western missionaries can do to help facilitate church planting movements in other parts of the world?," he responded: "Find a national believer who is on fire for God, and pour gasoline on his/her fire."

Among Spanish Baptists, and especially among the Spanish home mission workers who were at the Pioneer Evangelism seminar these past couple of days, there are a good group of men and women that fit this description. There are others from other denominations and groups of Great Commission Christians who also fit this description, with whom I am happy to work as well. I strongly believe that if we are going to see many disciples made, and churches multiplied, in places like Spain, it will not be through the efforts of Southern Baptists alone. Some of the groups and individuals God is using, and who He is going to continue to use, do not dot every "i" and cross every "t" just like we do. It is my hope, though, that we can be humble enough and strategically perceptive enough to not let this get in the way of doing what we can to come alongside of them, encourage them in their struggles, and "pour gasoline on their fire."

Pioneer Evangelism

Today through Thursday I am in Gandía, on the Spanish Mediterranean coast, for the Spanish Baptist Union’s annual Home Mission workers’ retreat. It is a special privilege this year to have as guest speakers recently retired IMB workers Wade & Barbara Akins, as well as Pastor Aloizio Penido from Minas Gerais, Brazil, to present their Pioneer Evangelism training seminar to a group of about 50 Spanish home mission workers.

Out of Spain’s 8,022 cities and towns, approximately 7,450 have no on-going evangelical witness. It has been calculated that at the current rate of church planting, it will take 200 years to reach all 7,450 towns with the Gospel. I believe a big key to reaching the unreached towns of Spain will be not only more new missionaries and seminary-trained pastors, but especially teams of "lay pioneer evangelists," trained and sent out by local pastors to share Christ in a culturally relevant way in the communities where they live, and begin evangelistic Bible Study groups with neighbors, friends, and workmates.

In Brazil, as well as many other countries around the world, this method, called "Pioneer Evangelism" has had great success, and thousands of churches have been planted in response to the training offered by Wade & Barbara, as well as national pastors such as Pastor Aloizio. I would appreciate your prayers for me during these days, as I will be translating for Wade & Barbara, as well as for the group of workers gathered here, that God would speak to them in a mighty way, and help them to catch a fresh vision of what God wants to do through them in this spiritually dry and thirsty land that is Spain.

New International Study on Pentecostals & Charismatics

In case you haven’t heard yet, a new study has just come out on Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity around the world. Here are some significant quotes from the introduction…

By all accounts, pentecostalism and related charismatic movements represent one of the fastest-growing segments of global Christianity. At least a quarter of the world's 2 billion Christians are thought to be members of these lively, highly personal faiths, which emphasize such spiritually renewing "gifts of the Holy Spirit" as speaking in tongues, divine healing and prophesying. Even more than other Christians, pentecostals and other renewalists believe that God, acting through the Holy Spirit, continues to play a direct, active role in everyday life.

Despite the rapid growth of the renewalist movement in the last few decades, relatively little is known about the religious, political and civic views of individuals involved in these groups. To address this shortcoming, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life recently conducted surveys in 10 countries with sizeable renewalist populations: the United States; Brazil, Chile and Guatemala in Latin America; Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa in Africa; and India, the Philippines and South Korea in Asia. In each country, surveys were conducted among a random sample of the public at large, as well as among oversamples of pentecostals and charismatics.

I believe this Pew Forum study, entitled "Spirit and Power: A 10-Country Survey of Pentecostals," sheds some interesting light on several myths regarding Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity around the world. Among the findings of the study, a few statistics I think are interesting for us as Southern Baptists (especially in the context of cooperation and fellowship on the international mission field) are:

*(you can download the entire 233 page study here)

1. In every one of the 10 countries, Pentecostals are more likely than other Christians to say the Bible is the Word of God, to be taken literally. In 8 of the 10 countries, this is true of Charismatics as well. The exceptions are Brazil and the Philippines, where the high percentage of Charismatic Catholics (as compared to other countries, where most "Charismatics" are Protestants), no doubt skews this statistic.

2. In every one of the 10 countries, both Pentecostals and Charismatics are more likely than other Christians to say they pray to God daily, and read the Scriptures daily.

3. In every one of the 10 countries, both Pentecostals and Charismatics are more likely than other Christians to say they share their faith at least once a week.

What this study does not tell us is how we as Baptists (as a group separate from other Christians) would compare in these areas. However, I think it is significant that Pentecostals and Charismatics apparently share many of the same values we as Southern Baptist profess to hold as important. I don’t have the hard facts in front of me to prove it, but I would be surprised if the percentages of Pentecostals and Charismatics who accept the Bible as the Word of God, and who actively share their faith, are not higher than that of Baptists in most countries. I also think it is significant they are growing so fast, all around the world. I know, for example, that here in Spain, the churches that are growing the fastest are Pentecostal or Charismatic. Even within the Baptist Union, the churches that are growing the fastest almost all take a more open stance toward charismatic gifts.

From some of my recent posts, and from what I say here, some might think I am trying to convince us all as Baptists to become Pentecostals or Charismatics. I want to make clear that is not my intention. I am Baptist by conviction, and am not planning on changing my affiliation anytime soon.

The point I am trying to make then? As Baptists, a little "cross-pollination" every now and then with some of our more Pentecostal, Charismatic and/or Third Wave brethren is not necessarily a bad thing. We are concerned about declining growth and baptism rates. We are trying to get our people more excited about sharing their faith. Maybe we could learn a thing or two from some of those who seem to be having a bit more success at these things.

"But," some people say, "we must be careful that our people don’t get sucked into false doctrine. The Pentecostals and Charismatics are notorious ‘sheep-stealers.’"

I am by no means against teaching sound doctrine, especially if it is done in an up-beat, non-condemnatory attitude towards other groups of Christians. But, take a look at this statistic:

4. In 7 of the 10 countries, when Pentecostals were asked about their previous religious affiliation, a "whopping" 0% said they had previously belonged to another Protestant group. In the other 3 countries, 27% in the United States, 12% in Kenya, and 2% in South Africa, said they had previously belonged to another Protestant group.

Very interesting. In the United States, for some reason, perhaps the "sheep-stealing" accusation has a little bit of warrant. But, for some reason, in the majority of the rest of the countries around the world, the Pentecostals and Charismatics are growing, not so much by winning converts from other Protestant groups, but apparently by people being born again and accepting Christ for the first time. In Latin America, and the Philippines, a big number of their converts are former Catholics. In other parts of the world, more are from non-religious, Muslim, or Buddhist backgrounds.

Now to close, one more statistic I’ll leave you to ponder for yourself:

5. In the following countries, the percentage of Pentecostals who said they had never spoken in tongues was:

United States 49%
Brazil 50%
Chile 45%
Guatemala 35%
Kenya 27%
Nigeria 32%
South Africa 41%
India 54%
Philippines 45%
South Korea 18%

The percentage of Charismatics who said they had never spoken in tongues was:

United States 32%
Brazil 84%
Chile 38%
Guatemala 39%
Kenya 53%
South Africa 57%
India 34%
Philippines 65%
South Korea 12%

Wayne Grudem on "Ministering Together"

In the compiling of the book Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views, each of the four main contributors first wrote their main essays defending their respective views. Next, each one wrote a response to each of the original essays. After this, all four of them, together with editor Wayne Grudem, met together for a two-day closed-door conference to further discuss their views and differences before composing their concluding remarks. At the end of it all, Grudem himself makes some closing remarks. Given the issues being talked about lately within the SBC and parameters of cooperation, I believe Grudem’s closing paragraphs are especially poignant:

Could we minister together? My second comment has to do with relationships among pastors who differ over these issues, taking myself and the four authors as a test case. In reflecting on all that has now been written and said, I have wondered what would happen if, by some unusual work of God’s providence, the five of us somehow found ourselves together in a church where we were the only five elders and where we could agree to share the pulpit ministry equally among ourselves. Would it work? Would we stay together, or would we inevitably form five different churches?

I don’t know what the other authors might say, but my answer is this: I think we would have to work hard to find some "neutral" vocabulary that we as elders could use to refer to certain experiences and phenomena in the life of the church. I think we would have to work hard at allowing a variety of kinds of home fellowship groups with different emphases and different styles (and perhaps different things happening!). I think that we would have to spend regular hours in prayer and earnest discussion together to be sure that the overall focus of the church was on Christ and the advancement of his kingdom. I think that we would have to work hard at letting the congregation know that, though we differed on certain doctrinal matters, we greatly appreciated each other’s gifts and ministries.

But after acknowledging those challenges, and yet knowing these other four men as I do, I really think that it would work. I think that we could live and minister and pray together. I think we could offer pastoral care to one another and to each other’s families. I think that we would frequently know times of incredible depth of intercession together for the work of the church. In fact, if this were to happen, I think that it might even be the most exciting and enjoyable time of ministry that any of us had ever known. And I think that the Lord himself would take delight in it and would enjoy fellowshipping with us and blessing us, and would tell us,


How good and pleasant it is
when brothers live together in unity!
It is like the precious oil poured on the head,
running down on the beard,
running down on Aaron’s beard,
down upon the collar of his robes.
It is as if the dew of Hermon
were falling on Mount Zion.
For there the LORD bestows his blessing,
even life forevermore.

PSALM 133

Sam Storms on "Motives for Holding Views on Miraculous Gifts"

No matter which point of view you accept regarding miraculous gifts, I believe the following words from Sam Storms, in his essay defending the "Third Wave" position in the book Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views, are great "food for thought":

There is one more reason why I remained for years committed to the doctrine of cessationism. This one is not based on any particular text or theological principle; yet it exercised no less an influence on my life and thinking than did the other five. In mentioning this fact, I am in no way suggesting that others are guilty of this error. This is not an accusation; it is a confession. I am talking about fear: the fear of emotionalism, the fear of fanaticism, the fear of the unfamiliar, the fear of rejection by those whose respect I cherished and whose friendship I did not want to forfeit, the fear of what might occur were I fully to relinquish control of my life and mind and emotions to the Holy Spirit, the fear of losing what little status in the evangelical community that I had worked so hard to attain.

I am also talking about the kind of fear that energized a personal agenda to distance myself from anything that had the potential to link me with people I believed were an embarrassment to the cause of Christ. I was faithful to the eleventh commandment of Bible-church evangelicalism: "Thou shalt not do at all what others do poorly." In my pride I had allowed certain extremists to exercise more of an influence on the shape of my ministry than I did the text of Scripture. Fear of being labeled or linked or in some way associated with the "unlearned" and "unattractive" elements in contemporary Christendom exercised an insidious power on my ability and willingness to be objective in the reading of Holy Scripture. I am not so naïve as to think that my understanding of Scripture is now free from subjective influences! But I am confident that at least fear, in this form, no longer plays a part.

While I realize that different ones of us, even when trying to be as objective as possible, are probably going to come to different conclusions regarding what the Bible teaches about miraculous gifts, and the possibility of their continuation in the Church today, I think we all need to do a self-check from time to time, asking ourselves what is the real motive behind the views we take.

No doubt, many get "sucked into" the Charismatic movement, and "fake" the gift of tongues in an attempt to gain the approval of those around them. The motive of fear certainly cuts both ways.

And yes, as Storms confesses, we are all influenced, to some extent or another, by our subjective presuppositions. Hopefully though, with God as my judge, I am doing my best to read my Bible, with an open heart and an open mind, asking for and expecting the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If, as a result, the conclusions I make lead me to be considered persona non grata by certain other people, so be it.

If, in the meantime, you feel you are doing the same, and you come to different conclusions than me, (and you don’t embrace clear heresy, or persist in blatant, unrepentant sin), in the words of Twila Paris recently referenced on another post: "Brother, I commit my love to you."

Robert Saucy on "Relating to Those Who Differ on Miraculous Gifts"

In the book Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?: Four Views, Robert Saucy, in his defense of the "open but cautious" view, makes some very honest and insightful observations. Below, I am including in today’s post several paragraphs from Saucy’s essay that I think are relevant for the discussion of the new IMB policy on "private prayer language." I have chosen to emphasize several phrases in bold print, which I think are especially relevant.

Among the many theological issues over which Christians differ, some hinder practical fellowship far more than others, especially those that immediately impact the life of the church. People may live together happily while differing on theological interpretations that do not directly or significantly impact behavior (e.g., eschatology or creation issues) or on those that are practices individually (e.g., particular practices of spiritual growth). Such is not the case with the topics of this book. Many of these issues directly affect behavior within the corporate church, making it difficult for people of differing opinions to fellowship together.

In my opinion the greatest problem to unity comes from those views that create (perhaps unintentionally) distinct spiritual levels among believers or cast aspersions on another person’s spirituality. Insisting that a particular relationship to the Spirit be evidenced by a particular miraculous manifestation clearly draws a line marking off some from others spiritually. So also does advocating the manifestation of a particular gift as providing a significant key to fellowship with God. Even teaching that the failure of the church to manifest gifts equal to the apostolic era is a sign of sin or lack of faith can imply a spiritual differentiation. At least those who believe this recognize their failure, while others are not even repentant over their unbelief.

At the same time, perhaps more subtly, those who advocate that no miraculous gifts are available today may disparage others who do believe, for example, that they are using the biblical gift of tongues in their prayer life. They imply (or even teach outright) that such tongue speakers are deceived at best and involved with other spirits at worst. In all such instances, it is hard to see how those who hold the contrary positions could maintain fellowship in the church.

Unity in fellowship is based on similarity of belief and practice. Unity grows as divergent beliefs become less or are held as less significant, thereby providing more toleration of those who differ. History demonstrates that full unity on all things is probably not possible. But it also reveals that discussion among those of goodwill can do much to dissolve some differences and bring greater love and respect when difference remains. The recent history of miraculous gifts, while it has engendered some confusion in the church, has also brought helpful dialogue among opposing positions and some blurring of the traditional lines. Believers who seek Christ’s goal of unity for the church must continue to make these issues a matter of study. Where the positions sincerely held allow for coexistence in church life, such fellowship should be pursued. Where issues sincerely held make regular church fellowship impossible, respect, love, and cooperation in the things of Christ must still flow across the lines to those who hold the same precious faith in the other areas of vital Christian doctrine.

I believe the old policy of the IMB—

Reasons for termination…

"A persistent emphasis of any specific gift of the Spirit as normative for all or to the extent such emphasis becomes disruptive to the Baptist fellowship"

—was probably a good policy, due to what Saucy says in paragraph 2 of the quote above.

At the same time, I believe that the new policy—

Tongues and Prayer Language

That the following policy regarding tongues and prayer language of missionary candidates be adopted:

GLOSSOLALIA

1. The New Testament speaks of a gift of glossolalia that generally is considered to be a legitimate language of some people group.

2. The New Testament expression of glossolalia as a gift had specific uses and conditions for its exercise in public worship.

3. In term of worship practices, the majority of Southern Baptist churches do not practice glossolalia. Therefore, if glossolalia is a public 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.

PRAYER LANGUAGE

1. Prayer language as commonly expressed by those practitioners is not the same as the biblical use of glossolalia.

2. Paul’s clear teaching is that prayer is to be made with understanding.

3. Any spiritual experience must be tested by the Scriptures.

4. 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.

—violates the spirit of Saucy’s third paragraph.

I believe the trustees, in their wording of the justification for this new policy, have taken on the role of interpreting Scripture for Southern Baptists beyond what Southern Baptists have done for themselves, by way of the Baptist Faith & Message.

The reason given against "private prayer language" is not due to its potential to "disrupt," but rather out of a disqualification of one aspect of both "Third Wave" and "Pentecostal/Charismatic," and even some "open but cautious" biblical interpretation. The wording given, in my opinion, is tantamount to saying that: "tongue speakers are deceived at best and involved with other spirits at worst."

Although not officially given as a reason for the new policy, trustee Jerry Corbaley has implied on his blog (both the old one, in which his post on "tongues," and the related comments were removed, as well as the new one) that the practice of tongues (or "babble" as he calls it) in private, will invariably become "public," thus leading to "disruption" in church life.

I believe this is an unfair assumption, and that the burden of proof is on those making this claim. In any case, verifiable cases of the practice or "emphasis" of any spiritual gift to the point of "disruption" were already covered under the old policy.

The real "sticking point" for the Board of Trustees concerns those like myself, who do not actually practice a "private prayer language," but who do not at the same time, subscribe to the doctrinal basis given for the new policy against "private prayer language." If asked what I believe concerning tongues, or any other spiritual gift, ethics will not permit me to lie. When teaching through the Bible systematically, upon coming to the passages that teach on spiritual gifts, I will teach what I consider to be the proper interpretation, taking care, in accordance with my own convictions, to not "emphasize any spiritual gift as normative for all." But I will teach that I understand the gift of tongues to be valid for today, and that it is among the gifts that God might sovereignly choose to give you as a believer. At the same time, I am not going around "parading" my view on this subject (with the possible exception of this blog, in response to questions raised initially, in my opinion, by others). In the past 16 years of missionary service in Spain, I can honestly say I have preached and taught far more on the dangers of the excesses involved in the Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Third Wave movements than I have the benefits or blessings associated with any particular spiritual gift.

In my opinion, there is no reason to expect that the practitioner of "private prayer language" who agrees to abide by the same policy will be any more likely than me to "emphasize any spiritual gift as normative for all" or to become "disruptive" in their practice of their gift. Just like me, though, it would be unreasonable to expect him/her to lie or gloss over his/her understanding of Scripture on these issues.

Differing Views of Miraculous Gifts and the SBC

Among frequent comments registered in the debate throughout the blogosphere in recent months regarding the new IMB policy on "private prayer language" have been those expressing the sentiment that, as Baptists, we should be planting "Baptist" churches and not "Charismatic" or "Pentecostal" ones. I personally believe these comments reflect some false presuppositions and unfair stereotyping about who we are as Baptists, as well as who are those who may either practice or allow for the practice of a "private prayer language."

It is often assumed that all those who "speak in tongues," whether publicly or privately, are either "Charismatic" or "Pentecostal." But this is not the case. In the book, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?: Four Views, editor Wayne Grudem, while not dealing exclusively with the gift of tongues, describes the following five categories of belief and practice regarding spiritual gifts in the contemporary church (two of them, the Pentecostal and Charismatic views, are later treated together as one):

1. "The cessationist position argues that there are no miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit today. Gifts such as prophecy, tongues, and healing were confined to the first century, and were used at the time the apostles were establishing the churches and the New Testament was not yet complete."

This view is defended in Grudem’s book by Richard B. Gaffin, professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

2. "Pentecostal refers to any denomination or group that traces its historical origin back to the Pentecostal revival that began in the United States in 1901, and that holds the following doctrines: (1) All the gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in the New Testament are intended for today; (2) baptism in the Holy Spirit is an empowering experience subsequent to conversion and should be sought by Christians today; and (3) when baptism in the Holy Spirit occurs, people will speak in tongues as a ‘sign’ that they have received this experience."

3. "Charismatic, on the other hand, refers to any groups (or people) that trace their historical origin to the charismatic renewal movement of the 1960s and 1970s and that seek to practice all the spiritual gifts mentioned in the New Testament (including prophecy, healing, tongues, interpretation, and distinguishing between spirits). Among charismatics there are differing viewpoints on whether baptism in the Holy Spirit is subsequent to conversion and whether speaking in tongues is a sign of baptism in the Spirit."

Both the Pentecostal and Charismatic views are defended in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?: Four Views by Douglas A. Oss, professor of hermeneutics and New Testament and chairman of the division of Bible and theology at Central Bible College (Assemblies of God) in Springfield, Missouri.

4. "In the 1980s a third renewal movement arose, a movement called The Third Wave by missions professor C. Peter Wagner at Fuller Seminary (he referred to the Pentecostal renewal as the first wave of the Holy Spirit’s renewing work in the modern church, and the charismatic movement as the second wave). Third Wave people encourage the equipping of all believers to use New Testament spiritual gifts today and say that the proclamation of the gospel should ordinarily be accompanied by "signs, wonders, and miracles," according to the New Testament pattern. They teach, however, that baptism in the Holy Spirit happens to all Christians at conversion and that subsequent experiences are better called "fillings" or "empowerings" with the Holy Spirit. Though they believe the gift of tongues exists today, they do not emphasize it to the extent that Pentecostals and charismatics do."

The defense of the "Third Wave" view is given by C. Samuel Storms, at that time president of Grace Training Center, a Bible School connected with the Metro Vineyard Fellowship of Kansas City.

5. "There is yet another position, held by a vast number of evangelicals who think of themselves as belonging to none of these groups. These people have not been convinced by the cessationist arguments that relegate certain gifts to the first century, but they are not really convinced by the doctrine or practice of those who emphasize such gifts today either. They are open to the possibility of miraculous gifts today, but they are concerned about the possibility of abuses that they have seen in groups that practice these gifts. They do not think speaking in tongues is ruled out by Scripture, but they see many modern examples as not conforming to scriptural guidelines; some also are concerned that it often leads to divisiveness and negative results in churches today. They think churches should emphasize evangelism, Bible study, and faithful obedience as keys to personal and church growth, rather than miraculous gifts. Yet they appreciate some of the benefits that Pentecostal, charismatic, and Third Wave churches have brought to the evangelical world, especially a refreshing contemporary tone in worship and a challenge to renewal in faith and prayer… For the purposes of this book, we have called it the open but cautious position."

This view is defended by Robert L. Saucy, Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Talbot School of Theology in California.

It is my position that we, as Southern Baptists, are not Pentecostals, and certain Charismatic interpretations of Scripture seem to clash with traditional Baptist interpretation. The "Baptist Faith & Message" states, for example, in the section on God the Holy Spirit, that "at the moment of regeneration He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ."

At the same time, I believe there is room in SBC life for much (though not all) "Third Wave" belief and practice, as well as that of the "cessationist" group and the "open but cautious" group. Nowhere have Southern Baptists officially defined ourselves one way or another, in relation to the continuation of all of the spiritual gifts present in the New Testament church. Neither have we defined ourselves regarding our understanding of the nature of the gift of tongues, whether it is always expressed in the ability to speak known human languages, or whether or not it includes as well "languages" that cannot be translated by normal human means.

Wayne Grudem, editor of Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?: Four Views, is not completely neutral regarding his own perspective on these issues. He does try to remain as objective as possible in his moderation of the different views presented, but is widely known as a leading proponent of the "Third Wave" position. Although Grudem has in the past been involved in the Vineyard movement, he is currently, as I understand it, a member of a Southern Baptist church. Apparently, Grudem does not see his "Third Wave" theology to be incompatible with being Southern Baptist.

Grudem’s Systematic Theology, together with Millard Erickson’s text, is one of the leading theology textbooks used today in Southern Baptist seminaries. The following is a quote from Southwestern Seminary President Paige Patterson:

"Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem is a fair-minded, thorough text in systematic theology--the best I have seen in recent years in terms of convenient organization, clarity, and a willingness to tackle the most salient issues of the day. This is an admirable blending of the scholarly and devotional elements seldom achieved in academic books."

Apparently, Paige Patterson does not think that Wayne Grudem is either naïve or shallow in his theological convictions.

I, personally, when I read each of the four views, find something compelling in each one. I find myself almost being convinced by the arguments presented for each view. At times, I wish Scripture were clearer on these issues. But God, in His sovereignty, has chosen to give us a record that can be interpreted differently by different scholars, each of whom is fully dedicated to the Lordship of Christ, and fully committed to the authority of His inerrant Word.

After carefully thinking through, and searching the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that my own understanding lies somewhere between the "Open but Cautious" and "Third Wave" view. Of the four views defended, Sam Storms’s "Third Wave" exegesis is the most convincing to me personally. However, due to what seem to me to be certain excesses and abuses commonly associated with the "Third Wave" movement, I also identify closely with the "Open but Cautious" view defended by Robert Saucy. It is not my purpose on this post to defend my personal position, but rather merely to point out that there are those, like myself, who hold to these different positions, and who, at the same time, consider themselves to be good Southern Baptists.

Lately, some seem to be suggesting that perhaps the view I, and/or others like me, take is out of line with traditional Southern Baptist interpretation; and thus, those, like me, who hold to it, would be better off in other denominations. I believe the new policy on "private prayer language" at the IMB is a reflection of this opinion. It also appears to be the opinion implicit in the paper written by Paige Patterson, Keith Eitel, & Robin Hadaway referenced several days ago on this blog.

I do not personally speak in tongues, either in private or in public. However, my interpretation of Scripture is essentially the same as many who do. I believe the gift of tongues is valid for today. I also believe that the gift of tongues may be legitimately used as a "private prayer language." In my opinion, the only reason I do not have a "private prayer language" is because God, who in His sovereignty distributes each gift to each one "just as he determines" (1 Cor. 12.11), has not chosen to give me this particular gift.

On the basis of the information given here, I would like to ask two questions:

1. In your opinion, are the views I take on these issues compatible with service in the IMB?

2. In regards to IMB service, what is the practical difference between someone like me, who holds these views, and does not practice a "private prayer language," and someone else, who holds the same or similar views, and does practice a "private prayer language"?




Related links:

Sam Storms: Speaking in Tongues and the Southern Baptist Convention (part 1)

Sam Storms: Speaking in Tongues and the Southern Baptist Convention (part 2)

Wade Burleson, The Point Is Being Missed Yet Again

Wade Burleson, What Students at Our Seminaries Learn About Tongues

I Commit my Love to You

Back in 1982, as a college student, listening to Christian radio, I first heard a song that had an "anointing" like few I had heard before, or have heard since. The message of that song deeply impacted me.

The song is "I Commit my Love to You" by Twila Paris. That was the first time I had heard Twila Paris, who would later go on to become one of the most beloved Christian music artists of all time. Although my personal music tastes, especially in Christian music, are a bit more what some have classified as "alternative" (see my profile), I have always enjoyed and been blessed by Twila Paris’s music, due to its depth, sincerity, and creative quality.

I would love to be able to link you directly to a recording of the entire song, but ethical concerns limit me to this sample sound-clip. (The whole song is available for sale by download here.)

I would like to dedicate this song to all with whom I have expressed some disagreement or another on this blog, or through the comment section of someone else’s blog, in the past months. I do believe we, as brothers and sisters in Christ, should feel the freedom to share openly our convictions related to our understanding of God’s Word, even if this, at times, means disagreeing with someone else. However, at all times, we must be careful to treat each other with love and respect, watching our words and our hearts.

I COMMIT MY LOVE TO YOU - by Twila Paris (1982)

If, by love, we show the world
That we are His disciples
I can’t take it lightly
I commit my love to you
I will tear down all the walls
I built with my selfish pride
And I will crucify it
I commit my love to you

‘Cause when we are divided
I can hear Him crying
And I can’t be a part of breaking His heart anymore
I can’t do it anymore
So brother, I commit my love to you

And if you have offended me
You know you are forgiven
And I will not remember
I commit my love to you
I will see the best in all you do
And I will defend you
When they come against you
I commit my love to you

‘Cause when we are divided
I can hear Him crying
And I can’t be a part of breaking His heart anymore
I can’t do it anymore
When we are divided
I can hear Him crying
And I won’t be a part of breaking His heart anymore
I just can’t do it anymore
So brother I commit my love to you
I commit my love to you

A Reply to Brad Reynolds, Keith Eitel, Paige Patterson & Robin Hadaway

Dr. Brad Reynolds, Assistant Professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has recently posted a series of papers on his blog, one written by Dr. Keith Eitel, and the other by Drs. Keith Eitel, Paige Patterson & Robin Hadaway, regarding supposed doctrinal and philisophical problems at the IMB under the leadership of Dr. Jerry Rankin. Earlier on this blog, I have already commented on Dr. Eitel’s first paper. The second paper, which I reproduce in its entirety here, is quite lengthy. However, I believe the issues discussed therein are of a relative enough importance to justify the length of this post.

Dr. Reynolds is a strong advocate of the views taken on both of these papers. On his blog, he has issued a challenge tp those who think they have an answer to the concerns raised on the second paper to come forth. It is in response to this challenge that I publish this post.

I must add that the views expressed in italics below, in response to the text of the above-mentioned paper, are my own, and not those of anyone else. Dr. Rankin, as I understand, already wrote his own answer back in 2003 when the paper was first written. At this point, I am not sure of exactly what Dr. Rankin wrote. It is quite possible that my own views on some of the issues mentioned are different in one way or another from those of Dr. Rankin. I, however, remain supportive of Dr. Rankin’s leadership, and the way in which he has handled these issues.

I would also at this time like to affirm my love and appreciation for Drs. Reynolds, Eitel, Patterson, and Hadaway. Although I have some sincere discrepancies with some things all of these men have written, I regard each of them to be sincere brothers in Christ, and consecrated servants of the Lord.

What follows is a direct transcript of Dr. Reynolds’ post, including the text of the Eitel-Patterson-Hadaway paper, and also my comments in italics interjected throughout…

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

Brad Reynolds: This second paper will dispel the notion that Dr. Eitel's first paper was erroneous. Interestingly, this paper did not recieve much attention by baptist news agencies and almost NO attention by bloggers...in fact this will be the first time many of you have ever read this!!! It was written to validate Dr. Eitel's concerns, after his first paper was accused of referencing "isolated incidences." According to one Trustee, this paper helped move the Trustees to address needed changes. Other than footnotes it is published in its entirety. It is long but revealing of 2003 and before.As one missionary pointed out recently, it is the responsibility of administrators and professors to protect their students and address concerns their students have. Thank God for the response of Dr. Patterson and Dr. Eitel and the impetus this response has provided for the restructuring of curriculum at the ILC. Now, I call on all bloggers who have wrongfully accused Dr. Patterson and Dr. Eitel concerning their papers to issue a public apology.

David Rogers: It would be helpful to know just what you mean by "wrongfully accusing Dr. Patterson and Dr. Eitel concerning their papers." I have written some opinions about their papers, but I am not sure if I have ever "accused" Dr. Patterson or Dr. Eitel, much less "wrongfully accused" them.

Drs. Paige Patterson, Keith Eitel, & Robin Hadaway

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

David Rogers: In my opinion, just stating that the examples are "only representative" and "numerous other instances could be noted" does not prove there are "systemic problems running throughout the structure." In my opinion, it is not objective to claim that the examples given, on their own, even if valid (to which I will respond later), are sufficient to warrant the claim of "systemic problems."

Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: In addition, details supporting Eitel’s contentions have been contributed by Robin Hadaway. Some of these comments are from Hadaway’s paper, "Rejoicing Together: Balancing the Biblical Perspectives: A Missiological Analysis."Issue One: What is the precise policy and practice relating to church planting? Are we planting Baptist (not merely Baptistic) churches? If the practice is varied, what are the guidelines for determining whether we plant a Baptist church or not? To what degree are we involved in ecumenical church planting? What theological guidelines do we have to prevent this as we partner with the Great Commission Christians around the world?

David Rogers: I have dealt with the topic of "Baptist" vs. "baptistic" churches earlier on this blog. If this is the headline issue, I think we are mistaken in our emphasis. We should, in my opinion, be more interested in the advance of the Kingdom of God than labels and "denominational distinctives." The term "ecumenical church planting" is, in my opinion, a "red herring." Different people assign different meanings to the term "ecumenical," and we all know that. I think we would need to first define so-called "ecumenical church planting" and demonstrate why it is such a bad thing, before asking what we need to do to prevent it.

Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: Observations

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

David Rogers: Once again, I fail to see the problem with planting "baptistic" as opposed to "Baptist" churches. Also, the term "neo-charismatic" needs defining. I will leave judgment regarding the comment of being "quasi Biblical" for the discussion below.

Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: • While on sabbatical in the fall of 2002, Eitel observed five different locations and the network of work in those locations in China. Consistently, there seemed to be an emphasis on the GCC partnerships as vital to the process of planting churches. Dr. David Garrison’s booklet on Church Planting draws concentric circles of levels of partnership. On paper it looks feasible, but in practice in China (Eitel has also observed this in numerous other settings), it breaks down. When pioneers are first entering a people group or city, finding any other believer to work with is an encouragement. Natural bonds of friendship and affiliation develop. The momentum of these relationships carries over and causes the concentric lines of partnership (which are designed to determine when and how missionaries should partner) to collapse. It’s easier to ignore doctrinal differences and not push Baptist distinctives in order to foster a so-called unity in planting the churches. This type of unity is superficial and will usually erupt into conflict after the initial phases of planting the churches.

David Rogers: This, in my opinion, is a biased assumption.

Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: In order to avoid this syndrome, some missionaries advocate and practice a method of planting so-called churches that means brand new believers are encouraged to share Christ immediately, gather a group of unbelievers together and teach them the essentials of the faith to bring them to Christ, and then in a pyramid fashion, the cycle repeats rapidly.

David Rogers: The terms "so-called churches" and "pyramid fashion" are loaded terms. I would think more specific and objective evidence would be needed before using these terms. For example, what specific "so-called churches" have been planted? And why specifically do they not meet the qualifications of legitimate New Testament churches? On what basis is the term "pyramid fashion" used? And, even if a pyramid-shaped organigram could be demonstrated, on what basis is this necessarily bad? 

Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: While this is indeed a great evangelistic tool, it does not foster maturation of the church, leadership development nor establishment of long-term vision or stability for the church. It seems to rely almost exclusively on the early sections of Acts as a foundation for this model while ignoring the patterns of maturation found in the Pastorals and General Epistles. Nevertheless, this rapid reproduction allows the missionary to avoid the doctrinal issues that come with GCC partners yet they do not compensate for it by taking the time to "commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."

David Rogers: I believe this is a false dichotomy. Rapid reproduction is not necessarily contrary to church maturation and leadership development. While some missionaries may have a natural inclination to avoid in-depth discipleship and leadership training, I do not see the evidence that this is happening across the board in systemic fashion with IMB missionaries. The ideal to which I believe almost all, if not all, IMB workers would at least give verbal assent, is churches that multiply as rapidly as possible, while at the same time making authentic, biblically-sound disciples of Jesus Christ. There is an inherent tension between these two issues, and sometimes we may get off-balance in one direction or the other. But to say that missionaries intentionally seek rapid reproduction as a means to avoid doctrinal issues, is, I believe, unwarranted and disingenuous.
Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: • In Islamic contexts, the GCC influences are stimulating unhealthy contextualization patterns that undermine New Testament Church Planting much less anything Baptist. For example, a missionary wrote to me about this very issue. He stated that someone working with Frontiers had come to teach them about how to establish C-5 Islamic churches.

David Rogers: It is not good enough to just throw out the term "C-5 Islamic churches" without specifically referencing the doctrinal problems involved. Certainly, in Islamic settings, questions regarding contextualization need to be seriously studied and considered. Some, no doubt, err on the side of too much contextualization leading to syncretism, while others on the side of too little contextualization, leading to a presentation of an essentially foreign Gospel. Since none of us were present at the presentation referenced here, I think it best to withhold judgment without more specific information. And, even if, on this particular occasion, lines were crossed into unhealthy contextualization, nothing is proved regarding systemic problems throughout the organization.

Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: This missionary goes on to say that another GCC partner was willing to call someone coming from an Islamic background that is in a C-5 church plant a believer even though that person emphatically denies the deity of Christ.

David Rogers: Once again, just because one "believer" is confused about doctrine, and happens to be involved in a so-called "C-5 church plant," does not demonstrate anything to me. There will always be those who misunderstand, miscommunicate, or distort the essence of any movement. Does one bad apple spoil the whole bunch?

Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: Yet, this approach to CPM is encouraged and doctrinal concerns are subsumed to foster a so-called unity. Conversely, Dr. Hadaway reports that his strategy in Sudan called for starting Baptist churches (and calling them Baptist) from the beginning. This work has grown through the team Hadaway started and others have continued to over 85 churches and 100 "outreach groups." His rationale for the persecuted world was "since it was illegal to start any kind of church in Sudan, one might as well start an illegal Baptist church than an illegal non-defined church."

David Rogers: I have no problem with Dr. Hadaway advocating the strategy he advocated in Sudan. But just because one particular strategy may have shown good results in one setting does not mean it must necessarily be "cookie-cutter" duplicated in every setting around the world.

Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: • In 1992 Hadaway (then an SC) attended a strategy meeting where SC’s were encouraged to partner with Eastern Orthodox churches in their strategies.

David Rogers: Why not say here in what specific ways the SCs were "encouraged to partner with Eastern Orthodox churches in their strategies"? Could we not possibly be talking about level 1 or 2 "Strategic Relationships" here?
Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: Dr. David Garrison (then a CSI administrator) said at this meeting, "It does not matter the gender of the pastors of the churches with whom you bring into your areas."

David Rogers: Grammatically, I am unsure what this quote means. If it means what I think it means, though, we must remember that this was in 1992, 8 years before the BFM 2000 revision. Once again, if I am understanding correctly, this is not talking about IMB missionaries as women pastors, but rather, the possibility of cooperation (once again, the specific type or level of cooperation is not mentioned) with churches that have women pastors.

Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: In addition, SC’s were encouraged to include charismatic groups such as the Assemblies of God denomination in their strategies, including church planting.

David Rogers: Once again, there are many different possible ways to "include charismatic groups such as the Assemblies of God" in strategies and in church planting. The SC model involves reaching entire people groups with the Gospel. A part of this is networking with all those throughout the Body of Christ who are also working with that particular people group. If Assembly of God folks are reaching people within our people group for Christ, and planting churches among them, are we to completely avoid them, or ignore them, as we think through our strategies to see our people group evangelized? I would think we must, rather, take them into account, and think together about how we might be able to help each other out, in order to maximize the total evangelistic effort. This does not, however, necessarily involve Baptist missionaries teaching or promoting Assembly of God doctrine.

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

David Rogers: Once again, what is so patently wrong with CBF representatives participating in a joint planning meeting? Should we "blackball" anyone associated with CBF in anyway from any of our SBC-related activities just because we hold a grudge against them? It was not stated that the CBF representatives were in anyway speaking into IMB workers’ strategy. But, even so, if some CBF workers happened to have some good ideas regarding mission strategy, should it be anathema to even listen to what they have to say?

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

David Rogers: What is so bad about the "Evangelical version of ecumenism"? I’m not saying there may not be certain levels of cooperation with certain groups that would be problematic. But to say in "broad strokes" that the "Evangelical version of ecumenism" is a default evil to be avoided is a little extreme, in my opinion, and demands a more specific justification.
Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: Possible Solution

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

David Rogers: This would mean effectively eliminating even many Baptist Conventions and Unions around the world from church planting partnership, and for all practical purposes, leaving us, as foreign American workers, to "break the missional code" all by ourselves. I think that comment #14 on my last blogpost, by British Baptist pastor Robert Dando in response to the BFM stipulation regarding "closed communion," is very enlightening regarding this: "In one sense people may know, this is a old, old question for those in the UK as it was pretty much settled in the early 19th Century here, and there are very, very few "closed" (I think the historic term is "strict") communion churches here." This distancing of ourselves from even other Baptist Unions, in fact, is a trend I have observed in recent years, and the results we have been getting from it are not very encouraging, as far as the number of churches planted and disciples made.

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

David Rogers: As I have previously indicated on this blog, I personally signed the BFM 2000, (as well as, upon appointment, the BFM 1963) with an annotation indicating my discrepancy with "closed communion." If this recommendation were followed to the letter of the law, I would be eliminated from missionary service. I find it hard to believe the majority of SBC constituents would be pleased with this, if they were to know the details.

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

David Rogers: Once again, the term "neo-charismatic" needs further definition.

Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: Observations

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

David Rogers: Just because someone studied at Fuller Seminary under John Wimber, Peter Wagner, and Charles Kraft does not mean they fully embrace their ideas. I wonder what type of ideas Dr. Eitel himself was exposed to while he was working on his doctorate at the University of South Africa. In my opinion, to say "He definitely showed strong influence if not full embrace of their extremist positions e.g. territorial spirits, new revelations, and a complete lack of understanding whether seeking after spirits is more important than simply speaking the Gospel" is a personal opinion of Dr. Eitel. Since I was not there, I am unable to judge whether or not this was indeed the case. Dr. Eitel may think that I myself show strong influence from Wimber, Wagner, and Kraft, since I too have read many of their works, and have gained some interesting insight from them. I definitely do not accept everything they have said or written, though.

In any case, the fact that someone from Frontiers came to give their perspective on spiritual warfare to a group of IMB workers in Central Asia, even if his views were extreme, does not trouble me so much, as long as our workers were given opportunity to debate and point out the extremes in what he was saying. IMB workers, at least for the most part, are responsible adults, and are able to sift through the teaching that is being offered to them from the outside. Sometimes it is good to be exposed to new ideas, and to be aware of trends from the greater evangelical world. As 1 Thessalonians 5.21 says: "Test everything. Hold on to the good." And a couplet I learned in high school: "Read all the books upon your shelf, but do the thinking for yourself."

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

David Rogers: Once again, the use of the term "often" is, in my opinion, overly subjective to be of any use, unless there were further specific information given to back it up.

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

David Rogers: Once again, the terms "many" and "most" are pure conjecture without specific evidence to back them up. The only example of "these things" the missionaries on the field are "implementing" is of one lady. And, even in this particular case, without giving any more specific details, I believe I have good reason to question the validity of the use of the phrase "exorcise her curtains of evil spirits." The last time I checked, cleaning your house of potential evil spiritual influences, and "exorcism" are completely different things.

Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: Possible Solution

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

David Rogers: If John says "the whole world is under control of the evil one" (1 John 5.19), Paul talks about opening eyes, turning people from darkness to light, and "from the power of Satan unto God" (Acts 26.18), and Jesus sent out the 12 and the 70 with authority to cast out demons (Luke 9, 10), I am not sure it is extreme to be "proactive" in dealing with the demonic realm. I intuit a different approach to the realm of the demonic on the part of the authors of this paper to that of my own. If my view can be demonstrated as unbiblical, I will be happy to dialogue about it, and adjust my views accordingly. However, I suspect a larger percentage of Southern Baptists than the authors would want to admit would also be sympathetic to my view. As these questions are not dealt with in the BFM, I believe it would be unfair to impose them as expectations on all IMB missionaries.

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

David Rogers: I have my M.Div. from Southwestern Seminary, having transferred in a number of credits from Mid-America Seminary. Apparently, my studies have not kept me from coming to the views I espouse on these issues. Maybe, if I got my doctorate, I would be able to discern the error of my ways. ;-)
Seriously, I think theological education is a good thing, in general. But, in my opinion, based on 16 years of international missionary service, more seminary education does not necessarily translate into greater effectiveness on the mission field. Of course, missionary candidates need to be adequately trained, but sometimes the skills needed on the mission field are somewhat different from those taught in our seminaries.

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

David Rogers: I personally went through MLC in 1994. Although it was not perfect, I, in general, felt I received a good base of training, in both theological and practical issues, during my time there, and left feeling I had a pretty good idea of "acceptable parameters for personnel." That is, unless my own thinking falls out of line with the parameters alluded to here. Of course, since I have not been present for subsequent orientation sessions, I cannot objectively comment on the content of them.

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

Observations

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

David Rogers: Of course, anyone "ordering" a missionary colleague to "perform" baptisms is out of line inasmuch as it represents a very poor leadership style. I definitely think the preferences and convictions of this 2+2 missionary should have been respected. It is instructive, from my perspective, however, that the higher authority did have the wisdom to intervene in this case, indicating this was perhaps an isolated incident, rather than something endemic in the system. Personally, however, I believe the idea that "performing ordinances," necessarily linked to a "pastoral-like role," comes much more from our denominational traditions (as inherited from Roman Catholic, and later Protestant Reformation traditions) than from the Bible. Although the BFM does state that both ordinances are "church ordinances," it never states that their "performance" is a prerogative limited to pastors.

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

David Rogers: Having not gone through MLC orientation since the influence of Sergeant was introduced, it is difficult for me to comment directly on this matter. From certain things I have read, I can say there are certain elements of Sergeant’s strategy that cause me concern. However, on the particular points referenced here, as long as he is not saying that women should be pastors or elders, I see his reasoning as biblically sound. Yes, all disciples are ministers. Yes, women have key roles in the church. And, yes, in certain occasions and settings, women are called upon to teach and lead (Acts 18.26; 21.9; Romans 16.1; Titus 2.3-5). Hopefully, this would not mean occupying the office of pastor, nor teaching or "usurping authority" over men (1 Tim. 2.12).

*regarding "performing" ordinances, see previous comment.

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

David Rogers: This point, as long as it does not involve specific pastoral authority in a local church setting, is outside of the dictates of the BFM 2000, as I understand it. I do, however, agree that care should be taken, in accordance with 1 Tim. 2.12, to not put women in roles of "spiritual authority" over men. The application of this in Southern Baptist life, however, has been and continues to be very subjective. What about female Sunday School teachers in mixed classes? What about female nursery directors who supervise male nursery workers? I think we need to be prepared to be consistent with this before we get overly dogmatic in our application on the mission field.

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

David Rogers: Once again, this does not appear to me to be representative of the IMB at large, and, as the person in question was already retired from the IMB at the time of the writing of this paper, this example seems to me to be largely anecdotal.

Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: Possible Solution

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

David Rogers: This suggestion assumes there are indeed "pastor-like functions inherent in the actual practice of being an SC," an assertion that I would personally question. It also fails to distinguish between functions that some may subjectively deem to be "pastor-like," and those the Bible actually describes as "pastoral."


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

David Rogers: This is fine with me, as long as they don’t go beyond the Bible and the BFM in their clarification.

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

Observations

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

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

• At the Global Summit of Senior IMB leadership and the 15 Regional Leaders in August of 2003, another restructuring appeared on the horizon. In a strategy exercise Hadaway was assigned to a table with Curtis Sergeant, former Associate Vice-President for Strategy Coordination and three other Regional Leaders. Sergeant’s notes (which he shared with the group during the exercise) called for reducing the 4 America’s regions from (approximately) the current 1,200 missionaries to a projected 200 during the next 2-4 years. In addition, Sergeant called for placing about 1,200 IMB personnel in S. Asia (India), and approximately 1,150 missionaries in E. Asia (China). The President and Overseas Vice-President verbally affirmed this "strategic realignment" advocated by Sergeant and the Global Research Department (GRD) during the ensuing discussion. Hadaway asked them, "Do you think Southern Baptists are ready to support a mission board with almost 45% of their personnel in only two countries, India and China?" The response was to the effect that it had not been thought of in that way.• The software used by the IMB Global Research Department (GRD) during the Global Summit weighted every strategic category heavily toward population. In other words, the number of people in a country outweighed every other factor. The office of Strategy Coordination is recommending a radical shift based upon a one-to-one ratio of IMB missionaries to population (see Hadaway paper) instead of strategically placing personnel according to multiple factors (including receptivity and Church Growth principles). Therefore, the heavily populated countries in Asia will within four years make the IMB effectively an "Asian Mission Board" with almost 65% of all IMB personnel assigned to that continent (the 5 Asia regions). Is this the vision of the IMB trustees or the staff? Such a redeployment will mean abandoning Latin America to the charismatic influence (70% of all evangelicals in Latin America are said to be charismatic) and ignoring the plight of the desperately poor people of sub-Saharan Africa who have considerable fewer resources than most of the world.

David Rogers: Should the theoretical "abandonment" of Latin America to "charismatic influence" be a major consideration, when we are making decisions regarding the evangelization of the totally unreached and the almost totally unreached? Yes, the Great Commission includes teaching our disciples to obey all the things that Jesus has commanded us. But, I believe there comes a stage in missionary strategy when we hand over the primary responsibility for the continued carrying out of the Great Commission to the national church.

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

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

David Rogers: It is apparent that Dr. Hadaway is distraught over the lessening of emphasis on the regions that are near and dear to his heart, having served there for many years. I feel I am able to be somewhat sympathetic and empathetic to his concerns, having served in Western Europe for 16 years, a region which does not always get a whole lot of relative "press" or resources either. However, I tend to believe, at the same time, that those in the Overseas Leadership Team are not necessarily biased towards one region or another, inasmuch as they are doing their best to objectively look at the comparative needs and opportunities in the world in which we live today, and allocate resources accordingly. Do I always like the decisions they make? No. But I am prepared to accept them, believing they have the needs of the whole world at heart.

Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: Possible Solution

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

David Rogers: The conforming of IMB strategy to the "will of all Southern Baptists" is a very complicated question. First of all, in my opinion, the majority of Southern Baptists do not have the missiological perspective necessary to make informed decisions regarding IMB strategy. That is one reason we hire staff who spend years studying missiology. Ideally, the trustees should have a much more informed view of missiological issues. But unfortunately, this is not always the case.

At the same time, I believe the recent "blogging revolution" within the SBC, especially as it relates to the IMB, is doing a good bit to educate many more people about missiological issues faced by the IMB. Up to now, the only direct contact between on-field missionaries and Southern Baptists "in the pews" has been speaking engagements during Stateside Assignments, and occasional prayer letters. For the most part, this communication has been limited to more personal aspects of ministry, rather than education on philosophical and strategic concerns. In the meantime, IMB staff and trustees have occupied the role of communication filters between the on-field missionaries and the churches.
 
Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: • It is impossible for the IMB to send people exactly where everyone feels called to go. IMB leadership is responsible to Southern Baptists to develop a world-wide strategy deployment. However, a balance needs to be struck between the "call of God" and the "strategy of the IMB." Many who feel called to go to some parts of the world are being denied that opportunity. At one SBC seminary there is a young qualified couple (with a baby due) graduating in May who felt called all their lives to Latin America. There were no openings in some regions in Latin America (due to the quota system) until 2005 and in some regions longer. This couple had to choose another part of the world despite their long term calling to work with a Latin American people group less than 2% evangelical. They could not understand why an unreached people group in Latin America of more than 500,000 and less than 2% evangelical was less important than an unreached people group in another part of the world. Unfortunately, many couples like this would decide to go to the mission field independently. Such couples would be supported by Southern Baptist churches, in turn causing a negative impact on the Cooperative Program.

David Rogers: I am also understanding of this concern, as my wife and I originally went to Spain with an interdenominational mission board for this very reason. Eventually, however, the opportunity opened up for us to work with the IMB, and we were appointed as career workers in Spain. At the same time, though, down through the years, I have seen various missionary units convinced that God had called them to work in a particular part of the world, when other people were able to see that they were not particularly well cut out for work in that part of the world. I have come to see the wisdom, on the mission field, of first determining priority needs, and filling them accordingly, rather than placing people according to their personal preference or subjective sense of call.

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

Observations

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

David Rogers: Other than the prefix "neo," I fail to see the connection here between "neo-orthodoxy," "neo-charismatics," and "neo-evangelicalism." As a matter of fact, most Charismatics and Pentecostals tend to be more solid in their beliefs regarding inerrancy and biblical authority than many Baptists. Of course, there are those who place too much importance on experience. I am not saying that there are not excesses in the Charismatic and Pentecostal world that we as Baptists need to avoid. But, by in large, I believe this is an over-generalization, and false "guilt by association."

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

David Rogers: I believe it is unfair to "broad brush" indict present IMB leadership due to association with those brought in under the Parks administration. I did have the opportunity to sit under Daryl Whiteman’s teaching at MLC, and learned a lot of interesting and valuable things from him. In a number of ways, he was an incredibly insightful anthropologist and missiologist. However, some of the views he advocated were probably outside of the bounds of Southern Baptist orthodoxy, and thus, the decision to remove him justified.

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

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

David Rogers: In my opinion, there is perhaps a modicum of truth to this observation. I believe that at times there has been a tendency to elevate the goal of sending out more and more missionaries above the goal of fulfilling the Great Commission. Normally, these two should not be in conflict with each other. But there are times when the "good" becomes the enemy of the "best."

At the same time, however, I believe that the best training for missionaries does not always occur on the seminary campus.

I think my blogging colleague in Western Europe, "Stepchild," had an interesting insight here:

"Discipleship cannot be taught in a classroom. Reading a good book by a proven and experienced church planter is not enough. We need mentors. We need current practicing disciple-makers to be teaching and leading others as they make disciples.If I could have a conversation with someone of the IMB's Board of Trustees, this (among other things) is what I'd say. We need to radically rethink our approach to training and equipping disciple-makers. The bar has been set way too low. It isn't enough to have a seminary degree or to have signed the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. We need to be mentored. We need leaders who are currently in the thick of cross-cultural ministry to guide us in wisdom and that long-lost art of missions.Until we have such a network of relationships, we will not be able to guarantee the theological integrity of our work. We will continue to be criticized by seminary professors and denominational politicians. We will remain on the sidelines of what God is doing around the world because we are debating the science of Christianity and mission while the artists are being used to build the Kingdom."

Patterson, Eitel & Hadaway: Possible Solution

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

David Rogers: In principle, the 2+2/3 programs are, in my opinion, a great idea. I wish I could have had that opportunity when I was in seminary. However, if the 2+2/3 programs are used as a tool to infiltrate and spy on the IMB, and promote the personal agenda of seminary missions professors, I wonder if the cost is worth it. 

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

David Rogers: Upon finishing this reply, I want to reiterate that I am not, and could not, in any way speak officially for the IMB, in relation to the concerns raised. It would be beyond the scope of my experience to determine whether there are (or were at the time of the writing of Eitel, Patterson & Hadaway's articles) or not systemic problems throughout the entire organization. I am at this time merely responding to the particular information included in this article, on the basis of my personal observations, as well as to Brad Reynolds' inference that, if no one gives an adequate reply to the things written here, he will take it as a tacit acknowledgement of their validity.