Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 13

In 2003, Keith Eitel, at that time Professor of Christian Missions at Southeastern Seminary, and presently Dean of the School of Evangelism and Missions at Southwestern, wrote a paper entitled "Vision Assessment: The International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention." This paper was later distributed, together with a cover letter from Paige Patterson to all of the IMB Trustees. The context of the distribution of this letter was reported here in the North Carolina Baptist Biblical Recorder.

You can read the entire text here. But I would like to highlight a few quotes, especially in the context of our series on Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation. Normally, perhaps, an "in-house" document like this, addressed to a relatively small group of people, would not merit much discussion when talking about strategically significant Historical Documents spanning such a long period of time. I am discussing it, however, in this series, because I believe that it (or at least the ideas contained therein) has been quite influential in the adoption of recent policies and strategy directions advocated by the IMB Board of Trustees.

First of all, Eitel begins with a quote of Keith Parks, in which he contrasts the theological perspectives of my father, as well as Paige Patterson, and his own, in relation to missions.

Early on I would argue with Adrian Rogers about that [basis for unity in the SBC] and he’d say no, ‘the theme that has held us together is not missions, but doctrine.’ Well, historically I don’t think that’s accurate because historically the SBC is composed of people with varying theological perspectives . . . . My assessment is that they’re [conservatives in the SBC] from an independent Baptist viewpoint where conventions are built around doctrine [sic] than from the heritage that we as Southern Baptists have had that the convention is builtaround missions. And so after arguing with Adrian several times, I finally came to realize that for him and I think for Paige [Patterson] and for others the unifying element ought to be a unifying perspective of theology . . . according to the Scripture, the Living Word is more important than the written word . . . it’s a mistake in my estimation to elevate Scripture above Christ . . .

Eitel later adds the following remarks: In essence, Parks was saying that doctrine or theology divides us but missions unites us. Rodgers (sic), however, was indicating that unless our theological convictions are solidly established squarely on an inerrant Bible, we will have no legitimate or reasonable basis for doing missions.
I certainly do not side with Parks on these points. I agree completely with my father in insisting that, when we dilute our theological underpinnings based on the authority of God’s Word, we lose the basis from which our commitment to world missions flows. However, I believe at the same time that Eitel went a bit overboard, using my father’s name and views as an emotional support to his arguments expressed later in his paper, many of which I am convinced my father would not have completely agreed with.

Next, I would like to comment on the following quote from Eitel’s paper…

The Parks attitude seems pervasive within the day-to-day operations of the International Mission Board [IMB] and represents the greatest future challenge to redirect Biblically the IMB and re-root it firmly in the older theological heritage of the founding fathers and its contemporary conservative commitments.

In the final analysis, the "New Directions" campaign seems to reflect the same theological position inherited from the Parks era. Theological definition is minimized and that which is "new" reveals it’s (sic) roots in the very theological heritage that influenced Parks to conclude that doctrine divides and missions unites.

In my opinion, Jerry Rankin himself has already done an admirable job at answering this accusation. While I have not been able to find the exact text of the response letter, here is an article by Associated Baptist Press writer Mark Wingfield, and posted in the North Carolina Baptist "Biblical Recorder", that gives a good summary.

I would also like to comment briefly on the following paragraph in Eitel’s paper…

While advancing toward the same stated goals in the Bold Mission Thrust campaign, Parks was influenced by trends among other Christian agencies. He advocated the use of strategic planning techniques and invited David B. Barrett, author of the World Christian Encyclopedia, into the Board’s facilities in Richmond. Barrett’s own Anglican theological persuasions are far more ecumenical than those traditionally held by Southern Baptists. Barrett quietly influenced several strategic planners at the Board and his methods were used to analyze the remaining task of global evangelization. It was not until the early 1990’s that Barrett was removed from the Board, yet his influence still lingers in the office of strategic planning and research to this day.

I would generally agree with Eitel that the perspective of Barrett is a good bit more ecumenical than that of most conservative evangelical Southern Baptists. I myself, having worked for the past 16 years in Spain, a country with a spiritual heritage very influenced by Roman Catholicism, have been concerned with how the theological biases of Barrett and others like him, are leading many to de-emphasize the priority of evangelism in Catholic contexts. At the same time, I recognize the positive contribution made by Barrett in objectively analyzing the comparative spiritual need of different areas of the world and people groups, and encouraging evangelicals to work together in order to see the Great Commission fulfilled. It is my contention, that if the influence of Barrett "still lingers in the office of strategic planning and research," this influence is mostly limited to the more positive aspects of Barrett’s contribution. I have never sensed, under Jerry Rankin’s leadership at the IMB, anything insinuating that Roman Catholics were not legitimate "targets" of our evangelistic efforts.

Now, more directly on the subject at hand, I would like to present the following quotes from Eitel’s paper regarding IMB cooperation with "Great Commission Christians"...

Yet, as the Board began to work in and with the broader Neo-Evangelical groups (now called Great Commission Christians), the cross-pollination of ideas without a careful analysis of the biblical and theological soundness of the trends that depicted the end of the last century missions world, began to erode even further the commitments Southern Baptists have historically had to a real need for personal evangelism, church planting, and discipleship of the nations.

I am in agreement regarding partnering with agencies of like theological persuasion for some tasks at home or abroad. However, I sense there’s no real mechanism in place to help missionaries evaluate the theological commitments of the plethora of groups that work around the world and certainly no incentive to guard themselves from unnecessary entanglements with charismatic people or agencies. Incidentally, the first time I heard the term Great Commission Christian was from the mouth of David Barrett as he was explaining to me how, in his opinion, Mormons are GCCs!

Rankin’s "New Directions" campaign drew the Board more directly into the network of GCC’s, again with no mechanisms in place to filter or check the entry of unbiblical practices other than the specific theological preparation of the individual missionary.

It raises serious questions regarding whether the end justifies the means when the types of churches planted increasingly do not reflect a biblical ecclesiology, Baptist values, or in some cases even appear Christian.

Also, from Eitel’s list of recommendations at the end of his paper, the following…

Generate theological definitions and boundaries for partnering with GCC’s, review the nature of the SC/SL position and create alternatives suitable for women that are in line with the sentiments of the BF&M 2000, and create guidelines for church planting that will insure healthy theological development and be reflective of Baptist distinctives.

First off, Eitel seems to follow Patterson’s lead (as referenced in The Church in the 21st Century) in throwing groups with widely divergent beliefs and practices into the "Great Commission Christian" sack ("Neo-evangelical groups", "charismatic people and agencies", and even "Mormons" and "churches" that do not "even appear Christian"). The impression left is all are "guilty by association."

I would also question Eitel’s suggestion that more seminary education is the best corrective for missionaries unprepared to deal with the theological subtleties involved in working with the "GCC world". Most assuredly, there is an important place on the mission field for those gifted in missiological and theological reflection. However, in my experience, a seminary degree is far from a guarantee for this. Some of the most gifted and effective workers I know have not completed a seminary degree. It has been my observation that those who have been most successful in North American ecclesiological and training models many times are the ones who later have the most difficulty in "thinking outside of the box" in order to reach people more effectively in other cultural contexts.

I myself have an M. Div. from Southwestern Seminary, (which includes almost 2 years worth of transfer credits from Mid-America Seminary), and probably read up on missiological and theological issues more than the average IMB missionary. Yet I would not say this has influenced me to be any narrower in my dealings with other GCCs. If anything, I would venture to say, it has pointed me in the contrary direction.

Now, if what is being advocated is indoctrination and teaching "cookie-cutter" approaches to missions at our seminaries, perhaps with time we would have a more "lock-step" contingent of IMB workers. If, however, we are looking for an effective "incentive to guard [IMB workers] from unnecessary entanglements", I would neither suggest this, nor generating narrower "theological definitions and boundaries for partnering with GCCs", as the solution.

A better plan, in my opinion, is to open the forum of discussion among those who have the most at stake: the missionaries themselves. Under "New Directions", this is precisely what is already happening. We as missionaries are being encouraged to go back to the Bible (not just denominational tradition) to find our definitions for church and to seriously reflect upon how to best flesh this out in the particular cultural context in which God has led each of us to work.

As a result of this (and certainly many other factors as well), I believe, we are seeing great breakthroughs in many parts of the world in terms of evangelism and church planting. Yes, perhaps, there are isolated cases of things getting a bit "out of hand" from time to time. But, in my opinion, the dangers of putting a damper on, and encouraging a more restrictive and inquisitorial mindset in regards to "New Directions" and our cooperation with other GCCs, is by far the greater danger. IMB missionaries, as a whole, love God, the Bible, and lost souls as much as anyone. And I believe we, as a result of the unique experiences and calling God has given us (together with the strategic input of all of those God has gifted throughout his entire Body), are the most qualified to determine how best to make disciples of all the peoples of the world.

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 12

Apparently, the new direction at the IMB under the leadership of Jerry Rankin did not sit well with some. In 2001, several years into "New Directions", Dr. Paige Patterson published a paper entitled The Church in the 21st Century.

Although I do not personally know Dr. Patterson well, I have a lot of respect for him as a person. His leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention over the past years has been of vital importance as we were in danger of slipping further and further away from our biblical moorings. He is clearly a brilliant scholar. I am aware that he was a close friend and co-laborer of my father during the crucial years of the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC. It is thus with a certain degree of apprehension that I must now respectfully voice my disagreement with several views he espouses in this paper.

Actually, I have no real bone to pick with the majority of what he writes in this 29-page treatise, which mostly outlines a traditional Baptist understanding of Biblical ecclesiology. It is only when he comes to the section towards the end of the paper on "Missiological Issues" that I find any significant points of disagreement with what is stated. Although this paper was published back in 2001, the truth is, from my perspective, the issues it brings up pretty much "flew under the radar" for many Southern Baptists and IMB missionaries, myself included, up until the recent events involving new policies at the IMB, and Trustee Wade Burleson. The fact that I (and others) am just now responding to them, though, does not necessarily imply a reactionary "jumping on the bandwagon". They are rather deep-rooted issues that recent events have merely brought to the surface, in my opinion.

Copied below is the part of the paper with which I disagree. At the end of this lengthy quote, I will share my comments…

MISSIOLOGICAL ISSUES

Ecclesiological questions also intersect missiology at crucial points. With the advent of “Third Wave churches” partnering with other “Great Commission Christians” and the age of post-denominationalism, new horizons force contemplation of questions of cooperation both new and old. What level of cooperation with others who name the name of Christ is appropriate for Baptist missionaries? Is it sufficient for a church to be merely “baptistic” or must it be “Baptist”?
Actually, the prior question is the matter of integrity. For Southern Baptist missionaries to be involved in planting churches that are not Baptist churches, would not be good news. Integrity demands that a clear policy be articulated to and approved by the Southern Baptist Convention. Then that policy needs to be circumspectly followed by Southern Baptist Convention mission personnel. To accept the funding provided by Baptists and proceed in a direction distinct from what that supporting constituency believes is no different than the actions of the mid-twentieth century liberal and neo-orthodox leadership who deliberately misled the Convention.

The author does not allege that this is what is happening, but it is the case that disturbing reports do continue to filter in from the field. If any of these represent the trajectory of even a few, then that issue must be faced; and a solution acceptable to the Convention must be found.

But why is it important to plant "Baptist" churches? Why is it not enough to plant "baptistic" churches? The first problem arises from the lack of definition of "baptistic." This rather vague, amorphous concept may mean almost anything from "baptizing believers" to insisting on autonomy for churches.

On the other hand, to call a church a Baptist church is to tap into the historic march of a people bent on a restoration of the New Testament Church. Clearly, the Baptist name is not found attached to churches in the New Testament. But the name apparently assigned to a movement by its enemies came to stand for a body of truths that marked the movement as distinctive.

To the three Reformation principles of sola scriptura, sola gratia, and sola fide, Baptists would add sola Trinitate, doubtless with the approval of the Magisterial Reformers. But then they would also insist on sola ecclesia regeneratorum witnessed by baptism and ordered by the ban, working to disseminate the liberating Gospel of Christ to every person on the earth. For these truths, Manz, Hubmaier, Sattler, and a host of others paid with their blood. For those of us in this generation to trifle with those principles for which they shed their blood would be reprehensible.

To the contrary, if we avoid the chaos of 5000 independent African church movements, many of which are de facto cults, as the pattern in all countries or if we do not wish to concede the world to a Neo-charismatic movement sculpted by experience rather than the parameters of God’s Word, then we must tether our new churches to their historical roots all the way back to the New Testament. In no way does this interdict their automony, but it does link them to a strain of Christianity rejecting the Volkskirche concept as well as to the unbridled experentialism that has periodically wasted the church since the days of its earliest manifestation in Montanism. These churches are linked thereby to a "people of the Book," who have continually insisted that every doctrinal belief and consequent practice of the church arise from and be judged by the Scriptures alone.

If someone wishes to suggest that this is nothing less than the imposition of western cultural patterns in other segments of the globe, it need only be rehearsed that "truth" is not subject to cultural variation or manipulation. A pure church witnessing to a dislocated and lost world is New Testament and "Eastern" to the core. Consequently, it is both necessary and appropriate to explore two important questions. First, what levels of cooperation with other Christian groups are acceptable? Second, under what conditions would our own missionaries find it necessary to plant a church that is not statedly a Baptist church?

As I see the answer to question one, there are four levels of participation with other confessing Christians, but with each level narrowing in the scope of that cooperation. Level one is that which is frequently denominated "co-belligerency" in combating social evils. Here we may be so broad as to cooperate with those of non-Christian faiths in such efforts as those made recently by Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Mormons, Roman Catholics, and evangelicals to impact the United Nations in behalf of the "traditional family."

A second level of participation is prayer, although here at least two parameters must be maintained. First, Christians must remain free to pray in "Jesus’ name" as the Scriptures prescribe. Second, I cannot imagine a situation in which prayer would be appropriate among any but monotheistic faiths. But to gather to pray with other monotheists for peace or at time of great calamity seems appropriate. For Christians who are of the same mind about salvation and its consequences to pray for revival or for the lost is surely acceptable. And caution is needed even here since the follower of Christ must keep in mind that God has obligated Himself to hear only prayer in Christ’s name. Christians must then exercise care lest people of other faiths be led to believe that they can approach God in some way other than through Jesus (John 14:6).

A third level, participation in evangelism such as Graham Crusades, showing the Jesus film, etc. seems appropriate, provided the concept of salvation proffered is fully biblical and without compromise. Also, such efforts should not be allowed to become easy stepping stones to the development of less than New Testament churches.

A fourth level raises the old question of acceptable baptism. Whose baptism shall we receive? On this Landmark advocates insisting on rebaptism for many were probably correct but for the wrong reason. I do not believe that New Testament churches should receive baptism from any communion that fails to embrace the nature of salvation by grace alone. Here the shingle out front is not so important. The confession of faith of that assembly is strategically critical.

Finally, there is one level to which we need never proceed. When it comes to the planting of churches we need to do our own work. First, as indicated above, churches that we plant need to have roots of identification with the people who sent the missionary and to the Baptist people of history. In order to establish churches that will remain true to the New Testament faith, churches need a statement of faith informed by the New Testament. Unless we attempt to argue the unprovable, namely a swift return of Christ, then we must plant churches that have sufficient doctrinal comprehension to pass this on to others until Jesus comes.

Another way to state this is to say that there is such a thing as a New Testament church. If this is the case, then for anyone to establish "churches" that are not in keeping with the whole faith of the New Testament constitutes a significant abandonment of at least a third of the Great Commission, namely, teaching all things commanded by Jesus.

But are there exceptions to this? Are there circumstances in which we might plant other than a "Baptist" church? And, of course, the answer must be that it is better to have a church without the Baptist name than to have no church at all.

Conceivably, situations may arise where it is unduly dangerous and/or unlawful to plant a Baptist church. Of course, if this is the case it remains exceedingly doubtful that the word "church" would be any more tolerable than Baptist. The same would be true of most other substitute names. And even if the above conditions prevail, our forefathers accepted the designation in the teeth of persecution; why should we do less?

This paper is certainly not intended as definitive on these issues. It is an effort in light of Baptist history and belief to push to the surface legitimate missiological questions. But a few conclusions seem to me to be abundantly clear. (1) The people paying the bills deserve to know exactly what the missionary practice is. (2) If the mission personnel are out of step with the position of the sending body, they are compelled by integrity to seek employment elsewhere. (3) The threat of a worldwide ecumenism based on the least common denominator is more real and more potentially devastating than it was in the days of the old liberal ecumenism, which spawned the World Council of Churches. The new ecumenism, tied heavily to the neo-charismatic movement, is not where Southern Baptists and their missionaries belong. (4) Except in the most exceptional and remote cases, Southern Baptists should establish Baptist churches and not cooperate with other groups when it comes to ecclesiological matters.

In the final analysis, the conclusion is obvious. If we do not establish distinctively Baptist churches, then our distinctive Baptist witness will gradually die. If it is not a New Testament vision, it should perish. But if it is a vision faithful to the New Testament, then it must be perpetuated. We are primarily about getting the Gospel to the nations and the nations to Christ. But this includes not merely evangelization, but also baptizing and teaching all that Jesus taught. And what Jesus taught included ecclesiology.

Dr. Patterson’s words in this section are apparently a reaction against "New Directions" at the IMB. They seem to be motivated, as far as I can tell, by a sense of duty to defend the Anabaptist and Baptist ecclesiological heritage, as well as a distaste for and concern about what he calls "Third Wave churches" and the "Neo-charismatic movement". As a result, it seems to me, he wants to throw "the chaos of 5,000 independent African church movements", "unbridled experentialism", "the World Council of Churches" and non-Baptist but "baptistic" evangelical churches and groups, all in the same sack.

In his article "Shoot-out at the Amen Corral: Being Baptist through Controversy" included in the book Why I am a Baptist, edited by Tom Nettles and Russell Moore, Patterson writes:

In all this time, I had read carefully the various members of the Landmark triumvirate, including Theodosia Ernest by Amos C. Dayton, all of J. R. Graves’s available works, and William Pendleton’s contributions on the subject as well as his short systematic theology. I read John T. Christian and even J. M. Carroll’s The Trail of Blood. While I was profoundly influenced by the Landmark tradition in my view of the importance and independence of the local church, I did not follow the Landmarkers in some of their more questionable conclusions. Nevertheless, I dare not fail to acknowledge my indebtedness to them.

I wonder what specifically are the "questionable conclusions" of the Landmarkers Patterson does not follow, and what specifically are the areas of his ecclesiology in which he is "indebted to them". It seems to me that perhaps some of the latter surface in these "Missiological Issues". I would argue missiologically (and I believe biblically) that our emphasis must be on planting New Testament churches, not necessarily "distinctively Baptist churches". Don’t get me wrong. I am not against planting Baptist churches. But Jesus did not command us in the Great Commission to "go and plant Baptist churches". He did command us to "make disciples", "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit", and "teaching them to obey everything he commanded us". And, according to my understanding of the Bible, one of the things about which he commanded us was the essential unity of his Body, the Church Universal.

Since I plan on dealing with the question of "Baptist" versus "baptistic" churches in another post, I will not go into much depth about it here. I do appreciate Patterson’s acknowledgement that it is acceptable to cooperate with other Christian groups at various levels. Some "Landmarkers" would perhaps not go this far. I also plan on dealing more in depth on another post with the question of the various levels of cooperation.

But for now, I leave you with my comments in response to the following statement:

If we do not establish distinctively Baptist churches, then our distinctive Baptist witness will gradually die. If it is not a New Testament vision, it should perish. But if it is a vision faithful to the New Testament, then it must be perpetuated.

Although, when taken in context, they may seem to reflect only a slight twist of emphasis, I identify more with the words of Charles H. Spurgeon (quoted on a previous post), "I look forward with pleasure to the day when there will not be a Baptist living! I hope that the Baptist name will soon perish, but let Christ's name last forever."

I can’t help but ask the following questions… Is the Christian & Missionary Alliance vision a New Testament vision? Is the vision of the Plymouth Brethren assemblies a New Testament vision? Is the vision of any number of independent evangelical congregations with baptistic ecclesiology a New Testament vision?, etc., etc. Or does the name "Baptist" bring along with it a "corner on the market" in regards to faithfulness to the Scripture?

And, perhaps, the even bigger question for me…

Am I as an IMB missionary actually demonstrating a "lack of integrity" which ought to "compel me to seek employment elsewhere" because my "Bottom-line Loyalty" is more to the Body of Christ at large around the world than specifically to the Southern Baptist Convention?

My hope and assumption regarding this are that no, that the majority of Southern Baptists, upon really understanding the issues involved, are more interested in seeing the nations won to Christ, disciples made, and New Testament churches planted, than in whether these churches have the "Baptist" label on them or not. However, it seems to me there is a concerted effort underway to influence more and more Baptists to give more and more relative importance to the "Baptist" name and "Baptist" distinctives as over against "generic" New Testament distinctives. And I, for one, in keeping with my understanding of Scripture (i. e. John 17. 20-23 and 1 Corinthians 1.10-17), am not in agreement with this.

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 11

In 1993, Jerry Rankin became the new President of the Foreign Mission Board. Later that same year, FMB Vice President Avery Willis participated as Chairman for the Ad Hoc AD 2000 Denominational Summit Declaration Committee, which drafted the AD 2000 Denominational Summit Declaration. The following is an excerpt from that important document…

We, the attendees of this historic summit meeting,

• Realizing that God is on a mission to redeem a lost world (II Peter 3:9), and that Christ has given us the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:18-20);
• Having come here in the prayerful conviction that the Spirit of God is leading His Church at this unique juncture of history; and
• Having heard the reports of denominational initiatives to the year 2000 and beyond, and of resource networks that are cooperating across denominations, churches and organizations to focus on world evangelization, mobilization of united prayer and coordinated efforts to reach the unreached;
• Believing that the Holy Spirit has led us to be present at this gathering, and having experienced the unity of the multifaceted body of Christ and the unique corporate gifting that different denominations and organizations bring to that body.

Now, being of one mind in our commitment to work together for the evangelization of the world by the year 2000 and beyond, we, as individuals from various denominations, declare our joint commitment to seek a church for every people and the gospel for every person by the year 2000. We urgently call the worldwide Body of Christ to join openly in linking hands, hearts, minds and spirits in this grand cause of Jesus Christ.

In 1995, a second Global Consultation on World Evangelism (GCOWE) , in conjunction with the AD 2000 movement, was held, this time in Seoul, Korea. In an earlier post, I already commented about Jerry Rankin's and Avery Willis’s participation at this event.
I direct your thoughts now to an excerpt from an article in the July 1, 1995 edition of Missions Frontiers, entitled "Reconciliation: Is it the Missing Key to Revival and World Evangelization?," written by Rick Wood…

Certainly there is also a need for this kind of reconciliation and repentance on the part of many denominations and ministries towards each other.
Unfortunately, the attitude of many denominations and ministries has been one of competition and empire building. There is even the unspoken belief that they have more truth than other denominations or ministries. Each believes they must make sure that as many converts as possible become part of their church. Many ministries have too often been unwilling to cooperate with one another.
This kind of needed repentance was also seen at GCOWE '95, as reported by David Aikman. "Doctor Avery Willis nodded his head and the audience broke into applause. He had just apologized on behalf of the Southern Baptist denomination. He had discovered that the best efforts of his denomination, even if all the goals were attained, were not good enough to reach the world by the year 2000.
"'We want to ask forgiveness from you,' he said meekly, 'for thinking we could do that kind of job without you. We recognize that it's going to take the whole body of Christ to reach the people of this world.'
"As a sign of his change of heart, he offered to any delegate who requested it, the databases of the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board.
"'Business as usual will not get the job done,' he concluded." Willis' remarks were made in the large sanctuary of Seoul's Choong Hyun Presbyterian Church, which was the venue for a number of GCOWE events.

At the same event, Jerry Rankin was invited to give a talk in a session entitled "Intra-denominational Initiative: Southern Baptists." Here is a key excerpt from his talk, which he entitled "Bold Witness"…

In 1975, Southern Baptists looked toward the 21st Century and after prayer, consultation with convention leaders, and dialog with Baptist partners overseas, a committee unveiled a plan that was approved by the Southern Baptist Convention messengers at the annual meeting in June 1976. The plan was called Bold Mission Thrust and carried the objective that every man, woman and child have the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ by AD 2000.
By the early 1980s, despite significant growth, a disturbing question arose, If we continue at the present rate, will everyone in the world hear the good news of Jesus Christ? The answer was a sad, but honest, "No."
Careful analysis of church growth trends affirmed that bold witness goals were needed in response to God's leadership. God used the alternative futures study to convict the Foreign Mission Board (FMB) for appearing self-sufficient to reach to the whole world alone. Grasping the immensity of the unreached world, FMB leaders began reaching out to Great Commission Christians committed to reaching the world for Christ. Working cooperatively ushered in a new era in which Christians joined in world prayer crusades, interchanged information about unreached peoples and encouraged one another.

I believe it is significant that Rankin, although taking a different position than former FMB President Keith Parks on the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC, and taking a strong stand against ecumenical positions that would decry the legitimacy of evangelism in Catholic countries, vocally supported the continued involvement of Southern Baptists in efforts such as the AD 2000 Movement, and events such as GCOWE.
I would like to close this post with an excerpt from Mobilizing for Missions in the New Millenium, A Great Commission Vision for Southern Baptists in the 21st Century, written in 1999, by Jerry Rankin, in which he spells out the IMB’s approach, as a part of "New Directions", towards cooperation with other "Great Commission Christians"…

Chapter 7, Building for the Future
Great Commission Partners
Completing the Great Commission in the new millennium means not only mobilizing Southern Baptists but the larger community of Great Commission Christians. A significant part of the "New Directions" paradigm is creating alliances and partnerships that enable us to more rapidly roll back the curtain of lostness. This has been modeled by strategy teams, limited in personnel and resources, who have become advocates for their people groups. Rather than attempting to duplicate what others can contribute to the evangelization effort, they have mobilized far-ranging agencies and organizations, each of which brings its own additional resources to the task.
Wycliffe may launch a Scripture-translation team. Campus Crusade provides the JESUS film and effectively targets university students while TransWorld Radio beams broadcasts into the region. Pioneers and Youth With a Mission may send in short-term teams while others enlist tentmakers and engage in development projects. Literally hundreds of organizations and agencies have become a part of some coordinated partnerships that have vastly accelerated getting the gospel to a target population group.
When we cease to be concerned about who is in CONTROL and who gets CREDIT, we will be amazed at what God can do!
As the church-planting stage develops, we give emphasis to nurturing Baptist churches while other evangelical traditions may emerge parallel to ours. But the kingdom is extended more rapidly, and God gets the glory. When we cease to be concerned about who is in control and who gets credit, we will be amazed at what God can do.
Because of the size and scope of Southern Baptist international missions, we are finding ourselves in a leadership role we did not seek. Few other organizations have been able to maintain as strong a focus on the main thing of evangelism and church planting. No other agency has such extensive deployment of personnel in strategic assignments all over the world.
Throughout 1999 and possibly into the future, the IMB is sponsoring a series of "AWE Conferences"—Accelerating World Evangelization. In follow-up to the AD2000 and Beyond Movement, which was so effective in creating awareness and adoption of unreached people groups, we are trying to provide a forum to stimulate actual engagement of unreached people groups that will result in church-planting movements. In a series of small, focused conferences, we are gathering affinity groups of similar mission agencies to challenge and coordinate involvement in the task.
Similar conferences are being planned with partners from Baptist unions and conventions around the world to garner their insights and clarify an understanding of the new directions of IMB strategies. As we facilitate their involvement and mutual ownership of the vision to reach all the peoples of the world, global evangelization will be advanced.
We must look beyond ourselves and even beyond the extensive but limited resources of Southern Baptists. We must see beyond the present and not sacrifice fulfillment of the task on the altar of the urgent and the immediate. From a vision of the completed task, we must see our role in a "big-picture" perspective and press forward to the goal of bringing all the peoples of the world to saving faith in Jesus Christ.

No, they are not perfect. But I, for one, as a Southern Baptist International Missionary, am grateful and proud to be represented by godly, visionary, and biblically-balanced leadership, even in the face of criticism from both sides, such as we have been privileged to have in the person of men such as Jerry Rankin and Avery Willis.

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 10

As previously noted on this blog, in the year 1806, William Carey had written: "Would it not be possible to have a general association of all denominations of Christians, from the four quarters of the world, held there once in about Ten Years? I earnestly recommend this plan ... I have no doubt but it would be attended with many important effects; we could understand each other better, and more entirely enter into one another's views by two hours' conversation than by two or three years' epistolary correspondence."

Down through the years, there have been various attempts to follow through, in one way or another, with Carey’s recommendation. Arthur P. Johnston writes, in his important book, The Battle for World Evangelism, published in 1978:

"For well over a hundred years the missionary conference has made a great contribution to world evangelism. Christian missionaries have crossed denominational and national lines in every continent to seek inspiration and instruction, in order to better accomplish the task the Lord of the Harvest committed to them. Whether at home or abroad, Christians have gathered together in local churches, as denominations or as individuals concerned with the advance of the Gospel. These conferences have not only provided missionary manpower and financial support on the home front, but missionaries and national leaders of evangelism have also acquired deeper insights into the will and continuing work of the resurrected Lord (Acts 1:1)."

Conferences such as those recommended by Carey, and commented on by Johnston, have occurred, for example, in 1825 in Bombay, 1877 and 1890 in Shanghai, 1888 in London, and 1900 in New York. The World Missionary Council held in 1910 in Edinburgh launched what was to become an increasing ecumenical emphasis, culminating in the formation of the World Council of Churches. In an effort to return to the evangelical roots of the world mission enterprise, two important conferences were held, one in Berlin in 1966, and another in Lausanne in 1974. At the latter conference, the well-known Lausanne Covenant on World Evangelization was adopted, and there was somewhat limited Southern Baptist participation, most signficantly, a strategy paper presented by Keith Parks, on “The Great Commission”.

However, at the Global Consultation on World Evangelization by AD 2000 and Beyond (GCOWE), held in Singapore January 5-8, 1989, Southern Baptist participation came more to the forefront. Keith Parks, by then president of the Foreign Mission Board, addressing the participation of himself and then FMB-vice president, Bill O’Brien, made the following comment, in front of the entire assembly …

There have been one or two references to the Southern Baptist participation here. We Southern Baptists are all delighted to be here. Actually, I do not feel that our coming has been such a dramatic shift from the usual for us, but some may think so.

The following are some significant quotes representing the general spirit of GCOWE…

Luis Bush, President of Partners International, and member of the GCOWE Program Planning Task Force, from Preface: “Working Together Towards 2000” …

Let the barriers between organizations and denominations not keep us from cooperating in the task of world evangelization. The task of world evangelization by the year 2000 is too great for any single organization or denomination to adopt on its own.

From the Great Commission Manifesto, Jan. 8, 1989, Singapore …

…We humbly confess our pride, prejudice, competition and disobedience that have hindered our generation from effectively working at the task of world evangelisation. These sins have impeded God’s desire to spread abroad His gracious provision of eternal salvation through the precious blood of His Son, Jesus Christ. We turn from these sins and failures to express our belief that God has graciously opened to us a window of opportunity for completing the magnificent task He has given us. We boldly seize this crucial moment, more impressed with God’s great power than any force arrayed against us…We see afresh that cooperation and partnership are absolute necessities if the Great Commission is going to be fulfilled by the Year 2000. For the sake of those who are lost and eternally separated from God, we have dared to pray and dream of what might happen if appropriate autonomy of churches and ministries could be balanced with signficant partnership…

Thomas Wang, International Director Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, from “The Call: Cleansing for the Countdown” …

Sometimes when I am asleep, I seem to hear God ringing a bell up in heaven telling the churches of the world, “Gentlemen, time is up pretty soon. It’s time to get serious, to renounce your petty arrogance, pride and prejudice. It’s time to get together, to have open, bigger hearts. It’s time to shift into high gear. You have been delaying for two thousand years. Most of that time you have spent fighting among yourselves—fighting for turn, fighting over ownership, fighting for boundary, fighting for self-exaltation. Gentlemen, it’s time for you to become a little more serious.

From A Kaleidoscopic Global Plan, 3rd edition, November 28, 1988, put together by a Working Group composed of 15 interdenomi- nationally representative members, including David Barrett, an Anglican missions researcher, who in 1985, upon the invitation of Keith Parks, had moved his World Christian Encyclopedia research center to the Foreign Mission Board headquarters; and David Garrison, later to become the author of Church Planting Movements, and a leading strategist at the IMB under Jerry Rankin.

From the section on “GREAT COMMISSION CHRISTIANS” (from what I have been able to gather, and I’m open to correction, the term “Great Commission Christians” first came into widespread use at this conference) …

Accept all Great Commission Christians as co-laborers. We are not going to get anywhere fresh until we realize that we in the churches and agencies do not link up with, and are in fact all out of touch with millions of others who are clearly also Great Commission Christians. We should accept those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, in accordance with the Scriptures, and who desire to bring others to faith in him as well, in obedience to Christ’s Great Commission. We don’t have to judge their discipleship, nor to agree with them on lesser matters. Concentrating on the central matter of obedience to Christ the Lord, with hundreds of millions of others so confessing, we form a mighty “force for evangelism”, one single force of Great Commission Christians dedicated to obeying that Commission.

Seek out new relationships with other Great Commission agencies and networks. Today’s agencies should deliberately seek to relate to other Christian agencies that work to fulfill the Great Commission, especially to those in other countries or in distant parts of the world. We are not talking about harmonizing or coming to terms with other doctrines, dogmas, modes of baptism, theologies, methodologies, missiologies, eschatologies, ecclesiologies, nor mergers nor organic church union. We are not talking about structural mergers or pan-Christian unity. We are talking about Great Commission solidarity in all its forms. We are talking only about cooperating in obedience to the Great Commission and its 7 mandates.

I am thrilled that Southern Baptists were able to play an integral part in GCOWE and the entire AD 2000 movement. As the largest evangelical denomination in the world, with the largest international missions agency, we ought to be represented at these types of events. I also believe very much in the general thrust of this movement, as evidenced by the above-mentioned quotes. However, certain things that transpired at Singapore were not quite to the liking of all Southern Baptists, myself included.

For one, Roman Catholic representatives were given a significant platform, and were to some degree embraced as partners in the task of world evangelization. Read, for example, the personal reflections of conference participant David Kitonga …

One issue was whether consultation participant—including such widely diverse groups as the Catholic AD 2000 Movement and evangelicals working in Latin America—could resolve to work together. The differences in opinion suggested that some evangelicals are sensitive to this issue and prefer to move more cautiously as they consider cooperation with the traditionally non-evangelical groups, such as the Catholics;

and, Luke Heng Sze Chhoa …

During the consultation, a Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Gino Henriques from India, expressed his personal experience of renewal through the power of the Holy Spirit and Bible study. He now is actively involved in the promotion of a new-life-in-Christ movement and of Bible studies for the Roman Catholic churches in East Asia. I recall vividly Fr. Henriques’ testimony, which touched many hearts, especially that of the president of the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board, who was so moved that he instantaneously embraced Fr. Henriques.

Perhaps even more vexing to many Southern Baptists was the “jab” Keith Parks made in relation to what was later to become known as the Conservative Resurgence, in his message entitled “Bold Mission Thrust” …

In 1976 we launched this “Bold New Thrust,” renewing our commitment to share the gospel in our nation and in our world—just at the time when as a nation we were celebrating our 200th anniversary. The thing started off so well that I personally believe Satan decided he ought to do something about that. Starting in 1979, there developed in our denomination a controversy that has diverted our attention from the main task of sharing the gospel with the world. All of us regret this development and are praying that somehow, in some way, we can have the spiritual maturity to move past arguing and fighting among ourselves in a greater concentration of effort toward winning the world for Christ. Part of our problem has been that our denomination functions in such a fluid way that those who led in shaping the “Bold Mission Thrust” have now moved off the scene. Those who have taken their places were not a part of the original ownership and are not, perhaps, as committed to the concept. The result is spiritual apathy, prayerlessness, and self-centeredness—things we’ve talked about here, which are a real part of our problem in trying to do what we committed ourselves to in terms of the “Bold Mission Thrust.”

I believe it was due in great part to these unfortunate events that Southern Baptist participation in the AD 2000 movement, and cooperation with other evangelical groups for world missions, got somewhat of a “bad rap” with some significant Southern Baptist conservative leaders. Shortly thereafter, Keith Parks would no longer be president of the FMB, and the FMB would become known as the IMB. I, for one, am glad that new leadership, under new president Jerry Rankin, had the vision and presence of mind to not “throw out the baby with the bath water” regarding all of this, so to speak. But I’ll leave that for another post…

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 9

One of the most important Historical Documents for us as Southern Baptists is the Baptist Faith and Message. Most readers of this blog will be aware there are three different versions, adopted subsequently in 1925, 1963, and 2000. Among the issues dealt with in these statements is included the issue of Cooperation, both with other Baptists, as well as with Christians of other denominations.

The reading of the 1963 and 2000 statements on the subject of Cooperation is exactly the same:

XIV. Cooperation

Christ's people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ's Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ's people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.

Exodus 17:12; 18:17ff.; Judges 7:21; Ezra 1:3-4; 2:68-69; 5:14-15; Nehemiah 4; 8:1-5; Matthew 10:5-15; 20:1-16; 22:1-10; 28:19-20; Mark 2:3; Luke 10:1ff.; Acts 1:13-14; 2:1ff.; 4:31-37; 13:2-3; 15:1-35; 1 Corinthians 1:10-17; 3:5-15; 12; 2 Corinthians 8-9; Galatians 1:6-10; Ephesians 4:1-16; Philippians 1:15-18.

On the subject of Cooperation, the 1925 version is only slightly different, and reads as follows:

XXII. Co-Operation

Christ's people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure co-operation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over each other or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. Individual members of New Testament churches should co-operate with each other, and the churches themselves should co-operate with each other in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent program for the extension of Christ's Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary co-operation for common ends by various groups of Christ's people. It is permissable and desirable as between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such co-operation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and his Word as revealed in the New Testament.

Ezra 1:3-4; 2:68-69; 5:14-15; Neh. 4:4-6; 8:1-4; Mal. 3:10; Matt. 10:5-15; 20:1-16; 22:1-10; Acts 1:13-14; 1:21:26; 2:1,41-47; 1 Cor. 1:10-17; 12:11-12; 13; 14:33-34,40; 16:2; 2 Cor. 9:1-15; Eph. 4:1-16; 3 John 1:5-8.

It is clear, on the basis of these statements, that Southern Baptists, in general, believe in cooperation, not only with other Baptists, but as well, with Christians of other denominations. The difference between us may be found in our interpretation of the phrase: "when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament." Certain types of cooperation that, for me, involve "no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament," for you, may indeed involve "violation of conscience" or "compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament." It is thus my understanding, that, while the general concept of cooperation with other Christians, Baptist or otherwise, is indubitably affirmed as a principle accepted by Southern Baptists, the specific application of this principle depends on differing interpretations of the wording of this statement.

It is interesting to me, however, that, in spite of the clear reference in the Baptist Faith and Message, in the article explaining the point on Cooperation written by Southern Seminary Professor on Christian Missions and Evangelism, Mark Terry, and linked on the sbc.net page referencing the Baptist Faith and Message, there is comparatively very little mention to cooperation with believers outside the Southern Baptist Convention.

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 8

In 1994, when my wife, Kelly, and I went through IMB orientation, one of the presenters who came to talk to the group of new missionaries was Glenn Iglehart, Director of the Department of Interfaith Witness at the old S.B.C. Home Mission Board. I was frankly a bit surprised and concerned to find out we had someone as openly ecumenical as Iglehart come to speak to us about “Interfaith Witness”. At this time, Jerry Rankin was still quite new at the IMB, and many changes which were to take place later still had not come into force. The following quotes from Iglehart’s chapter on “Ecumenical Concerns among Southern Baptists” in the book Baptists & Ecumenism, edited by Iglehart and William Jerry Boney, give some good background information on Southern Baptist involvement in the ecumenical movement. It is important to remember that this book was published in 1980, before we had really seen a whole lot of the effects of the Conservative Resurgence upon the S.B.C.

Two decades of openness to things ecumenical were launched in 1889 by T. T. Eaton, editor of the Kentucky Baptist state paper, The Western Recorder, and pastor of the Walnut Street Baptist Church in Louisville. Although Episcopal Bishop Charles H. Brent is usually named as the one who first proposed a Faith and Order Conference at the close of the 1910 International Missions Conference, Eaton had made the same proposal eleven years earlier. In an editorial discussing the broadening interest in Christian unity, he stressed that the only path to Christian unity was on the basis of scripture. Therefore, he proposed that “representative men and competent scholars” from the various Christian denominations come together to “consider the differences of belief from the Bible standpoint.” The next summer at the 1890 annual meeting of the S.B.C., the Convention adopted a resolution presented by Eaton suggesting that such a meeting of representative scholars be held, and that the results “be widely published in all denominational papers, so that the Christian public may be thoroughly informed” and that “progress may be made toward true Christian union.” (p. 50)

In 1904, the Convention declined to become involved in the preliminary efforts that led to the formation of the Federal Council of Churches. (p. 51)

The Foreign Mission Board had been a member of the interdenominational Foreign Mission Conference of North America since 1893, but statements adopted in the 1910’s revealed their rising doubts of the value of this ecumenical linkage. After the S.B.C. action in 1919, they stopped sending representatives to the conference that same year. (p. 53)

In 1932, and again in 1937, the Convention declined to send “delegates” to the upcoming World Conference on Faith and Order, citing that the S.B.C. had no ecclesiastical function.

The Foreign Mission Board in 1938 began sending representatives again to the Foreign Mission Conference of North America and continued to do so until dropping out when the Conference went into the N.C.C.C. in 1950.

Having established a precedent in both position and rationale in declining to join conciliar forms of ecumenism, the Southern Baptist Convention used the same pattern in 1938, 1940, and 1948 statements. The 1938 statement was almost a copy of the 1914 Pronouncement. The 1940 and 1948 statements declined invitations to consider membership in the World Council of Churches. (p. 54)

A third event in 1965 that would have a great effect on the future of S.B.C. relationships with other Christians was the creation within the Home Mission Board of a Department of Work Related to Nonevangelicals. This department had an initial focus on four groups: Catholicism, Judaism, world religions, and sectarian movements. Its intent was primarily apologetics, but the writings of its first director, Joseph R. Estes, showed a concern for accuracy and irenicism, especially with Catholics. Baptist publications sought to interpret the new initiatives of Roman Catholics after Vatican II, and to address ecumenical subjects. The interest in ecumenism was further illustrated by the founding of an Ecumenical Institute in 1968 by Wake Forest University, a Baptist school. Brooks Hays, former Arkansas member of Congress, was named its first director. In 1969, the Ecumenical Institute conducted the first Roman Catholic-Southern Baptist dialogue. In their summer meeting of that year, the Baptist World Alliance executive committee established a new standing Commission on Cooperation with Other Christians. Thus in the denomination and within the wider Baptist family, Southern Baptists came to look more carefully at the ecumenical challenge. (p. 56)

Since 1975, the Department of Interfaith Witness of the Home Mission Board has promoted two-church dialogue between SBC and Roman Catholic local congregations. A growing number of churches each year have engaged in these two-session meetings, which include a typical worship service in each congregation followed by a fellowship hour and presentations on the distinctive beliefs of each communion. A follow-up committee representing the two congregations plans for other joint ministries and meetings. In 1979 more than four thousand persons took part in these ecumenical events. (p. 57)

However, the lack of official membership has not meant the total lack of contact between the S.B.C. and the W.C.C. and N.C.C.C. Almost all Convention program agencies engage in professional ecumenical contacts with their counterparts in the conciliar as well as other modes of ecumenical organizations. The W.C.C. Commission on Faith and Order has had S.B.C. members since at least 1961, and there have been S.B.C. observers at all of the recent W.C.C. General Assemblies. There have been occasional S.B.C. observers at meetings of the N.C.C.C. Governing Board. Other examples of agency relations to the N.C.C.C. include: the Home Mission Board’s Language Missions Division has worked with Church World Service in Vietnamese refugee resettlement; the Sunday School Board has been related to the International Sunday School Lessons unit; the Home Mission Board’s Department of Interfaith Witness works with the N.C.C.C. Task Force on Christian-Muslim Relations, and the Advisory Committee on Christian-Jewish Relations; and there are three Southern Baptists on the N.C.C.C. Faith and Order Commission. In all of these relationships, the S.B.C. programs and persons fit into the N.C.C.C.’s provisions for non-member bodies to participate in their interests and programs. (pp. 58-59)

A major catalyst for ecumenical vision and activity among Southern Baptists has been the Department of Interfaith Witness. It has the largest fulltime staff (eight) of any Protestant denomination for trans-denominational and trans-faith relations. Its goals are to share the claims of Christ with the non-Christian, to advocate the importance of personal faith among Christian groups, and to challenge deviations from biblical teaching in Christian sectarian movements. But this activity also promotes genuine ecumenical contacts with Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and Protestants. The aim of this program is not to make all persons Baptist but to express concern that all might be believing and active Christians. This program is decidedly denominational in orientation but is also openly ecumenical. (p. 59)

As Southern Baptists stand at the threshold of the 1980’s, their diversity is seen in their attitudes and actions related to other Christians. The vast majority are very denominationally oriented, and their energies are totally consumed in channels of mission and ministry solely related to their own denomination at local church, association, state, and national levels. Others, and their number increases slowly, have a broader view of the Christian task and the Christian family with whom they relate, and they are open to relating with other Christians, especially in local communities. Even on the national level, Southern Baptist agencies are gaining more experience and thus more confidence in relating ecumenically to other Christian bodies, which will have long-term effect.

The prospects of membership of the S.B.C. in the N.C.C.C. and W.C.C. are still slim, given the stereotyped image these bodies have in S.B.C. life of being theologically and socially liberal in nature. This will not, however, prevent more contacts and relationships that are felt to be mutually beneficial.

The SBC is built upon a sense of mission, of sharing God’s good news with all persons in the world. That this mission shall be perceived as including the sharing of the Baptist witness with other Christians in other denominations and searching with them for truth beyond any present denominational structure is a hope for which Southern Baptist ecumenists pray. (p. 60)

I think it is important to point out that when I (and I believe many others like me) talk about Baptist cooperation with other Evangelicals in World Missions, I am not talking about ecumenism in the same way Iglehart (and others like him) talk about it. I am talking about cooperation (not ecclesiastical union) with other evangelical groups (not Roman Catholics or liberal Protestants). I certainly do not believe we need to cooperate in evangelism with groups whose official teachings would not lead you on the path to salvation (by grace through faith alone).

I believe it is important to not forget that, at least from certain sectors, up until quite recently, we as Southern Baptists have been dangerously open to ecumenism a la the N.C.C.C. and W.C.C. I, frankly, have been concerned with attitudes on the part of some former co-workers regarding possibilities of working together with Roman Catholics in Spain. I am happy that Dr. Rankin has strongly affirmed the IMB’s commitment towards continuing to view Roman Catholics, as well as any who do not embrace a biblical plan of salvation, as worthy “targets” of our evangelistic efforts.

That is why when someone like Malcom Yarnell suggests that I have embraced “ecumenical ecclesiology” (see previous post) I feel a need to clearly explain what I am talking about.

See also...

SBC Resolution on Missions, May 1912
SBC Resolution on Cooperation with Other Christians, May 1961
SBC Resolution on Southern Baptists and Ecumenism, June 1996

Trustee Jerry Corbaley's Defense of IMB Policy on Tongues

IMB trustee Jerry Corbaley has recently posted on his blog a rather lengthy defense of the new IMB policy disallowing missionary candidates who profess to have a "private prayer language" from missionary service.

I have sent a correspondingly lengthy reply to his comments page, which I hope will soon appear there. In the meantime, I am including my reply as the first comment on this post here (Go to comments).

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 7

From a historical point of view, it would be an error to attribute the proclivity of Southern Baptists towards avoiding cooperation with other evangelical groups solely to the Landmarkist Movement. The Landmarkists, while emphasizing specifically Baptist distinctives, and eschewing cooperation with non-Baptists, have at the same time traditionally defended, more than perhaps anyone, the autonomy of the local church.

Regarding the new IMB policies related to new missionary candidates and "private prayer language", and baptism, it is somewhat ironic that Landmarkism is being referenced as a major influence, in light of comments such as the following by J. R. Graves, in an article pubished in 1858 in The Tennessee Baptist…

We do not believe that the Foreign Board has any right to call upon the missionaries that the churches send to China or Africa, to take a journey to Richmond to be examined touching their experience, call to the ministry, and soundness in the faith. It is a high-handed act, and degrades both the judgment and authority of the Church and presbytery that ordained him, thus practically declaring itself above both.

In light of the recent developments in the IMB, I have been going over recently the book The Southern Baptist Convention and its People 1607-1972, written by Robert A. Baker, and published in 1974 by Broadman Press. One of the chief developments that Baker traces throughout the book is what he calls "denominational consciousness". It is my conviction that this "denominational consciousness", while at many times, directly at odds with Landmarkism, has had the overarching effect of promoting a denominational unity, based many times on common methodology and structures, which largely has come at the expense of a more evangelical unity, based on a common relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and a common commitment to biblical essentials.

Consider, for instance, the following quotes from Baker…

"It will be recalled that the three principal societies in the North were organized in such fashion as to minimize denominationalism while emphasizing the appeal of a particular benevolence. The society method stressed independency; the convention method stressed connectionalism or denominationalism… Had the South simply formed separate benevolent societies for each type of activity, it would have been possible for the various societies, conceived as they were, to relate to one another on the basis of their common task, whether located in the North or the South. It is doubtful that a denominational rigidity would have developed… The organization of a territorial convention, on the other hand, brought a geographical consciousness and a total denominational loyalty, still intensified by sectional passions, into structured form in the South." (pp. 242-43)

"In 1893 the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a resolution which marked the beginning of [the Baptist Young People’s Union of America] in its structure. The resolution recommended that young people form societies that were "strictly Baptistic and denominational and be under the sole authority of the local church without interdenominational affiliation." (p. 275)

"James E. Tull is probably correct in suggesting that Landmark ideas had filtered into the bloodstream of Southern Baptists, for some of them are still evident; but the radical denominational enlargement and concentration beyond the local church level that took place in the early decades of the twentieth century in the structure and functions of the Southern Baptist Convention point unerringly to the disintegration and overbalancing of Landmark views. A strong Landmark undercurrent would have rendered impossible what took place in Southern Baptist organizational life between 1917 and 1972." (p. 284)

"… standardized methods and uniform structural patterns were developed by talented men in leadership and exploited through financial assistance to seminaries and state bodies, magnified in the literature used by almost every Southern Baptist church, and promoted through field workers, study courses, state papers, and all other media of Southern Baptist information. The effect on the life of Southern Baptists can hardly be estimated. New direct leadership was provided at the Convention level and channeled through parallel structures developed in the states and associations for each benevolence (i.e., Sunday School, Training Union, Vacation Bible School, etc.) so that churches were provided patterns, motivation, and nearby assistance in the promotion of all of these areas of service. These were large factors in developing the denominational consciousness of Southern Baptists that tied them to the structures, methods, and doctrines of the Southern Baptist Convention." (p. 296)

"Reference has already been made to the unifying effect of the work of the Sunday School Board. Another significant factor was Woman’s Missionary Union. Following the organization of their general body in 1888, they rapidly became a substantial cohesive force in their state and Convention-wide programs of devotion, missionary education, enlistment in missionary activity, and promotion. The impact of these and other influences on the constituency of the Southern Baptist Convention, unifying all of their denominational loyalties in a single general body and interlacing their religious activities in common denominational patterns, can explain the reluctance of Southern Baptist people to affiliate with even other Baptist churches of the same general doctrinal stance in states outside of the South." (p. 337)

What is my point in this post? To defend Landmarkism? No, I definitely do not believe that Landmarkism is the direction we need to go as Southern Baptists. However, at the same time, I recently added my name to the list of "adjunct signees" of the Memphis Declaration, indicating my agreement (along with the rest of the statement) with Point 6, a point most avowed Landmarkists would gladly sign as well:

We publicly repent of having misplaced our priorities on the building and sustaining of institutions of secondary and far inferior importance than the local church.

Therefore, we renew our pledge to the local church as the primary focus of our ministry and service to advance the Kingdom of God and bring glory to his Son.

My point is, it doesn’t matter if you are Landmarkist or Denominationalist, if your views on ecclesiology keep you from strategic cooperation and fellowship with other born-again, biblically conservative, evangelical Christians, you are going against the wishes of our Lord expressed in John 17.20-23 and 1 Corinthians 1.10-17, and may well be more of an obstacle than a help in the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

State Baptist Newspaper Editorials

Just in case you missed them, here are a few links to some recent editorials on issues of interest to readers of this blog...

A Tale of Two Baptist Mission Boards by Kentucky Western Recorder editor Trennis Henderson

Rankin not Responsible for Latest IMB Controversy by The Alabama Baptist editor Bob Terry

Will the spirit of Memphis bring a fresh wind to Greensboro? by North Carolina Biblical Recorder editor Tony W. Cartledge

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 6

Roughly about the same time J.R. Graves was promoting "Old Landmarkism" in the United States, another Baptist leader across the ocean was dealing with what he considered to be doctrinal problems in his own denomination in a very different manner. I invite you to read now from Charles H. Spurgeon's sermon The Eternal Name, preached May 27, 1855, at Exeter Hall, Strand, England, the following excerpt...

I am not particularly anxious about my own name, whether that shall endure for ever or not, provided it is recorded in my Master's book. George Whitefield, when asked whether he would found a denomination, said, "No; Brother John Wesley may do as he pleases, but let my name perish; let Christ's name last for ever." Amen to that! Let my name perish; but let Christ's name last for ever. I shall be quite contented for you to go away and forget me. I shall not see the faces of half of you again, I dare say; you may never be persuaded to step within the walls of a conventicle; you will think it perhaps not respectable enough to come to a Baptist meeting. Well, I do not say we are a very respectable people; we don't profess to be; but this one thing we do profess, we love our Bibles; and if it is not respectable to do so, we do not care to be had in esteem. But we do not know that we are so disreputable after all; for I believe, if I may state my own opinion, that if Protestant Christendom were counted out of that door—not merely every real Christian, but every professor—I believe the Paedo-Baptists would have no very great majority to boast of. We are not, after all, such a very small, disreputable sect. Regard us in England, we may be; but take America, and Jamaica, and the West Indies, and include those who are Baptists in principle, though not openly so, and we surrender to none, not even to the established church of this country, in numbers. That, however, we care very little about; for I say of the Baptist name, let it perish, but let Christ's name last for ever. I look forward with pleasure to the day when there will not be a Baptist living. I hope they will soon be gone. You will say, Why? Because when everybody else sees baptism by immersion, we shall be immersed into all sects, and our sect will be gone. Once give us the predominance, and we are not a sect any longer. A man may be a Churchman, or a Wesleyan, or an Independent, and yet be a Baptist. So that I say, I hope the Baptist name will soon perish; but let Christ's name last for ever.

While I am at it, I would like to highly recommend the reading of an article on the ecclesiology of Charles H. Spurgeon, which can be found here, and which, incidently, reflects my personal views on the subject almost exactly. As you read each page, be sure to go to the bottom of the page and continue to click forward to the next page until you reach the end of the article. Take my word. I think the entire read will be well worth your time.

Memphis Declaration

Many, if not most of you who read this blog will no doubt already be aware of the "Memphis Declaration" released on Wednesday, May 3, by a group of 31 Southern Baptists concerned about directions within the Convention. For what it's worth, I wanted to publicly say that I wholeheartedly endorse this document, and recommend that you carefully and prayerfully read what it says here.

Historical Documents: Baptist-Evangelical Cooperation in World Missions, Part 5

In relation to recent developments having to do with the International Mission Board, the term "landmarkism" has been getting quite a bit of press. This post will be a bit long, with several different quotes from several different sources. But I believe it is important for understanding issues that we are facing.

In the past month, several bloggers have written from various angles about the topic of "landmarkism", including Wade Burleson, here, here, and here. I do not intend to just rehash what has already been written, but hopefully throw in a few new insights as well.

First of all, here is a quote from J.M. Pendleton's An Old Landmark Reset, the work widely regarded as launching the Landmarkist movement...

In this day of spurious liberality and false charity much is said about evangelical denominations and evangelical churches. What is an evangelical denomination? A denomination whose faith and practice correspond with the gospel. What is an evangelical church? A church formed according to the New Testament model. Pedobaptist denominations, therefore, are not evangelical. Pedobaptist churches, as they are called, are not evangelical. There is supposed to be a wonderful virtue in the epithet evangelical. It is used as a balm for many a wound, as a plaster for many a sore. Its application to a denomination is thought to bring the denomination at once within the pale of respectability and fellowship. It is used with injurious latitude of meaning. It gives currency to many doctrines and practices which deserve emphatic condemnation. "Evangelical Alliances," so called, may, for aught I know, have done some good work; but there is danger lest they infuse greater vitality and energy into the errors of those who enter the co-partnership. The religious nomenclature of the age requires serious revision. It is high time to call things by names expressive of their properties. The language of Ashdod should not be heard within the precincts of Zion. Nor should the language of Zion be employed in describing what belongs to Ashdod. More, perhaps, is meant by "the form of sound words" than most persons imagine. But to return from this apparent parent digression.

It is to be hoped that the day of these Union Meetings is passed away, never to return. It is time for it to be understood that Baptists and Pedobaptists can not "walk together," because they are not "agreed." The impossibility of "walking together" without agreement was recognized in the days of the prophets, and why should there be a vain effort to make an impossibility then a possibility now?

A few comments from me on Pendleton before some other quotes and comments...

In Pendleton's time, the term "evangelical" was not as clearly defined as it is today. Although there is still no universal agreement on what it means to be evangelical, at least we do have some pretty good starting places in the Statements of Faith of organizations such as the World Evangelical Alliance and the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization. Although perhaps a bit more justified in Pendleton's time as well, we can no longer make a false dichotomy between "Baptists" and "Pedobaptists" (adherents to infant baptism). Today, there are many "evangelicals" who neither adhere to infant baptism nor choose to identify themselves as "Baptists". In any case, I would disagree with Pendleton's main point that doctrinal errors regarding baptism preclude cooperation in evangelism and missions with groups with whom we as Baptists agree on other essential doctrines.

By far, the most influential leader of the Landmark movement was J.R. Graves. Here are some relevant excerpts from his 1880 treatise, Old Landmarkism: What is it?...

Now the work I have undertaken to accomplish by this "little book" is threefold:

1. To establish the fact in the minds of all, who will give me an impartial hearing, that Baptist churches are the churches of Christ, and that they alone hold, and have alone ever held, and preserved the doctrine of the gospel in all ages since the ascension of Christ.
2. To establish clearly what are the "Old Landmarks," the characteristic principles and policy, of true Baptists in all these ages.
3. To demonstrate, by invincible argument, that treating the ministers of other denominations as the accredited ministers of the gospel, and receiving any of their official acts—preaching or immersion—as scriptural, we do proclaim, louder than we can by words, that their societies are evangelical churches, and their teachings and practices orthodox as our own; and that by so doing we do encourage our own families and the world to enter their societies in preference to Baptist churches, because, with them, the offense of "the cross hath ceased" ...
The name of Old Landmarkers came in this way. In 1854, J. M. Pendleton, of Kentucky, wrote an essay upon this question at my special request, viz.: "Ought Baptists to recognize Pedobaptist preachers as gospel ministers?" which I brought out in tract form, and gave it the title, "An Old Landmark Reset." This calm discussion, which had an immense circulation in the South, was reviewed by many of the leading writers, North and South, and they, by way of reproach called all Baptists "Old Landmarkers" who accepted his conclusions, and the impression was sought to be made that Brother Pendleton and myself were aiming at dividing the denomination and starting a new sect.

From this brief history it will be seen that we, who only deem ourselves "strict Baptists," are not responsible for the name, but our opposers. But that we have no reason to be ashamed of it will be seen by every one who will read this little book. Why should we object to the name "Old Landmarkers," when those ancient Anabaptists, whom we alone represent in this age, were content to be called Cathari and Puritans, which terms mean the same thing as Old Landmarkers? ...

At this writing, January, 1880—and I record it with profound gratitude—there is only one Baptist paper in the South, of the sixteen weeklies, that approve of alien immersion and pulpit affiliation ("The Religious Herald"), while already two papers in the Northern States avow and advocate Landmark principles and practice. I do not believe that there is one association in the whole South that would today indorse an alien immersion as scriptural or valid, and it is a rare thing to see a Pedobaptist or Campbellite in our pulpits, and they are no longer invited to seats in our associations and conventions anywhere South.

The heavy drift of sentiment throughout the whole South, and the "Great West" and Northwest, is strongly in favor of Baptist churches doing their own preaching, ordaining, baptizing, and restricting the participation of the Supper to the members of the local church celebrating it ...

First Inference—That the popular "church-branch theory" is a bald absurdity. That theory, as preached and taught by those who pride themselves upon being "undenominational Christians," is that all these different sects are "branches of the Church." Branch is a relative term, and implies necessarily a trunk or body; but they are unable to tell us what or where the trunk or body of the tree is! But the absurdity of the conception of a tree bearing natural branches of fifteen or twenty different kinds of wood, does not seem to occur to the people or their teachers!

Second Inference—The absurdity of the "church - army theory," which is the popular pulpit illustration with "undenominational preachers." This theory is, that all the different denominations compose but one great army, Christ being the "Captain," and the various sects the regiments, brigades and divisions, and their different creeds the different flags, etc. The illustration breaks down fatally when we remember that the parts of an army are all under the same laws and army regulations, and drilled by the same tactics, and not in conflict, each regiment with every other regiment in the army, as these different denominations, called churches, are—doing the army more deadly harm than the common enemy can do!

Third Inference from the premise is the equal absurdity of the "universal church theory." This theory is, that all the different and opposing sects, taken together, constitute the kingdom of Christ on earth, and all the true Christians in these sects constitute the "invisible, spiritual Church." This theory—of one kingdom, composed of a multitude of discordant elements, irremediably divided against themselves and engaged in destroying each other—is sufficiently noticed above. It is too preposterously absurd to be put forth by men who have any respect for the wisdom of the Divine Founder of the Church. Infidels could wish for no better argument against Christianity. I honestly believe that more infidels are made by those who preach, hold, and teach these absurd and unscriptural church theories than by all the speeches and writings of infidels themselves. Convince a man that it is true that Christ originated all these diverse sects, and is the author of their radically different and mutually destructive faiths, and he must be an infidel or a fool. If they mean invisible kingdom, the reply is, Christ has not two kingdoms or two churches, considered as institutions, for He has but one Bride, and will have but one "wife"—He is not a bigamist ...

It is asserted by the advocates of an "undenominational Christianity," that Baptists and Pedobaptists hold "in common all the fundamental doctrines and essential principles of Christianity, differing only in non-essentials."

This is a thorough misstatement of the known and palpable facts in the case, and calculated to deceive and mislead the unthinking.

Protestants are fundamentally opposed to each other; e.g., the Presbyterians will admit, and openly maintain, that their Calvinism is vitally opposed to the Arminianism of the Methodists, and Methodists will as freely assert that their Arminianism is fundamentally and essentially opposed to Calvinism. Presbyterians hold and teach that Arminianism is subversive of Christianity, and Methodists affirm the same of Calvinism. If one preaches the Gospel, the other certainly does not.

Every sound Baptist in the land will affirm that the fundamental doctrines and principles of Pedobaptism are utterly subversive of the whole system of Christianity. Therefore, it is not true that Baptists and Pedobaptists "hold in common" all the fundamentals of Christianity and are equally evangelical, in doctrine they differ radically.

My comments on Graves...

The arguments of Graves are so complicated and convoluted, it would not be worthwhile to try to make a coherent refutation of them here. Others have already done that much better than I ever could. The main point I wish to make is that the whole of Graves's reasoning seems to be based upon the assumption that it is possible as humans to come upon a near-infallible interpretation of the infallible biblical text, and that we, as Baptists, happen to be the ones who have come upon it.

There are a lot of things about which I am not sure. But I am sure about one thing. And it is this: I am mistaken about a lot of things. This does not in any way mean I have given up hope of discovering truth. But it does help to keep me humble on my path towards the discovery of truth.

I also strongly disagree with Graves's assertion that there is no such thing as a difference between essential and non-essential biblical truth. If this were the case, I would never be able to cooperate with you on anything, and you would never be able to cooperate with me. None of us, except perhaps a few "human robots" out there, agree on 100% of our interpretation of the Bible. However, there are some points of interpretation for me, about which I will not budge, because I consider them to be the very foundation of my faith. You take those away, and I am essentially left with nothing.

Now, before ending this already lengthy post, I would like to leave with you the following insightful comments regarding Landmarkism made by Beeson Divinity School Dean Timothy George in an article in the May 1999 edition of First Things Journal entitled "Southern Baptist Ghosts"...

In an age of intense denominational conflict, Landmarkism reinforced Baptist tendencies to isolation and separatism. If Baptist churches were the only true churches, it followed that Baptist ministers were the only true ministers, and Baptist "ordinances" the only true sacraments. This had practical implications. Many Baptist churches refused to practice open communion or accept the "alien immersion" of prospective members even from other credo baptist denominations. Many Baptist pastors also refused to hold "pulpit affiliation" with non–Baptist ministers. All of this ran counter to the historic Baptist doctrine of the universal church, invisible and indivisible, the one Body of Christ scattered throughout time as well as space. In his 1849 manual on Church Polity, J. L. Reynolds defined the church in this wider sense: "It is this community of believers, the household of God, the whole family in Heaven and Earth, that constitutes the Holy Catholic Church, the kingdom of Christ in its internal development."

Landmarkism posed a serious challenge to interdenominational cooperation between Baptists and other mainline evangelical traditions. Yet Baptists arguably had benefited more than any other group from the First Great Awakening (1740–1760), an inter denominational extravaganza if ever there was one. Interdenominational cooperation bolstered all the arms—education, benevolence, and missions—of the SBC. This sort of evangelical synergism became increasingly difficult with the rise of Landmarkism (which also coincided with the controversy over slavery, the separation of Northern and Southern Baptists, and the Civil War).

Around the turn of the century, the staunchest Landmark advocates separated from the SBC to form their own denominations, which continue to this day, largely centered in Arkansas and Texas. Many congregations within the SBC still practice closed communion and insist on re–baptizing new members who come from non–Baptist traditions. But the greatest influence of Landmarkism in Southern Baptist life is a deep–seated antipathy to anything that smacks of ecumenism.

The Controversy, however, has posed a new challenge to Baptist isolation and anti–ecumenism. Three of the most nationally visible Southern Baptist leaders over the past thirty years, each of them claimed as allies by SBC conservatives, are Billy Graham, Carl F. H. Henry, and Charles Colson. Yet each is primarily identified with the larger evangelical, i.e., interdenominational, constituency, not with internal Southern Baptist structures.

How can Southern Baptists with their strong Landmark suspicions relate to the wider evangelical community? One way to understand The Controversy is to see it, in some measure, as the "evangelicalizing" of the SBC. The evidence for this phenomenon is incontestable: the influx of non–SBC evangelical scholars into Baptist seminaries; the changing of the name of the Baptist Sunday School Board to the more generic LifeWay Christian Resources; the presence and high profile of non–Baptist leaders on SBC platforms, e.g., the closing message at the 1998 SBC delivered by Dr. James Dobson, a Nazarene; the aggressive participation of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission as an advocate for the conservative side of the culture wars conflict; new patterns of cooperation between SBC mission boards and evangelical ministries such as Promise Keepers, Campus Crusade for Christ, the National Association of Evangelicals, Prison Fellowship, and World Vision.

The cooperation between Southern Baptists and evangelicals signals a new day, but it may also come with a price, namely, the diminution of Baptist identity and a sense of uprootedness from a particular tradition. This concern has been voiced by some SBC moderates who have long resisted the coopting of the SBC by evangelicals. For example, back in 1976, the "Year of the Evangelical" that witnessed the election of born–again President Jimmy Carter, an SBC moderate leader protested the easy identification of Southern Baptists and evangelicals: "We are not evangelicals. That’s a Yankee word. They want to claim us because we are big and successful and growing every year. But we have our own traditions, our own hymns, and more students in our seminaries than they have in all of theirs put together." While this sounds like simple old–fashioned Southern Baptist brag and strut, it reveals a more deep–rooted concern for an evaporating sense of identity in an increasingly post–denominational world.

The ghost of J. R. Graves still stalks the Southern Baptist Zion, forcing a new generation to face old questions about the marks of the church and the limits of Christian fellowship.

And now my closing comments...

I think Dr. George offers some very important insights. Although there may have been a time when it seemed like the "ghost" of landmarkism was no longer with us as Southern Baptists, it indeed seems to be making a last-ditch effort to rise again. I, for one, am glad for the "evangelicalizing" of the SBC. I believe that Biblical Christian unity is more important than a "deep-rooted concern for an evaporating sense of (denominational) identity." I do not believe in an ecumenism that compromises on essential biblical doctrine. And I do not believe we as Baptists necessarily have to give up our convictions on believers' baptism by immersion in order to cooperate with other conservative evangelicals in world missions. Sometimes the exact way of how to best do this may be a bit tricky to find. Sometimes, along the way, it may get "messy". But I believe the alternative is much worse.

BREAKING NEWS!! (updated)

Check it out at friesville::micah fries.

Yesterday when I posted this, I didn't have time to write anything else, but wanted to help get the word out about the good news that the "D's", the couple who had been asked to resign from their missionary job in West Africa by their IMB Regional Leader (see my post The Souls of Pickles and Church Planting in West Africa), have been officially "reinstated to the field" by IMB administration, according to Micah Fries's blog, Friesville.

I will add here the comment I already posted on Micah's blog:

Wonderful news!!! Hopefully this will prove to have been a good test case to show that we as Southern Baptists and IMB, in particular, have indeed left our chequered past of landmarkism behind us. Hopefully those trustees who feel otherwise will see the writing on the wall.