A Reply to Hershael York on "PPL"

A few days ago, Hershael York left the following comment on another post on this blog:

David: You probably don't even know who I am, but like so many others I am tremendously indebted to your dad who mentored me and encouraged me so much. I have just posted a lengthy article about why I affirm the IMB position on speaking in tongues in private (I don't use the PPL nomenclature). I welcome lively but loving discussion and debate. I have strong convictions on this, as you will see. BTW, I am going on the IMB as a trustee and you can count on my prayerful support and encouragement. I hope to see you on the mission field one day.

My comment in response to him was:

Hershael,

Welcome to Love Each Stone. I have been somewhat aware of you due to other references I have seen in the blogosphere and Baptist Press. I am happy to hear of my Dad's impact in your life and ministry. I miss him very much, and am pleased to hear, as I do often, of how others have been blessed by him. I read your article. I congratulate you on doing a good job of articulating clearly your position. It is one of the better articles arguing against the use of "PPL" that I have read.

Although I don't have the same academic credentials as you, I have also studied and written quite extensively on this same subject. I imagine we would both be in agreement that it is ironic that the whole subject of "tongues," which Paul says is the least important of all the gifts, would lead to so much discussion. I wish that didn't have to be the case. I think there are far more important things to spend our time on. However, when such things as the sending of missionary workers, and fellowship with other believers, are affected by the positions we take, the discussion all of the sudden finds a way of becoming much more relevant.

In light of your invitation to "lively but loving discussion and debate," perhaps when I find the time to do so, I will write some response to your article. In the meantime, I would be honored if you would interact more directly with some of the things I have written here at Love Each Stone, both on the subject of "PPL" as well as other matters. I do look forward to meeting you on the mission field, and thank you for your support and encouragement.

Although, quite frankly, I am getting a bit tired of talking about PPL, I will now acquiesce one more time and post here my contribution to the "lively and loving discussion and debate" on this issue to which I understand Brother Hershael to be inviting me in his comment. Because my response is too lengthy to post on his own blog, I include here the original text of his post (in normal font), and my response, at various places throughout the text in bold italic font.

"It's Not a Language, It's Not Prayer, and Now It's Not Private Either," by Hershael York

HY: Tongues was dead, to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of its burial was signed by the clergyman, the clerk, the undertaker, and the chief mourner. Southern Baptists signed it. And the Southern Baptist name was good upon 'Change, for anything he chose to put his hand to.

Old Tongues was as dead as a door-nail.

Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Convention’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Tongues was as dead as a door-nail.

And then it made a reappearance. Not a resurrection such as God performs, but a hollow, emaciated, transparent apparition of its former self. No longer the powerful means of gospel proclamation God intended, but now a self-edifying self-gratification of a self-centered self-indulgent generation. The gift that God gave as a sign to unbelievers has given way to the ecstatic gutterances of the prayer closet more enamored with emotion than expression.

I hope to make a clear statement with the goal of accomplishing several things. First, I will lay out the textual case against so-called private prayer language. Exegetically, that is not what the text says. I will not here make the case for the cessation of supernatural gifts because I am agnostic on that issue. I cannot say with all confidence that the proper understanding of the New Testament inexorably leads me to conclude that tongues have ceased. What I can say with certitude is that what Southern Baptists are debating today is NOT the tongues of the New Testament, but only the poor imitation of it, the only benefit of which is the emotional experience of the practitioner. In addition, I am going to walk through those verses that most use to defend this practice and show that they actually indicate the opposite.

Second, I will show that the use of tongues in private prayer negates the stated biblical purpose of tongues. Evangelistically, that is not what the world needs.

Third, I will argue that this is a new phenomenon and that makes it suspect. Historically, it is not what Baptists have believed, and the fact that today 50% of SBC pastors consider it a valid gift is cause for repentance, not rejoicing.

Finally, I will argue that the IMB policy is precisely correct because we are not charismatic. To open this door a little is to open it all the way. Under no logic, biblical or philosophical, could one argue that tongues are acceptable in private but not in public. How could we consistently affirm missionaries that believe in speaking in tongues, but censure or eliminate those who believe they have the gift of prophecy? Philosophically, that is not what Southern Baptists need.

The Exegetical Case

HY: I was incredulous when I read Dwight McKissic's blog in which he argued that the primary motivation for rejection of tongues was emotional prejudice that needed to be abandoned like the SBC's former affirmation of slavery. He wrote: "How could a convention that is usually biblio-centric (sic) and exegetically accurate reject plain, clear, scriptural, authoritive (sic), inerrant and infallible biblical truth regarding the Spirit’s gifting of some believers to pray in tongues in private according to the sovereign will of God (I Corinthians 12:7,10, 30; 14:2, 4, 5, 13-15)?" Don't charismatic denominations ask that same question with regard to public tongues in a worship service?

But before I examine these verses, I am going to be a fool. I feel like Paul felt when he compared his resume with those of his opponents. I don't think that my academic credentials are necessary for proper biblical interpretation. In fact, I think the obvious and natural meaning of the words and their context are readily intelligible, but just in case someone may put stock in such things, I will share that I am well schooled in Greek and the New Testament. I studied Greek for two years as an undergraduate at the University of Kentucky. Twice I won the National Greek Examination Award. In my senior year I won the Classical Award from the department. Then I did a master's degree in Classical Languages, concentrating entirely on Greek. By the time I got to seminary I already had more Greek study (approximately 50 hours) on my transcript than any of my seminary professors (not counting their years of teaching it, of course!). It was classical Greek, however, and not koine, so my MDiv and my PhD in Greek and New Testament helped me make the transition to the Greek of the Bible and I have applied myself to studying it, reading it, and teaching it ever since. I am currently writing the commentary on 1 Corinthians for Kent Hughes' Preaching the Word series published by Crossway, so I have no light interest in these things.

Now with that out of the way, let's look at Paul's argument. He is clearly writing to a church that has abused, misused, and misunderstood the gifts God has given them. The gift of tongues was perhaps the most misused of the Corinthians' gifts. In response, Paul reminds them of certain parameters within which the gifts should be used. Three truths about the gifts emerge: first, a sovereign God gives them to whomever He chooses. Consequently, one should find no reason for either boasting or jealousy in one's gifts or lack thereof. Second, Paul makes it clear that the one who has the gift is in control of the gift, or else prescribing the way to use it would be nonsensical. "The spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets" (1 Cor. 14:32) means that no one ever falls into a trance and is uncontrollable or merely passive in the use of the gift. Third, the purpose of the gifts is the edification of the church.

DR: Although one of the principal uses, and quite likely the principal use, of spiritual gifts is the edification of the church, I see nowhere it is specifically stated that the only purpose of the gifts is the edification of the church. It is true that 1 Cor. 12:7 in the NIV says “the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.” However, the correct translation of this verse is not quite so clear, as evidenced by versions such as:

The Message--"Each person is given something to do that shows who God is: Everyone gets in on it, everyone benefits."

Young’s Literal Translation--"And to each hath been given the manifestation of the Spirit for profit."

Holman Christian Standard Bible--"A manifestation of the Spirit is given to each person to produce what is beneficial."

King James Version--"But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal."

Also, there is a very real sense in which, as each one is edified individually, the end-result is the overall edification of the Body at large.

HY: After explaining the prerogative of God in dispensing the gifts (1 Cor. 12:1-11), he immediately launches into the purpose of God, which is to be used in the body (1 Cor. 12:12-31).

But what is the gift of tongues? Simply put, the gift of tongues is the ability to speak in a human language that one has never studied or learned. The gift of tongues is clearly defined in Acts 2:4-12. People from all over Europe, Asia, and Africa were present, and each one heard some of the 120 members of that first church preach the gospel in their own language.

DR: Tongues is not defined in Acts 2. Rather, a specific occurrence of the use of tongues is described.

HY: Paul affirms this as the purpose of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:22 when he writes, "Thus tongues are a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers."

DR: My understanding of 1 Cor. 14:21-22 is that tongues as a “sign for unbelievers” is not precisely as an aid to evangelism, as much as it is a sign of judgment (see Isaiah 28:11-12).

HY: Speaking ecstatic utterances in a personal devotional setting simply does not meet this biblical criterion. With Corinth's unique position on the isthmus between mainland Greece and the Peloponnese, sailors and citizens from all over the Mediterranean world would either live or work there. Ships would often dock on one side of the isthmus, have their cargo carried four miles overland to be put on other ships in order to avoid the treacherous sailing around the land mass. The world came to Corinth, and God graciously gave many in that church the gift of tongues for the purpose of spreading the gospel. The problem arose when they began to use their gifts indiscriminately and for their own benefit. They would speak in tongues when no one else there could understand. They would pray in tongues.

So Paul's correction can be summed up as 1) you must never use tongues when no one can understand you. Either be quiet or make sure an interpreter is present. 2) You must use tongues to proclaim the gospel to unbelievers.

DR: The biblical evidence does not actually point towards tongues being used for an evangelistic purpose. Beyond 1 Cor. 12-14, the only clear mentions of tongues in the Bible are in Acts 2, 10 & 19. In Acts 2, the unbelievers gathered in Jerusalem heard the disciples “declaring the wonders of God” (v. 11), quite possibly, praising and worshiping God. However, the actual gospel proclamation was done by Peter, presumably in either Aramaic or Greek. In Acts 10, tongues was not used for an evangelistic purpose, but rather, apparently, as a confirmation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (vv. 44-48). In Acts 19, practically the same thing occurred (vv. 4-7).

HY: I am trying to be as understanding as possible, but I confess I cannot fathom how someone who reads 1 Corinthians 14:13-19 can reach the conclusion that Paul is saying exactly the opposite thing. If words have meaning at all, Paul says that praying in tongues without understanding makes one's mind "unfruitful" (v. 14). Is that what we're going for? He further says that he chooses to pray with his spirit and his mind. Now if he just said that praying in a tongue makes his mind unfruitful, and if he now says that he chooses to pray with both his spirit and his mind, the only conclusion one can draw is that Paul is saying it's better to pray with words and a fruitful mind than to use the gift to express what you don't understand.

DR: Is it not possible that “praying with the spirit” and “praying with understanding” here are not necessarily simultaneous, but rather two separate types of prayer, both of which are regarded as legitimate? Or that “praying with the spirit” and “praying with understanding,” if understood as both simultaneously, is specifically enjoined here as the preferred or required option in the context of the assembly, but not necessarily as the only option in one’s private prayer life?

HY: He even goes so far as to call them "children" in their thinking for their use of the gift in this way. Bro. McKissic often interprets Paul's rather sarcastic statement of the situation (in 14:2, for instance) as a prescriptive or normative statement with almost imperative force.

DR: Is it not an assumption on your part that Paul’s statement in 14:2 is “sarcastic”? What are the specific hermeneutical clues that point to this verse being sarcastic?

HY: That simply doesn't jive with rest of the chapter, especially after he just told them to grow up in chapter 13!

DR: Is it not possible that the specific “childish” behavior (among others) for which Paul chastises the Corinthians is speaking in tongues publicly without an interpreter?

HY: In all candor, Paul's statement in 14:4 that the one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself ought to be enough to settle the argument. In the verse immediately preceding it and in the phrase immediately following it, Paul contrasts this use of tongues with the superior motive of edifying, encouraging, and comforting others. Where in Scripture are we ever told to use our gifts to edify ourselves?

DR: Jude 20. "But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit."

Although I do not necessarily understand “praying in the Holy Spirit” in Jude 20 to refer exclusively to praying in tongues, and thus, not necessarily a reference to spiritual gifts, it is clear from this passage that it is not necessarily a bad thing to “build ourselves up” or “edify ourselves.” It is also curious, though, the similarity of the language used in 1 Cor. 14:15 “pray in the spirit” (almost certainly alluding to tongues) and Jude 20 “pray in the Holy Spirit.”

Actually, Paul, in 1 Cor. 14:5, immediately after saying that “he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself,” says “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues.”

HY: Isn't this akin to Satan's first temptation of Christ, that He use his power to satisfy Himself? Yet Jesus' life was so other-centered that He never got angry for how He was treated. He never asserted His rights. He never used His miraculous power to satisfy or comfort Himself. Why would we ever think that God has given us gifts to give us the warm fuzzies? By the way, I am not alone in this understanding of the passage. John Stott, John MacArthur, and many, many others see it exactly this way, which makes the charge of exegetical ignorance rather absurd.

Forgive the fingerpointing, but I am sensitive (as well as dubious) of Bro. McKissic's criticism that the IMB policy and those who agree with it lack "exegetical precision." I doubt he means to be arrogant when he says that, but he paints with so broad a brush that it just feels like he thinks we don't take the Scripture seriously--and he does. Now, I don't mind anyone disagreeing with my view of a text, but don't suggest I am not doing my best to derive my view from Scripture.

If Bro. McKissic or anyone who is seriously searching this issue wants me to deal with a text about this subject that I have not done here, please let me know specifically and I will do my best to oblige within the limits of my schedule.

I have a few questions to ask of those who uphold speaking in tongues in private. If God gives the ability to some to pray in tongues in private, does He also give some the gift of prophecy to use in private?

DR: As I understand the gift of prophecy (see Wayne Grudem, "The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today"), there is a sense in which God’s gifting is conferred privately (the actual "revelation" received --though not revelation on the same level as God's infallible revelation in Scripture), although it does not technically become prophecy until it is communicated to others. However, the "revelation" received from God, before it is communicated as prophecy to others, may be of benefit privately to the one who receives it.

HY: Does He still give the entire list of gifts in 1 Cor. 12:8-10?

DR: I personally believe that yes, he does.

HY: Why the preoccupation and prominence of this one?

DR: I imagine because of the same immaturity and lack of balance present in the Corinthian church.

HY: And if you claim to have this gift, how will you deal with those who claim to have some of the other gifts?

DR: With the same discernment, spiritual balance, and deference to sound doctrine that one should use when testing the gift of tongues.

HY: At the core of this whole issue lies a big exegetical and practical question. Is there just one kind of tongues--i.e. known human languages--or are there two, also ecstatic utterances that defy any linguistic analysis? Since the Bible never clearly states that tongues in 1 Corinthians is different from the tongues in Acts, I accept only one kind of tongues.

DR: Yet 1 Cor. 12:10 says there are “different kinds of tongues,” and 1 Cor. 13:1 speaks of the “tongues of men and of angels.” Also, it is possible that the miracle of Acts 2 was a miracle of hearing as well as one of speaking. I am not necessarily arguing in favor of this interpretation, merely pointing it out as one possible explanation.

HY: I usually go with the law of first mention as a hermeneutical principle. In other words, when something is defined at its first occurrence or mention in the Bible, you can take it that same way in all subsequent mentions unless otherwise explicitly stated.

I don't need to know what baptism means in 1 Corinthians, for example, if I know what it means in the gospels.

But for the sake of argument, let's just say there are two. Let's say that God does both. Let's suppose that somewhere between Acts and 1 Corinthians, God also allowed believers to speak in tongues when no unbelievers are around and they themselves don't know what they are saying. Let's also say that He still gives this gift today. My question is this: why do we hear exclusively about this one? Shouldn't we have a few missionaries that we don't have to send to language school. Wouldn't it seem odd that God gives this unverifiable and unintelligible gift so often and seldom bestows the gift that makes even unbelievers sit up and take notice as they did in Acts 2? I think I would find it more plausible to accept the lesser phenomenon as a continuation of New Testament practice if I still saw the more patently miraculous phenomenon on occasion.

DR: I do not consider it to be my prerogative to analyze and pronounce my personal judgment regarding the sovereignty of God in the way He chooses to distribute the gifts.

HY: To summarize, Paul rebukes the Corinthians for their self-edification and reminds them that the focus of the gift of tongues should be on reaching unbelievers. That was the purpose then and if that gift is still given today, that is its purpose even now.

The Evangelistic Case

HY: When I was a child, I could not wait until my father let me mow the yard. We lived in a parsonage next door to the church he pastored and so the church had a riding mower to cut both yards. That was their idea of taking care of the pastor, I suppose. Anyway, I used to love to drive it. After I got old enough to mow the yard, mowing lost its appeal. I still loved to ride the tractor around though; I just hated using it for its intended purpose.

Speaking in tongues to oneself or to God is to enjoy the ride without fulfilling the purpose. Again I ask, even if one were allowed a self-edifying use of tongues, shouldn't he at least use it for an evangelistic purpose some?

If tongues has two purposes, why are we arguing about it for only one use, and that one the most easily self-induced? That leads one to the strong suspicion that this alleged speaking in tongues is a learned behavior, a phenomenon duplicated around the world in many cultural and religious contexts. Preaching the gospel in a language you've never studied--now THAT is impressive and undeniable, exactly what God intended on Pentecost.

Every time Christians use the gift of tongues in Acts, unbelievers of some kind are present.

DR: This is only technically true in Acts 2. In both Acts 10 and 19, it was actually the new believers who were speaking in tongues in the presence of older believers. The text says nothing about unbelievers being present.

HY: Jewish Christians who didn't believe Gentiles should be saved or unregenerate people who didn't believe in Jesus would see this miraculous gift bestowed and it would give them pause. God even used it to speak to Peter's heart at Cornelius' house. When Peter realized that God was giving them the same experience and gifts that he had enjoyed on Pentecost, he knew it was of the Lord (Acts 11:15. Note that tongues aren't specifically mentioned, but Peter says the Holy Spirit fell on them "just as on us at the beginning.").

Everything in the book of Acts and in 1 Corinthians points to the inescapable conclusion that the purpose of tongues is evangelism, and the need is no less desperate today. People throughout the world need Christians who can declare the mighty acts of God in their heart language more than they need Christians who have just had a warm, if incomprehensible, experience.

The Historical Case

HY: My father used to warn me that if I thought I discovered something in the Scriptures that was new, something that no one had ever seen before, I had better be careful. "Don't run too far ahead of the pack," he would say, "or you might discover that you aren't even on the right trail." That was and remains good advice. Though our practice is determined and regulated by Scripture and not experience or history, we nonetheless need to ask why a fence is where it is before we tear it down. Should it not trouble us that none of the founders of the SBC claimed to have a private prayer language? I am not much of a church historian, but I suspect that very few ever claimed such a thing before the Azusa Street revival. Baptists have always been wary of charismatic claims, sometimes to the point of disregarding the Holy Spirit, to be sure. But on the other hand, Baptists (sic) theologians have either ignored or rejected speaking in tongues since it made a reappearance in the early 20th Century.

So what are we to make of the fact that 50% of SBC pastors seem open to speaking in tongues in private? Well, we have to take a historical look at that. The real question is, "What changed?" I doubt anyone would seriously dispute that at the inception of the SBC almost no one of the founders would have looked favorably on the claim that one could pray in tongues. Likewise at 1900 or 1950. So what has happened in the past six decades? In the same way, I am confident that if Lifeway cared to do the research, they would find that a startling number of church members and even pastors today are inclusivists, believe that people who never hear the gospel don't go to hell, and don't think it terribly wrong for a couple who love each other to have sex before marriage. I shutter to think that one or more of those beliefs would make it into the majority category. In my own Association is a pastor who denies the Trinity, mocks the notion of a substitutionary atonement, and believes in a postmortem offer of salvation for everyone.

That fact that we have strayed so far from our historical position on this issue is cause for alarm. Amazingly, some of the very ones who are so intent on leading the convention back to the beliefs of the founders don't mind innovating in this area.

DR: Consistency on this argument would lead us to also reject the Protestant Reformation, the Radical Reformation (including believers baptism by immersion), and the abolition of slavery.

HY: Let's illustrate it another way. Imagine that the issue is not speaking in tongues in private, but snake handling in private. Now I understand that it's not the same thing. I know the justification for snake handling comes from a spurious passage in the longer ending of Mark. I also know that no one in the SBC is clamoring for this practice. But bear with me. Since none of us believe it nor have we encountered it much, we haven't explicitly denied it in any statement of faith. The IMB probably doesn't have a policy against it for candidates. But let's imagine that it begins to catch on, not with uneducated Appalachian Pentecostals, but with some of our best friends. They are people we love and respect. They aren't pushing it as a mandatory practice; they just do it in private as a personal demonstration of faith and as a discipline of trust in the Lord. They are sincere, godly people with a heart for the Lord and a love for His Word. They express that if God has something more for them, then they want it, because they want all that He has for His people. One sincere pastor who does it speaks in a Southern Baptist seminary chapel service and says that God has used it in his life.

What would we do? He appeals to a text of scripture in his KJV as evidence. He has a great track record as a pastor and a godly leader. We like him. Well, I know what we ought to do, but I also know that some, perhaps many, would think that perhaps God does give this man that gift. Who are we to sit in judgment on him?

DR: There is a difference. Snake-handling does not have a clear Scriptural precedent. It actually runs counter to the principle enunciated by Jesus, when tempted by Satan to cast himself from the pinnacle of the temple, to “not tempt the Lord thy God.” Snake-handling exposes one to clear physical dangers.

HY: But we cannot let personality and friendship dictate our understanding of Scripture or our practice of it. If Southern Baptists haven't seen this as a legitimate practice for nearly 150 years, we probably don't have much of a case to start now. It's either right or it's wrong, but it's not seasonal.

The Philosophical Case

HY: The IMB did exactly the correct thing when it adopted the guidelines forbidding missionaries from speaking in tongues unless it is a supernatural gift of God enabling them to preach in a known human language. Imagine the money we could save on the language schools and the year of study we make missionary families endure! The question is certainly not whether or not God can do it, but whether or not He chooses to. To my knowledge, all of our missionary candidates who go to non-English speaking countries have learned their languages in the conventional ways.

Had we experienced a missiological crisis with indigenous Baptists as a result of sending missionaries who accept and advocate this practice the Board would have been reprimanded by Southern Baptists for being asleep at the wheel. By using foresight and vigilance, however, they are criticized for trying to come up with a workable policy before the crisis occurs.

Again I ask each reader to go down the road of imagination with me. Imagine this time that the IMB allows SBC missionaries to speak in tongues in private. Let's just pretend for a moment that the IMB agrees that a biblical case can be made and we should not forbid the practice. Please tell me by what logic, exegetical or ecclesiastical, we could then forbid its public use or the use of the other gifts by those who claim they have them?

DR: By the same logic used in the old, and still extant IMB policy: "Conditions for termination… A persistent emphasis of any specific gift of the Spirit as normative for all or to the extent such emphasis becomes disruptive to the fellowship."

Because the use of tongues is so controversial among Southern Baptists, the public use of tongues or other gifts may well become “disruptive to the fellowship.” On the other hand, there was no reason that the private use of tongues be “disruptive to the fellowship.” On the contrary, it would seem to me that it is rather the prohibition of the private use of tongues that is proving to be “disruptive to the fellowship.” Before the prohibition, there were no “disruptions to fellowship” regarding tongues of which I was aware in the IMB.

HY: At that point we are simply charismatics who believe in eternal security.

DR: Although the term “charismatic” may mean different things to different people, my usual understanding of the term includes the experience of speaking in tongues as a necessary confirmation of a post-conversion “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” This is a clear difference, beyond merely a belief in “eternal security,” between most Southern Baptists who believe in the present-day practice of tongues, whether private or public, and “charismatics.”

HY: Missionaries certainly have a right to that opinion, but they shouldn't go to the field as Southern Baptist missionaries if they do.

I love the Holy Spirit, and I do not want to do anything to cheapen His marvelous work. I long for revival, for an outpouring of the Spirit to deluge our convention and sweep our churches into the streets with a heart to reach the lost, to cool fevered brows, to lighten heavy loads, to mend broken homes, and to feed hungry bodies. I would love to see the Spirit work in an undeniable tidal wave of gifts that are truly supernatural. But when that flood comes, it won't be private and it won't be personal. I would do nothing to quench the Spirit, but neither am I going to attribute to Him that which I can easily explain by the power of man. I want to see an outpouring of God in our day, but I'm not going to call a puddle an ocean just so I can pretend I'm at sea.


My apologies to Charles Dickens for ripping him off in my first three paragraphs.

posted by Hershael W York @ 9:48 AM

Political Expediency & Open Communication

In the past week and a half, I have learned some interesting lessons. For one, if you enter into “politics,” people begin to treat you differently than they did before. Every action you take and every word you speak or write may be analyzed under a magnifying glass, and possibly used against you. You have to be guarded in what you say. Words can be taken out of context, and you can easily be made out to defend points of view with which you do not really agree. You are also faced with the dilemma of either saying things directly, or toning it down a bit, in the interest of political expediency—

If I say it this way, would I run the risk of alienating someone who doesn’t really understand all of the background behind the position I take on this issue? Is there another way to say the same thing, without sounding quite so controversial? Or is there a way to say what I believe that would “strike more of a chord” with the voters, and better serve to “rally the troops” for the benefit of the cause at hand?

I suppose all this is one of the reasons why being involved in politics has never held much of an attraction for me. I am frankly a bit relieved this is now behind me. I value highly the prerogative to be able to say what I mean and mean what I say.

I would be remiss to not make clear here my respect and admiration for those who choose to enter the realm of politics with a sincere desire to defend their convictions and serve others, as well as a firm resolve to not compromise in matters of integrity. The world is, no doubt, a much better place as a result of these type of people being willing to assume the risks of doing this than it would be if the only ones in politics were unscrupulous power-brokers.

At the same time, as a Christian, I know the Bible teaches we are to speak the truth in love. There are different ways to express our opinions, each perhaps just as open and honest as the other, but some that lead more “to peace and to mutual edification” (Rom. 14:19) than others. In this light, I hope to be led more by love than by political expediency in what I say. Sometimes, though, the most loving response is not the one that “sweeps things under the carpet” and “skirts the issues.” As Proverbs 27:6 so poignantly reminds us: “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.”

As an employee of an organization such as the IMB, sometimes we are faced with a similar dilemma. Do we dare to speak out and say what we really feel, or do we “toe the company line,” motivated perhaps by the risks of lessened job security, or hurting our chances of advancing on the organizational ladder. At other times, there are things we choose not to say, more out of respect for those in authority over us, and love for our brothers and sisters in Christ. Though I definitely can appreciate the dangers involved with diverting to the other side, allowing for an organizational anarchy in which “each one does what is right in his own eyes,” I think that a healthy organizational culture and climate is one in which the opinions of each co-worker are valued and sought out, and, in general, people do not feel afraid to “speak their mind.”

On a personal level, I am quite confident that all my supervisors within the IMB, all the way up to the office of the president, would be in essential agreement with what I am saying here. By no means am I inferring that any of my supervisors is trying to “censor” my voice on issues that affect the work and ministry of the IMB. I have never for one minute felt that to be the case. Yet, for some reason, I perceive a certain air of carefulness on the part of many to not say anything that might perhaps “upset the cart” and cause them problems later on. As I indicate above, if the true motive for this is respect for leaders and love for others, I have no problem with this whatsoever. I do wonder, though, if, at times, it goes a bit beyond this.

As best as I can understand, the answers to the questions I am posing here are not simple. There are pitfalls on either side we do well to avoid. There are many questions and issues “in the air” that are being discussed and debated among Southern Baptists that affect, in one way or another, our job as missionaries. I am not so naïve as to think that the opinions of all IMB missionaries are in lock-step agreement on all of these issues. However, I think that the opinions of the missionaries themselves are very important opinions that ought to be valued highly and taken into consideration.

Sometimes the truth can be a bit uncomfortable. No doubt, there are sometimes people who find employment with a particular agency or organization whose ideals really are out of step with those who are “footing the bill.” When this is the case, I believe a commitment to sound ethics demands that we be above-board and non-secretive about what we believe.

At the same time, however, it seems to me there are many political currents in the air that would seek to steer the official position of Southern Baptists in one direction or another. This is almost unavoidable. It is, I guess, the “nature of the beast.” What I sincerely hope, and am calling out for in this post, however, is that our missionaries not be a “political football” in this process. I would hope that each and every one could feel the liberty to express how they truly feel, without fear of retribution. Of course, as with every rule, there are exceptions. But, in general, I believe that the field missionaries themselves are in many ways the best equipped to speak into issues related to missionary strategy and approach.

We are, of course, at the same time, accountable to those who send us out, i.e. the churches and individual church members that make up the Southern Baptist Convention. I believe there is another sense in which we are sent out directly by God. However, I understand that our financial and spiritual covering, so to speak, should not be unconditional. A hypothetical change of financial and spiritual covering does not necessarily imply reneging on God’s call upon your life, though.

Where I believe we could make some significant progress in all of this is through more open lines of communication between missionaries and the churches and church members that send us out. Up until recent years, this communication has been relatively limited. Generally speaking, missionaries have shared in supporting churches during their home assignment, and sent out prayer letters while on the field. At the same time, actual issues related to missiology have pretty much been left up to the administrators in the home office, who have served as intermediaries between the field missionaries and the supporting churches. In the Southern Baptist system, we also have the Board of Trustees as an additional link in the communication chain.

In recent years, though, new channels of communication, primarily through the internet, have opened up, and made the free interchange of ideas much less unwieldy. For the most part, I think this is wonderful. At the same time, more and more members of supporting churches are making trips, and are able to interact directly with missionaries, national believers, and even unbelievers, on-site on the mission field itself.

It is truly a new day for world missions. Some of these changes can at times be perceived as threatening to the status quo. There is also the temptation to use the blogosphere to “grandstand,” showing off your knowledge in a way that goes beyond your personal experience. All in all, though, I believe that missionary blogs, especially the ones that dare to discuss issues related to missiology, can be very helpful channels of communication.

There are many of them out there, some of them a bit more controversial, and some of them not so at all. Some, due to security concerns, write anonymously. My interaction with fellow colleagues on these sites is, without a doubt, one of my favorite aspects of participation on the blogosphere.

Some of my personal favorites (though I don't necessarily "sign off" on everything they all say) are…

The M Blog, by Guy Muse

Tales from Middle Earth, by "Strider"

Returning to Biblical Missions, by Ken Sorrell

Travel Light, by Tim Patterson

Missions Misunderstood, by "Stepchild"

re:frame, by Derek Webster

Klineberg's Klippings, by "George Klineberg"

Another interesting avenue of open communication related to missions and missionaries are e-mail and internet-based discussion forums. I, for instance, am a member of a discussion forum that links missionaries (mostly IMB) from Latin America (and a few outsiders like myself) in which assorted topics of vital interest to the everyday practice of missionary ministry are brought up and freely discussed. At times, the discussion is quite lively, and not everyone agrees with everyone else. Almost always, though, the opinions expressed are well thought out, and bear a mark of authenticity forged in the context of actual on-field missionary experience.

I was pleased to hear a few months ago of one IMB trustee who actually asked permission from the forum members to join the discussion group, in order to learn more about the issues being faced by the workers themselves, and gain a better perspective in his responsibilities as trustee. While the thought may have crossed the mind of some that perhaps this was an intent to “spy” on other people, in actuality, the vast majority of forum participants thought it was a great idea, and gave an overwhelming “thumbs up” to allowing this trustee to join the discussion group.

It is my hope that, little by little, as illustrated by small steps like this, we can move more and more in a direction of open communication, trust, and mutual support between those of us on the mission field and those who so graciously “hold the ropes” as vital team-members in the task the God has given to each of us, as members of His Body, to make disciples in every nation.

Congratulations, Jim Richards

Well, my jaunt into denominational politics has ended about as quickly as it began. I take this as a cue from the Lord to return to what I was doing before I allowed my name to be placed in nomination as VP of the SBC a little more than a week ago: working as best I know how to see that souls are won and disciples made, both here in Spain, and around the world.

I also take it as a confirmation of the leadership of Jim Richards on the part of Southern Baptists. I was happy to read in various interviews, questionnaires, and hear in his nomination speech, of his support for President Frank Page, and the direction he is leading us as a Convention to humble ourselves, seek God's face, and turn from our wicked ways. I am also impressed by his record as a strong supporter of the Cooperative Program through the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. I am confident that, as Vice President, he will continue to lead us well to be more and more generous and consistent in our support of missions.

Those who have read this blog carefully, and compared my positions on some issues with those espoused by Jim Richards, will realize we have some differences on this or that. Though I believe we must always be open to the continued guidance of the Lord, I do not plan on changing my views anytime soon, and I don't imagine Jim plans on changing his either. All in all, however, I can say confidently there is much, much more that joins us together as brothers in Christ, and colaborers for the cause of the gospel, than that which might come between us.

I look forward, in the days ahead, to continuing to work together with Southern Baptists, and all of God's people around the world, to see the name of Jesus lifted up, and the gospel of grace proclaimed in love and boldness to a lost and dying world.

Q & A on the Conservative Resurgence

Recently, I was asked the following questions by a secular news reporter. I have not yet seen my answers published. In light of some things I have read in the past day or two in the blogosphere regarding my position in relation to the Conservative Resurgence, I have decided to post here the answer I sent in.

Questions: Do you think the convention is headed in the direction your father had in mind? Or do you think it has strayed? If so, in what way? Could you provide examples? I'd like to know what kind of steps you think the SBC should take to both remain true to mission and grow in number.

Answer: Let me start off by saying that I am extremely proud of my father and his legacy as a leader in the SBC and the Conservative Resurgence, and would never ever want to do anything to undermine or diminish his accomplishments. I believe the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC was a monumental step forward in the advance of the Kingdom of God. A good many of the doctrinal problems that threatened the SBC before the Conservative Resurgence are now a “non-issue.” Southern Baptists are united on the inerrancy of Scripture, and other key evangelical doctrines such as substitutionary atonement, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection and second coming of Christ, etc. On the whole, because of this, I believe we are in much better shape now than before the Resurgence.

I am not saying, however, that everything that happened during the Resurgence nor that is happening today in the SBC is without blemish. As the biblical writer James states, “We all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2). Some have been misunderstood, and others mischaracterized. At times, in the midst of the fervor to make necessary corrections, the actions of some have been carried to a degree beyond what was originally intended. In the long run, I believe this serves more to undermine the cause that was moved forward through the Conservative Resurgence than to help it.

A specific example of this, in my opinion, have been the new guidelines passed by the International Mission Board excluding new missionary candidates on the basis of a so-called “private prayer language” or baptism that was not administered according to standard Baptist practice. At the same time, it would appear a certain sector within Southern Baptist life has taken on the mission to accentuate everything that distinguishes Baptists from other evangelical Christians to such a degree that our essential unity and spiritual communion with the wider Body of Christ has been downplayed or even resisted.

In my opinion, now that the weightier issues of first-level doctrine among us have pretty much been resolved, we need to shift our focus more and more to those things that unite us rather than those that divide. And, traditionally, what has united Southern Baptists has been our common commitment to evangelism and missions.

We live in a culture today that is vastly different from that of our forefathers. In order to continue to make an impact for the cause of Christ in the world around us, we will need to learn how to communicate the unchanging principles of the gospel in a more relevant manner that seeks to understand the worldview of the hearers, and demonstrates the love of God to people in a way that connects with the issues they deal with in their everyday life. In order to break through the pervasive skepticism and distrust in contemporary society, all of this must also be couched, as much as possible, in a context of unquestionable authenticity, sincerity, and personal integrity.

Thank You!, Southern Baptists

Record $150 million offering to result in more missionaries

Clarification

On one version of the press release announcing my nomination as Vice-President of the SBC, erroneously sent out to Baptist Press and other news agencies, there is a line that states:

During his service with the International Mission Board, Rogers has worked to plant numerous Baptist churches in one of the most culturally, ethnically, and religiously diverse mission fields, Dykes noted.

The correct, updated version of the press release reads:

During his service with the International Mission Board, Rogers has focused his evangelistic efforts to plant new Baptist churches in one of the most culturally, ethnically, and religiously diverse mission fields, Dykes noted.

Actually, during our time in Spain, I have had the privilege of being church planting team leader for one actual church start, in the city of Mérida. My wife and I have also had the joy to serve in various support roles related to several other church starts, and encouraged and abetted church planting ministry through various other means during our tenure in Spain.

Just wanted to make that clear, so we weren't getting credit for more than what has actually been accomplished.

"Neo-pentecostal Practices" and "Clear Baptist Identity"

I am beginning to wonder if a really big part of this whole controversy related to the IMB and private prayer language roots back to different understandings of the concepts “neo-pentecostal practices” and “clear Baptist identity.”

In a comment string on a May 28 post on Robin Foster’s blog, entitled Who is Going to Draw the Line?, I engaged IMB trustee Jerry Corbaley in a dialogue regarding a statement made there. In order to avoid making this post longer than it already is, I will reproduce here only what I consider to be the most relevant portions of our dialogue (please read the entire dialogue in its original context here, if you so desire).

Jerry Corbaley: The following is from the Report of the Mission Personnel Ad Hoc Committee, May 2007 regarding the new guideline on glossolalia.

“The Ad Hoc Committee has concluded that even though field related data and consultation with regional leaders has not indicated a systemic problem with charismatic practices among field personnel, the rapid spread of neo-pentecostalism and its pressure exacted on new churches in various regions of the world warrants a concern for the clear Baptist identity of our missionary candidates.”

The impetus for the guideline is not the scope of public practice of current IMB personnel. The impetus for the guideline is the importance of having missionaries who can make disciples in a context that often includes neo-pentecostal pressures. This type of confrontation can be difficult to confront and difficult to endure. It is similar to what Brother Robin is enduring from many of you. It is unlikely that missionaries who practice assertions of glossolalia (even in “private”) will be highly motivated to oppose such practices publicly.

As direct evidence that this is so; how many people who are publicly speaking in favor of the IMB guideline decision also assert they practice glossolalia? How can one confront another’s public expression of one’s own private practice?

The Great Commission is a call to make disciples, not just converts. In the context of church planting movements, whole future national denominations are forming extremely rapidly, and this includes their doctrine. Our missionaries who are able to be involved in this unprecedented movement of God’s Spirit must be motivated towards doctrine and reproof and correction and training in righteousness. A potential conflict of interest is unappealing to the IMBoT.

David Rogers: I hope I am not interpreting you correctly on this, but in your comment…you seem to indicate that there is an expectation on the part of IMB trustees that missionaries publicly oppose and confront “neo-pentecostal” practices on the mission field.

Perhaps, in your use of the term “neo-pentecostal” practices, you are referring to blatant heresy. It would be helpful for me to know just what you mean by this.

If not, you, as I understand it, are asking for IMB missionaries to be agents of division and strife around the world. It is not enough to believe what cessationist Southern Baptists believe, and quietly go on with our business of making disciples. We must also be ready and willing to publicly oppose and confront those who believe and practice differently on third-tier doctrinal issues.

Please tell me I am not understanding you correctly on this.

Jerry Corbaley: It is the expectation of the IMBoT that IMB missionaries attempt to make disciples of the nations who represent the clear Baptist identity of the SBC. You will find that it is the expectation of the SBC that their missionaries make disciples who represent the clear Baptist identity of the SBC. The IMB and SBC are not embarrassed with who they are…

The IMBoT and the SBC want to send the best personnel possible. The IMB and the SBC believe that missionaries with a commitment to a clear Baptist identity should be sent and that candidates with an unclear Baptist identity should seek to serve Christ in an organization that more closely represents their own faith.

David Rogers: In order for me to respond with any accuracy to the questions you pose in your last comment to me, I will need you first to define what you understand by the terms “neo-pentecostal practices” and “clear Baptist identity.” Otherwise, I am afraid we may be “talking at each other” without any clear and real communication.

Jerry Corbaley: I ask the readers of this comment stream to demonstrate their understanding of “neo-pentecostal practice” and “clear Baptist identity” in the context of the Report of the IMB Ad Hoc Committee.

My opinion is only one opinion. The terms communicate well. I am not interested in undermining the glossolalia guideline by cooperating with efforts that “cast doubt on the whole by focusing doubt on a perceived weak link”…

You do not need my definitions to explain your thinking.

If you insist on an official IMB definition of what is meant by the terms; find a trustee who is interested in launching a multi-year effort to bring the usage of the terms to a vote at an IMB meeting.

David Rogers: I am very sorry, but I must voice my disagreement on “the terms communicate well.” I have a sincere doubt as to exactly what you mean by these terms. You were the one who used them. I am merely asking you to clarify what you meant when you used them.

As to “asking our missionaries to be agents of division and strife around the world,” I clearly stated on the comment in which I used that phrase that I only considered that to be the case if, by “neo-pentecostal practices” you meant something other than blatant heresy. I am now asking you to confirm if that is the case or not…

Once again, I am not trying to be nit-picky here. These are honest questions I have that really do influence how I might respond to the questions & observations you make here.

Jerry Corbaley: We may also have a different opinion regarding your use of the phrase “nit-picky”.

“Neo-pentecostal practices”

I should make clear that it is not my intent here nor has it ever been to defend “neo-pentecostalism.” I do not consider myself to be “neo-pentecostal,” nor do I consider many teachings and practices often linked with the term “neo-pentecostal” to be biblically correct. The problem for me with the argumentation of Dr. Corbaley is the lack of precision in defining our terms. Although some may make a technical distinction between the terms “neo-pentecostal” and “charismatic,” many consider them to be synonyms. The problem is, neither one of these terms has a precise definition that is accepted across the board by everyone. I am afraid that, due to this, we may well find ourselves in situations in which we may be tempted and/or led to “throw out the baby with the bath-water.” In order to illustrate, I refer to a comment I made on another post on Bart Barber’s blog (read here to catch the entire context)…

Also, I imagine there are many different understandings out there of what constitutes "charismatic missions." Some might say that PPL, in and of itself, is already "charismatic." Some might say prayer-walking is "charismatic." Some might say raising hands in public worship is "charismatic." Some might say believing God could speak to you in a dream is "charismatic." Some might say bringing sick people to the front during a worship service to pray that they may get healed is "charismatic." Some might say Neil Anderson's approach to spiritual warfare is "charismatic." Etc., etc. On each one of these items, if we were to make it a litmus test, we would no doubt eliminate a few more workers.

I suppose we could eventually whittle the mission force down to a "squeaky-clean" group with no charismatically suspect issues at all. Would we than have a better corps of IMB missionaries? Perhaps some might think so. But, I would be willing to bet that the majority of Southern Baptists would not be pleased with the end result. And, I believe personally we would also sacrifice a whole lot of effectiveness on the field in working to see the task of fulfilling the Great Commission accomplished. Is it really worth it?

“Clear Baptist indentity”

I believe the lack of precision in the use of the term “clear Baptist identity” may lead to consequences just as serious as those related to the term “neo-pentecostal practices.” I wish to make clear here also that I am in total agreement with the idea that the Southern Baptist Convention has every prerogative to expect that those who receive funds from the Cooperative Program, Lottie Moon Christmas Offering, and Annie Armstrong Easter Offering be compatible in their beliefs and practices with those who are giving their money in good faith that such is indeed the case.

The term “Baptist,” in and of itself, however, has different connotations for different people. The doctrines and practices of those answering to the name “Baptist” run the gamut from the most extreme liberal to the most extreme fundamentalist understandings of Christianity.

Some have suggested as a guideline specifically for Southern Baptists the Baptist Faith & Message. In general, I believe there is a lot of merit to this suggestion. The BF & M is indeed the closest approximation of what we have in codified, officially sanctioned form of the expectations of Southern Baptists regarding the beliefs and practices of those it supports. The problem is, when we try to put this into practice in an inflexible, comprehensive manner, the consequences may end up being contrary to the composite will of the believers and churches that comprise the Southern Baptist Convention.

Case in point: I have made it no secret that I am personally in disagreement with a phrase in the Baptist Faith and Message that seems to mandate the belief and practice of “closed communion.” Because of this, I signed my affirmation of the BF & M, with a caveat expressing my discrepancy with this one phrase. In doing so, I have placed my doctrinal compatibility with continued service through the International Mission Board up for scrutiny of those who pay my salary. If the majority of Southern Baptists really believe my belief on this particular issue ought to disqualify me from service with the International Mission Board, I will see it as my ethical obligation to seek out service with another missionary agency more compatible with my personal beliefs. However, I am not convinced that such is the case.

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary doctoral candidate, church historian, and blogger Nathan Finn, despite being one of the most eloquent defenders of “closed” or “close communion” in Baptist life today (see here), states here, in relation to what he calls “modified open communion” (the view advocated by myself and Wade Burleson): “I think it is probably the majority practice (or at least a VERY common practice) among contemporary Southern Baptists.”

Of course, some kind of official statistical survey would be necessary to determine if Finn’s supposition is really accurate or not. It has recently been shown, for example, that suppositions regarding the majority view of Southern Baptists are not always accurate. On May 29, Jerry Corbaley made the following statement:

The IMBoT has defined glossolalia. I am confident that about 95% of Southern Baptists would agree with that definition. That would be 19 out of every 20 people.

Perhaps this is a good place to start. Someone needs to research what Southern Baptists believe about glossolalia. I do not think the advocates of glossolalia are aware of the magnitude of effort they will have to make. This will take years, and require some purposeful planning.

If the vast majority of Southern Baptists agree with the definition of glossolalia that the IMB has adopted (for internal application only), then the tiny minority who advocates glossolalia have a monumental task. You will have to convince the vast majority. I doubt that rhetoric alone will succeed.

Three days later, on June 1, Lifeway Research released the results of its study on the use of private prayer language that demonstrates Corbaley’s estimates to be way off target. We see here the problems involved with a small group of people, such as the IMB Board of Trustees, making arbitrary assumptions on what they consider to be “clear Baptist identity.” What they, or some of them, consider to be “clear” may not in the end turn out to be so clear after all.

What concerns me most of all, as I have pointed out before here, is a concerted effort to define and codify “clear Baptist identity” in a way that goes beyond the Baptist Faith and Message, and pass it off as the “kosher” version of the composite expectations of Southern Baptists regarding beliefs and practices of those they support with their financial contributions. While it may well be true that there are a significant number of Southern Baptists who see the championing of Baptist distinctives and denominationalism as a cause worth defending, it is my contention that there are a significant number of Southern Baptists (whether a majority or minority I will leave it up to Lifeway Research to determine) who, though in general agreement with the Baptist Faith and Message, do not at the same time consider it the duty of Cooperative Program-funded employees to defend the Baptist Renaissance movement and publicly oppose the beliefs and practices of other evangelical Christians who happen to differ from us as Southern Baptists on secondary and tertiary issues.

I do not believe, for example, that the majority of Southern Baptists expect IMB-related personnel in East Asia to go against the following advice of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization:

Since most Christians in China today have discarded the former denominational structures and are now united on the local level, the reintroduction of denominations would only be divisive and a hindrance to evangelization. Nothing should be done to disturb the peace of our brethren.

(See also Statement of Faith of Chinese House Churches)

Neither do I believe the majority of Southern Baptists expect me as a missionary to “publicly oppose” the beliefs and practices of other Great Commission Christians around the world who don’t happen to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’ just like we do as Southern Baptists.

Actually, I believe most Southern Baptists are in agreement with the Baptist Faith & Message when it says:

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.

I personally think it is important for me to be in line with the expectations of Southern Baptists who send me out and pay my salary as a missionary. I, at the same time, however, believe that most Southern Baptists, while not relegating crucial evangelical doctrine to an irrelevant status, are more interested in the fulfilment of the Great Commission than they are the advance and eventual hegemony of the Baptist Renaissance. If I can be shown I am wrong about this, I will, in good conscience, need to find another missionary agency with which to serve.

The Coming Kingdom?

Paul Grabill keeps coming up with things I think are worth repeating. In a comment on his blog, he recently included the following gem...

I think evangelical believers should be as wary of the world and as urgent in evangelism as premillenialists (which I am), as global thinking as postmillenialists, and as undogmatic about eschatology as amillenialists.

My biggest concern is that premillenialists are acting like America is the coming Kingdom ("if we return to the 'values' of the founders").

Spurgeon Weighs In

By way of addendum to my last post, I would like to call attention to a quote of Charles H. Spurgeon, posted by Joe Stewart in the comment string of Wade Burleson's blog the other day. It seems to me that Spurgeon was arguing for exactly the same thing in his day that I am arguing for here.

“It now becomes a serious question how far those who abide by the faith once delivered to the saints should fraternize with those who have turned aside to another gospel. Christian love has its claims, and divisions are to be shunned as grievous evils; but how far are we justified in being in confederacy with those who are departing from the truth? It is a difficult question to answer so as to keep the balance of the duties. For the present it behooves believers to be cautious, lest they lend their support and countenance to the betrayers of the Lord. It is one thing to overleap all boundaries of denominational restriction for the truth's sake: this we hope all godly men will do more and more. It is quite another policy which would urge us to subordinate the maintenance of truth to denominational prosperity and unity. Numbers of easy-minded people wink at error so long as it is committed by a clever man and a good-natured brother, who has so many fine points about him. Let each believer judge for himself; but, for our part, we have put on a few fresh bolts to our door, and we have given orders to keep the chain up; for, under colour of begging the friendship of the servant, there are those about who aim at robbing the Master.”

"Another Word Concerning the Down-Grade," The Sword and the Trowel (August 1887), 400.

"The Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant" and "The Gospel Coalition"

I have read with interest recent blog-posts and news stories related to the upcoming “Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant.” Although, at this stage, these stories are already old news, I have not commented up till now, because I have not had the time to do adequate research in order to respond with what I considered to be a reasonable amount of responsibility.

In the meantime, I have also read several posts and stories related to the recent “Gospel Coalition” Conference (see also here), and it occurred to me that pointing out several comparisons and contrasts between the two might help to illustrate some points I have been trying to make through this blog.

The announced “overall theme” of the “Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant” is “Unity in Christ.” I, as you will be well aware, if you have read this blog for any length of time at all, have no problem at all with this theme, in and of itself. It is an issue in which I believe strongly, and about which I have dedicated a major portion of my writing. However, it seems a bit contradictory to me to convoke this meeting with this theme under the name “New Baptist Covenant.”

On the “Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant” web-site, it states, in reference to the organizers of the gathering: “The leaders of these organizations affirmed their desire to speak and work together to create an authentic and genuine prophetic Baptist voice in these complex times,” and “they reaffirmed their commitment to traditional Baptist values.” At the same time, it adds: “They specifically committed themselves to their obligation as Christians to promote peace with justice, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, care for the sick and the marginalized, welcome the strangers among us, and promote religious liberty and respect for religious diversity.”

I have no problem at all with Christians belonging to any collection of churches or organizations coming together in order to cooperate for the furtherance of such causes as “promoting peace with justice, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, caring for the sick and marginalized, welcoming the strangers among us, and promoting religious liberty and respect for religious diversity.” If working together with other believers helps to better further these very worthy causes, then, by all means, let’s do that.

I do have a problem, however, with the apparent “mixing the metaphors” of “cooperating for worthy causes,” “unity in Christ,” and “traditional Baptist values.” As I understand it, what unites us in Christ is not our common membership in specifically Baptist churches, unions, conventions, fellowships or alliances. Neither is it our cooperation for the furtherance of worthy causes, nor our acceptance of “traditional Baptist values,” but rather our common relationship with Christ by grace through faith in the substitutionary atonement, by way of His death on the cross, as well as submission to the lordship of Christ and His Word.

I am also concerned, along with others, about the vagueness of the stated understanding of what the gospel really is, as well as questionable views regarding essential first-tier doctrines apparently held on the part of several leading representatives of the “Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant.” I resonate, as well, with the concerns voiced by Geoff Baggett on this post regarding the implications of the use of the term “covenant.”

At the same time, I am much more encouraged by the stated aims of the “Gospel Coalition.” In a “foundational document” issued by the “Gospel Coalition” entitled “The Gospel for All of Life: Preamble,” it reads: “We want to generate a unified effort among all peoples—an effort that is zealous to honor Christ and multiply his disciples, joining in a true coalition for Jesus. Such a biblically grounded and united mission is the only enduring future for the church. This reality compels us to stand with others who are stirred by the conviction that the mercy of God in Jesus Christ is our only hope of eternal salvation. We desire to champion this gospel with clarity, compassion, courage, and joy—gladly linking hearts with fellow believers across denominational, ethnic, and class lines.”

The Gospel Coalition’s “Confessional Statement” and “Theological Vision for Ministry” statement go on to articulate a hearty description of the essentials of the gospel on which it would seem to me all Bible-believing, blood bought, born again, committed disciples of Jesus ought to be able to agree. As is the case with all Confessions of Faith, there is, of course, room for minor discrepancies and differences of interpretation. It is by no means infallible. In the words of the Baptist Faith & Message, Holy Scripture itself is “the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.”

All in all, though, I am much happier with the potential contribution towards true “unity in Christ” offered by the “Gospel Coalition” than I am by the doctrinally “loosey goosey” yet, at the same time, denominationally-based “Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant.”

A "Prophetic" Post on American Politics and the Evangelical Church

I do not often use this blog to write about politics. The issues that interest me more than anything else are missions, evangelism, and the church. However, Paul Grabill has written a post having to do with "politics" that I think is so important for the evangelical church in America that I believe it should receive the widest distribution possible. It is not a "comfortable" read. Upon reading it, the word "prophetic" came to my mind. According to Grabill, the very soul of the American church is at stake. I agree with him.

I thus urge you to prayerfully and carefully read:

The Jig is Up: American Evangelicals and Fascist Seduction

Chinese Church DNA

I continue to reflect upon the amazing growth of the church in China over the last half century. I believe that our ecclesiology has significant implications for our missiology. It seems, from what I can observe, that somewhere along the line, someone in China got something right in regards to church “DNA” that might prove to be effective in reproducing and multiplying true, authentic disciples of Jesus Christ all around the world. As far as recent work specifically related to the IMB is concerned, David Garrison, in the Church Planting Movements booklet, points to factors such as what he calls “POUCH” church methodology, and “MAWL” leadership training:

POUCH:

P stands for participative Bible study/worship groups, describing the type of cell group meetings through which seekers are led to faith and new believers continue as church afterwards. O refers to obedience to God’s Word as the sole measure of an individual’s or church’s success. U refers to unpaid and multiple lay or bi-vocational church leaders. C stands for cell churches rarely exceeding 15 members before reproducing into new groups. H indicates homes or storefronts as the primary meeting places for these cell churches.

MAWL:

1) Model, 2) Assist, 3) Watch and 4) Leave. Modeling referred to the act of doing church with the new (or soon to be) believers using the POUCH approach described above. Assisting referred to the act of helping the newly formed church to plant a daughter church. Watching was an important and conscious effort to see to it that a third-generation church was started without the assistance or direct involvement of the missionary. Leaving was the final crucial step of ensuring that the movement was truly indigenous and self-propagating.

No doubt, both POUCH church models, and MAWL leadership training are positive factors related to church growth and reproduction. Also, most assuredly the great groundswell of prayer on behalf of the evangelization of China has played a major role in the gospel harvest there. But, I can’t keep from thinking that, beyond all that, there is something special about the spiritual DNA of the church in China that goes back before all that. As subsequent history, and the discussion on the previous post point out, there are some thorny issues related to Nee’s ecclesiology that I believe we would do well not to ignore. However, I, at the same time, tend to believe there may well be a “baby” for us, both as Baptists, and as Evangelicals in general, lying in the “bathwater.”

How do we as Baptists (sorry to all you non-Baptist readers) respond to this? I think the following words of advice from David Garrison in the Church Planting Movements booklet give us a good clue:

The nondenominational context of churches in China meant that there was no denominational tradition that the churches adopted. It remains to be seen whether heretical expressions will emerge within the movement. However, the highly decentralized nature of the Yanyin Church Planting Movement is not conducive to a single individual gaining control over the whole. At the doctrinal heart of each cell church is a commitment to obey the Bible. Since church worship consists of participative Bible study with multiple leaders, there is a natural corrective from within the group itself to misinterpretation or extremes of interpretation.

When asked about the movement’s lack of denominational identity, the strategy coordinator commented that, even though the government forbids denominational expressions in China, the Yanyin churches are more Baptist than most Baptist churches he has known. He further predicts that their pattern of allegiance to the Bible and commitment to the priesthood of the laity will keep the movement on track.

As further evidence of the positive effects of Chinese Church DNA for the fulfillment of the Great Commission, I invite you to open up the following link and view this amazing 7-minute video on the Chinese “Back to Jerusalem” vision for reaching the unreached peoples of the 10-40 window with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

You can also link to the “Back to Jerusalem” website here.

When all is done and said, I wonder if the believers in China have more to teach and offer us as believers in the West than we have to teach and offer them.

Watchman Nee, China, & Church Planting

Disclaimer: I have been meditating on this post for sometime now, and have hesitated posting it for fear that it may be misinterpreted. I want to make clear that I am not necessarily advocating the ideas proposed by Watchman Nee that I reference here. I am interested in thinking through the implications of the issues he raises, and reacting, from a standpoint of contemporary evangelical missions and a biblical concern for the unity of the Body of Christ. I am aware that some of the following quotes may be quite controversial. I am also aware that Witness Lee, and others, have taken the ideas of Nee on some of these points and put them into practice in a manner that many have considered sectarian.

If the following quotes from Watchman Nee's The Normal Christian Church Life (full text available on-line) are really reflective of God’s plan for the church and missions (or as Nee calls it, the “work”), there are some important consequences for the way we go about our work. I post this, more than anything, because I am interested in the reactions of the readers of Love Each Stone to these ideas. I would like to know specifically, as you read these quotes:

1. Do you think Nee has a legitimate argument, from a strictly biblical perspective, for the things he says here?
2. Do you think, independently of whether or not there is a solid biblical justification for what Nee has to say, that it is reflective of good missiology?
3. If we were to take into account the guidelines that Nee records here, how would it change the way we do missions and church planting?

When a servant of God reaches a new place his first business must be to found a local church, unless there is already one in existence, in which case his one concern must be to help the church. The one aim of the work in any place is the building up of the church in that place. All the fruit of a worker’s labours must go to the increase of the church. The work in any place exists for the church alone, not for itself. The apostle’s goal is to build up the church, not to build up his work or any group of people that may have sent him out.

Wherein lies the failure of missions today? They keep the results of their work in their own hands. In other words, they have reckoned their converts as members of their mission or of their mission-church instead of building them into or handing them over to the local churches.

An apostle should go and work in a certain place if the local church invites him, or if he himself has received a revelation from the Lord to work there. In the latter case, if there is a church in the place he can write notifying them of his coming, just as Paul notified the churches in Corinth and in Rome. These are the two lines which regulate the work of an apostle – he must either have a direct revelation of God’s will, or an indirect revelation through the invitation of a church.

When an apostle comes to a place where a local church already exists, he must never forget that no church authority rests with him. Should he desire to work in a place where the local church does not wish to have him, then all he can do is to pass on to some other part. The church has full authority either to receive or reject a worker.

Should he know unmistakably that God has led him to work in that place, yet the local church refuse to welcome him, if they persist in their attitude, then he must obey the command of God and go and work there despite them. But he must not gather believers around him, nor must he on any account form a separate church.

All the various God-given ministries have one aim, the establishing of local churches. In the thought of God only one company of people exists, and all His designs of grace center in that one company – His Church. The work is not a goal in itself, it is only a means to an end. If we regard our work as an end, then our purpose is at variance with God’s, for His end is the Church.

In addition to the quotes from Nee, I also include the following information, which I think gives some important additional background information in relation to the questions I ask at the beginning of this post.

From the: Report of the Consultation on World Evangelization, Mini-Consultation on Reaching Chinese, held at Pattaya, Thailand from 16-27 June 1980, Sponsored by the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization

(iii) Should any effort be made to re-establish former denominational programs?

Since most Christians in China today have discarded the former denominational structures and are now united on the local level, the reintroduction of denominations would only be divisive and a hindrance to evangelization. Nothing should be done to disturb the peace of our brethren.

From “Watchman Nee and the House Church Movement in China,” May, 1986, by Dennis H. McCallum

It is hard to tell how large the Little Flock movement was in China at the time of the revolution. One reason for this is the fact that Nee felt it was fleshly to consider numbers. Therefore there was no systematic effort made by Little Flock themselves to count their people. There was no formal membership in the group, since Nee believed membership in the body of Christ was determined by God, and there was no good reason for the church to try to draw up a list.

According to Cliff, in 1949 the Little Flock had over 70,000 members in 500 assemblies. However, according to the Ecumenical Press Service the "Little Flock" had at this time 362 places of worship and 39,000 members in the one province of Chekiang. These figures were interpreted as indicating that members of the "Little Flock" made up 15-20 per cent of the whole Protestant church in China, and that they may have been the largest single denomination. In other words, this estimate would show anywhere from 150,000 to 300,000 members for the Little Flock. Cheung affirms that there were "thousands" of assemblies by 1956, and that the Little Flock was the largest Christian group in China.

Nobody has even hazarded a guess as to how many of the millions of Christians meeting in house churches today may be the outgrowth of Little Flock groups. Two things are clear: There are many house churches that are directly derived from Little Flock churches, and there are many other groups that owe a substantial debt to Little Flock doctrine and practice for their survival.

From the Wikipedia article on “house churches”:

Chinese house church - be aware that Chinese house churches typically have a leadership structure (including a pastor) that resembles "underground traditionally structured churches" (or "cell churches") in contrast to what is generally considered to be a "house church" in other areas.

A comment from an anonymous IMB “M” on Wade Burleson’s Grace and Truth to You blog:

This past year, a SB pastor from a traditional FBC "Small-town, SC" came to China on a vision trip. The M who coordinated the trip, took the visiting pastor and team to a Buddhist temple on part of a prayer walk. They encountered a woman and her pre-teen daughter praying and burning incense to Buddha. The women noticed the group praying and approached them and asked if they would pray for her daughter who had been mute since birth.

Before the group prayed for the daughter they told the women that they were not praying to Buddha and that they would like to share some good news with her. The women responded positively to the gospel message and then they all laid hands on the young girl and prayed that her mouth would be opened and that she would be miraculously healed and speak.

Initially nothing happened. The group was still excited that the women said that she wanted to believe in Jesus and arranged to put her in touch with local Christians and they left the temple.

Before they could get down to the bottom of the hill, the young girl came running out of the temple and for the first time in her life was yelling "Thank you Jesus, Thank you Jesus" in her native tongue.

This cessationalist pastor was completely taken back and returned home with his dispensationalist, cessationist theology completely challenged. He said that if he had not seen and experienced this, he never would have believed it. He has only cautiously shared this story with certain people in his congregation for fear of retribution.

Before coming to the field as an IMB missionary eleven years ago, I came out of a dogmatic-cessationist, dispensationist church. Even after I graduated from a SBC seminary, my views were still firmly planted in that same theological position.

But soon after arriving in China and started hearing testimonies from many different Chinese believers from all over China, the foundation of my theological position began to crack. I found that I could no longer contain God to my tightly-formed theological box.

SB's have had a long love affair with China and we all love to marvel at what God has been doing in this country, even during the 40+ years that it was closed to the west. In my conservative estimate, I would say that 90% of all Christians in China would hold to the Continuationist view.

If dogmatic cessationists hold to their view consistently, then most of what has happened in China is NOT from God, but from the devil himself and the world's most populist country is more lost than ever imagined! 80 million people are being deceived and are in desperate need of theological correction! (said with a bit of sarcasm in my voice).

My colleagues and I have MANY MANY stories to share just like this one, but when we return to the states, we find ourselves toning down our stories for fear that the people will think that we are no longer Baptist missionaries.

Signed,
Cautious-Continuationist, Bapist to the core, IMB M

Israel Quero Espí

Yesterday, at approximately 8.00 am Spanish time, Israel Quero Espí, 18-year-old son of Spanish Baptist pastor Juan Manuel Quero, and his wife Araceli, died suddenly and unexpectedly. All the symptoms at this time point to bacterial meningitis. The night before, he had decided not to participate in a soccer game with some friends, complaining of a headache. In the morning, he woke up with a high fever, covered with dark splotches all over his body. Within an hour, before they could get him to the hospital, he was already dead.

Juan Manuel is pastor of Buen Pastor Baptist Church in Madrid, where my family and I are currently members. He is a warm-hearted pastor, dynamic leader, and godly man. He is also currently Vice President of the Spanish Baptist Union. Araceli is a quiet, unassuming helpmeet, who loyally supports her husband in the ministry, and serves behind the scenes in many different capacities. Israel was a good friend of our teenage son, Jonathan. He had recently moved out of his home, and was living in the student dormitory that belongs to the church. He had recently made a decision to follow the Lord in baptism, and was planning to do so in the next baptismal service scheduled for this coming month. He had recently passed his driving test, and had just obtained his first car. He was making preparations to enter the Spanish Police Academy, and was excited about his future.

What explanation can be given for a tragedy like this? Humanly speaking, I can think of none. My natural tendency is to want to look for the “silver lining” behind this “dark cloud.” But, at this time, reality makes that very hard to do. Our faith leads us to cling to the hope that we will one day see Israel again. But why did he have to die so young? And why did something like this have to happen to people like Juan Manuel and Araceli, who already have given up so much, and who give so sacrificially of themselves, day in and day out, to minister to others?

I have read the hypothesis that the various religions of the world are all attempts to make sense, one way or another, of human suffering. I think there is more to it than that, but, at the same time, believe there is an element of truth here. All of us as humans--Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, Christians, or Atheists--have to deal with suffering, at one time or another, and there are many things that don’t appear to make much sense. Yet, I believe that true biblical Christianity offers the only rational and coherent hope in the midst of this grim reality. Because of an all-powerful and all-knowing God, who loves us more than we are able to comprehend, and because of the death of His only Son, Jesus, on the cross of Calvary, we have hope that one day He will wipe away every tear from our eyes, and we will know, just as we are already known.

But that still doesn’t take away the pain that I am feeling right now, and that I know Juan Manuel, Araceli, and Elías, Israel’s 12-year-old brother, must be feeling a good bit more acutely yet.

What can we learn from this? First of all, we never know what a day may bring forth. We never know when tragedy may strike in our own lives. It could have just as easily happened to you, or me, or any one of us. I pray God may teach me, and all of us, to number our days, and to use, with a greater sense of stewardship, the gifts, time, and resources He has placed in our hands.

Also, this reminds me there are those around us all the time, who are going through great suffering. Many times, we are oblivious to this, until it strikes so close to home. I pray God would make me a more sensitive person to the needs of others, and allow me to show the love of Christ to those in need, in order that they may find hope in the midst of situations that otherwise give no reason for doing so.

If God lays it on your heart, please pray for Juan Manuel, Araceli, and Elías, and for the Buen Pastor Baptist Church in Madrid, Spain. They are going to need it in the days ahead.