I've been wondering...
WHY...there is a need to limit a Private Prayer Language in Missionaries [so that no one can be appointed if they have one or believe it's possible to have one] when there has never been a removal of a missionary for using a PPL?
WHY...there is a need for guarding the mission field from Pentecostal practices among missionaries when there has been no documentation of said Pentecostal practices except where the former policies against tongues/pentecostal teachings corrected it?
WHY...there needs to be a refusal to accept the immersion of a missionary candidate as valid when the SBC church that had to vote to recommend said candidate, upon examination when they joined that local church, believed it was valid?
WHY...some insist that Wade Burleson, an IMB Trustee, is wrong to use a caveat when agreeing to the BF@M, thereby reducing said BF@M, [in their opinion] but then insist it is right to require missionaries to not practice a PPL, thereby adding to the BF@M if, in fact, the BF@M is the absolute standard for employees?
WHY...some insist Trustees should have the same standard as missionaries,[the BF@M-absolute-with no caveats] but do not hold said Trustees to other standards such as weight?
WHY...an IMB/BOT has a greater ability to monitor/guide mission field activities as to methods, procedures, and practices, thereby effectively shutting the door on their input and ideas, than does the Administration in the states and on the field and Missionaries that make up the said mission field personnel?
WHY...a seminary chapel message would be thought inappropriate and subsequently not permitted on electronic media when the Seminary Chapel has always been used to present ideas that are creative, challenging, and even controversial and debateable?
[Subjects I've heard from that same chapel pulpit are Calvinism, (both sides) filling of the Spirit,(Both sides-too pentecostal for some/too baptistic for some) Spiritual Gifts, open/closed communion, not being a professional begger as a pastor by never buying lunch for church members and requesting a 'ministerial discount' in a department store. (That last was a message I preached in SWBTS chapel)
Add to that list things like how wrong certain professors are for their view of scripture/doctrines/SBC policies. It has always been a place where people spoke their convictions even if I disagreed with them.]
Finally, WHY...I'm now viewed with suspicion as not being a real Baptist because of my personal view on baptism, [accepting the immersion of a believer when it was as a testimony of their union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection even if done by other hands than a Southern Baptist designated baptizer] the Lord's supper, [anyone who has been converted and properly identified as such] believing the gifts continue today, [though I personally do not have nor desire the tongues gift whatever that is] am personally a 5-point Calvinist, [though I hate being PRIMARILY identified with a system that has a name associated with it such as John Calvin..... or Baptist..... and never make Calvinism or being a Baptist my message when preaching] enjoy a glass of wine periodically when celebrating a special occasion with my wife, [though I personally do not touch it in the presence of young believers nor when in the work of ministry in a local church following Paul's admonition that it is better to keep freedom under control when around others that may be young in the faith] and all of these things have been true of my theology and walk FOR MANY YEARS. Why the suspicion that I may not be a REAL baptist? I've not changed. Has someone else's attempt at controlling the definition of baptist become the issue we're facing?
I WONDER WHY?
Paul Burleson
22 comments:
Couldn't have expressed it any better. You are asking the "why" questions that many of us on the field are also wondering about, but afraid of what might happen to be as bold to ask the questions you are asking.
Guy,
Wow, you're fast. :)
I'll ask for all of us...but doubt answers will be forthcoming.
Good to hear from you. Betty and Frank Coy [my sister and brother-in-law] say hello, as well as, Jerry and Kathleen Coy in Chile. [I was just with all of them and you were discussed in fond terms and they told me to bring you their greetings.]
Paul B.
The sad thing is the answer to the WHY question is that we all know why.
The SBC system(s) have gone unchecked for so long and the heirarchy has been unquestioned. Finally people are saying wait-that's not right. The local church will in comm(unity) decide things of this nature for ourselves, we don't need seminary professors, presidents, trustees, agencies wielding their power and then telling us what to believe. The body longs to be inclusive, agencies/heirarchies do not.
Sometimes, it's frustrating, even downright irritating.
Then I remember. It's God's church. It's His kingdom.
He build's it, He protects it. He is in control and when I remember, I settle down and rest in my Sabbath.
It's often very hard to be female here :) so I find I have to rest there more and more often.
Merry Christmas All.
Alycelee,
Are you claiming my questions are rhetorical????? How perceptive a person you really are. :)
By the way, I've been reading several comments of yours on other blogs. They are superb.
Paul B,\.
You're too kind. It's hard to stay "tempered" I have to pray, because I am passionate about what I believe God is doing. Debbie is a jewel and I love reading her blog. She makes me feel like milktoast :)
Still watching for covenant theology-but I'm patience, it came with 4 kids!
Bro. Paul B.,
You wrote:
"WHY...there needs to be a refusal to accept the immersion of a missionary candidate as valid when the SBC church that had to vote to recommend said candidate, upon examination when they joined that local church, believed it was valid?"
For the same reason that the IMB / SBC should refuse to accept the sprinkling of a missionary candidate as valid when a Baptist church somewhere believed it was valid. As you know there are Baptist churches in America, England, and elsewhere that will accept sprinkling as valid baptism or even administer sprinkling to someone as valid baptism. It all comes down to what do you believe the Bible teaches is valid baptism. I stand will Carroll, Boyce, Broadus, Manly, Truett, Lee, Criswell, Pendleton, Graves, Dayton, Scarbrough, Grey, McDaniel, Gambrell, etc. that alien immersions should be rejected.
Alycelee,
The New Covenant stuff is still on the drawing board. But will come eventually. Thanks for your interest.
Ben,
Immersion after conversion as a testimony of a union with Christ and His Cross work all the way through to resurrection is alien to nothing scripturally. Being performed by someone other than a Southern Baptist doth not an alien make. Otherwise everyone baptized by immersion prior to 1845 experienced an alien immersion.
To require an "approved baptizer" is tantamount to the priesthood of priests. The objective of baptism is obedience to our Lord's commands .. and I mean the command to BE baptized. To make it the exclusive fulfillment of the command to go and baptize is arrogant. Period.
You hear that, pastors standing in baptistries? Baptism is not about you.
Dad,
The word 'bingo' keeps ringing in my head after reading this post and comment string.
Paul, I'm just so glad you are a follower of Jesus more so than a follower of any institution of man or yourself. Thank you (for about the 100th time) for providing many younger men a shining example of what it means to be faithful and finish strong.
Paul,
No one has ever said that only Southern Baptists could baptize. We have said that only N.T. churches can administer valid baptism. How do you know which churches today are N.T. churches? By their doctrine. So based on the authority of Romans 16:17, I believe we should "avoid" the baptisms administered by groups that do not hold to the "doctrine" of the N.T. on fundamental issues. This is the same reason that men like Boyce and Broadus rejected alien immersions.
By the way, I read in one of your former posts that you were once a strict Landmark Southern Baptists, but sometime around 1980 you moved away from this position. I don't believe you have ever explained what caused you to change your position on ecclesiology. Would you mind sharing this?
(Don't worry. I'm not in any danger of changing my convictions on the ordinances. GRIN But I am interested in what made you change yours)
Ben,
Sorry for the delay in posting your comment and responding to it. I was called to the hospital emergency room last night at midnight where we thought we might lose my 88 year old mother. She has made it through the night and is doing better. But my time has been limited and it will be reflected in the brief remark for now and more will come later.
My change in Ecclesiology came much earlier than 1980. About ten years earlier than that. The 1980 date is reflective of a major shift from traditional acceptance of things without searching the text for myself to one of accepting nothing except what I could find in the text.
My move away from Landmarkism was, as I said, earlier, and really for that same reason. I didn't find it in the text itself. [I wish I had known enough to challenge ALL my held theology at that time]
It primarily concerned what I COULD NOT find in the text. For example I couldn't find the emphasis on the local body as I saw it in our cultural context. "Ekklesia" took on the true definition of "called out ones." It was never used for the assembly place except once in Hebrews 10:25 and there the word "assemble" is NOT ekklesia but the word for Synagogue. Ekklesia [called out ones] is synonomous with His sheep, His body, ie, all believers. I didn't see a single thing commanded of believers BECAUSE they had joined a local fellowship. It was always BECAUSE they were part of the Body of Christ. [never plural] I didn't even see a single believer ever examined and accepted into a local body.
This is not to say there was no local gathering but it was always connected to and saw itself as part of the whole Body. I saw the Church really IS truly an Organism formed by the Holy Spirit when viewed correctly in the text of the NT and when they met in various places there were gifted people to minister to that part OF THE BODY..
The organizations we call churches today HAVE NO ROLE MODEL in the text of the scriptures but are more of an organizational necessity born out of pragmatism rather than theology. The Elders/deacons/gifts/ commands/ministries/people in a local groups in the NT were never disconnected from the whole. What we have today in denominations/churches/fellowships with their Pastors, Elders, Deacons, ministries, are not evil or bad forms, just not seen in the NT. I've functioned within those structures for fifty years of ministry and have completely enjoyed it what ever measure of success I've had by whatever definition of success you might use.
I began to see the forms, organizations, methods, shapes, and such were capabe of being flexible in various cultures to radically carry out the function of the true Body of Christ on earth. That function is to manifest His life and it is seen in our character and conduct as we live in our culture together gifted by the Spirit, energized by that same Spirit, laboring together where we are with others. How that looks organizationally is not modeled in the NT, so let's have at it in being creative.
My ability to articulate this concept has grown in later years with help from many, including present day writers such as Jon Zens. [I'm not opposed to being helped by others, just have to see it for myself when I read them.]
Needless to say...Landmarkism and I parted company. [Though I doubt anyone felt any measure of loss by my going.] :)
Paul,
Thanks for your comments on the church. It is consistent with what I see in Scripture as well, although I believe that God allows those things to happen within the context of the local body. I see you saying the same thing.
As for your "Why" questions: Why ask why? Just accept what our "leaders" tell us and go on back to be good Southern Baptists. Yeah. O.K.
Great post.
Paul, I totally was praying over some words I was typing over at Art Roger's blog and, BOOM, God reminded me of Ephesians 6:12 and of your Why post... Your question of why can be summed up in verse 12, and, of course, we all too often are distracted by Satan from this truth and neglect to suit up and pray up!
10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
Alan,
I certainly do see the life of the Body played out in the context of local groups in every location. I just don't see that local group ever disconnected with the whole in the NT and certainly not arguing over which local group is the "true church."
When you see Paul writing to the Corinthians, who had moral problems as well as theological ones, [baptism issues] he emphasized their fellowship was around the Person of Christ and as a group "reflected" the life of the Body. [singular] It is that disconnect from the whole Body that ultimately led me away from Landmarkism.
I do see the importance of being a part of the local, have been all my Christian life, will be til Jesus comes. But it is with Kingdom/Body/Family [whatever you choose to call it] ties, not just local or even denominational. Thanks for weighing in.
Bryan,
Amen. Merry Christmas to all of you who comment.
Paul B.
I have never studied (as you who have gone to seminary) things like the church as it plays out in the NT, but isn't it true that the letters that were written even to certain cities would then be circulated to other believers in other locales? I really don't see the early Christians being all that concerned about being the First Ephesians or the Glory Hallelujah Corinthian church; they were so busy being persecuted they knew they had to cling to anyone who believed and surely understood better what it meant to be a part of the whole. Perhaps the modern church is just too spoiled to realize that we really do belong to one another.
Can you imagine the excitement of meeting a new believer? Someone you felt free to share everything with immediately?
Bryan,
I think you have hit the nail on the head about letters circulating and each group related to every other group originally in the NT.
One other thing, and this is after earning a seminary degree and pastoring seven years three minutes from SWBTS and being pastor to about ten percent of the on campus student body as told to me by Dr. John Seelig, going to a Seminary is not what qualifies one for real ministry.
I think there are two things greater than a Seminary degree. One is the study and research one does AFTER or when no Seminary is experienced at all. I have to tell you, my theological education came after my Seminary days were over and I began the work in the field. It continues to this day.
The second is the family. The word "Seminary" comes from the word for "semen" which is Latin for "seed." The idea is the Seminary is to be a seedbed of thought which then needs to be worked out. [That, by the way, is why I thought the Seminary WAS the appropriate place for a message like Dr. McKissic preached.]
But I really believe the "family" is the greatest Seminary there is. In that context we learn relationships, true character, personal skills of life, and then, as we study the Word of God and research other people and their writings, we learn theology. Both of those are what you are presently doing and you are doing quite well at both I might add. Enjoy your present days in the real Seminary. :)
By this I, in no way, mean to belittle a Seminary degree from an instutition. That is great if you can and if you'll be careful to never confuse it for the real thing.
Paul B.
Jonathan,
Thanks for stopping by. Well said, particularly on what we're to be known for. If it's theology [and I'm NOT discounting the importance of Truth at all] then the NT church failed miserably. They were known for how they related to one another in love. Shame on them. :)
Paul:
(Putting on my Columbo overcoat) ... One more thing. You'll never understand, really, why some folks want to change the rules. Not unless you are one of them.
All you can do is make a laundry list of possibilities, and take a pick, but you'll never really know until that day when the plot emerges from the mist.
Bob,
I think you're corret. When the mist clears a lot of us are going to be surprised. Oh for that day...
Canawedding,
Please...three things required for comments to be posted here...a modicum of effort to stay on post...a comment that IS NOT a post in length...[twenty some paragraphs are too many]...and unacceptable language...[profanity/hateful/condemning].....drop the propanity, and you're guilty of all three. I would suggest you begin your own blog.
Paul B.
I think we are seeing this crop up on the mission field, and thus in the IMB, for a reason that a lot of Christians in this country are not capable of understanding.
Being a Christian, even in a Baptist church, in most countries of the world isn't like being a Christian in Norman, Oklahoma or the suburbs of Houston, Texas. We have the freedom, and the prosperity, to cluster behind our pet doctrinal preferences, build spiritual forts and then snit at each other over whether instrumental music is allowed by the New Testament, or whether tongues is for everyone or not for anyone, or whether we should use the word "inerrant" or "infallible" rather than "God breathed" or "inspired" to describe the Bible, or whether or not women can be titled by ordination.
My wife and I have friends who teach English in China. The church there doesn't have the same prosperity or freedom as the church does here, consequently, Christians tend to ignore their pet preferences in favor of the unity of the body. I can only imagine, and discern from them, what they face each day in regard to their ministry. Perhaps gifting missionaries with a private prayer language is God's way of providing edification and assurance to them, considering the difficulty of their work. That is, after all, what the New Testament teaches that the gift of tongues is for. And as even the small town Deep South gets increasingly secular, and each succeeding generation in the church gets smaller and smaller, will we continue to practice our faith behind our spiritual fortifications, or will we discover the unity in the body of Christ that those on the mission field already know? Southern Baptists have a real problem which will devastate the international missionary enterprise as long as control of the personnel and work on the field is in the hands of a few self-appointed leaders who think that a couple of trips overseas makes them complete experts in mission work.
Jonathan K., Baptists do not have a monopoly, in the Christian community at large, on a lack of demonstrated love. The greatest source of new members in the Baptist congregation where I serve as a staff member responsible for discipleship, assimilation of new members and lay mobilization, is a large, non-denominational Charismatic congregation about a mile away that seems to have a knack for arrogance and for rejecting people who get sidewise of their pastor doctrinally. Then again, perhaps they learned those attitudes from the ex-Southern Baptists who attend there.
Lee,
Those are interesting comments. My pastor is ex-Southern Baptist, so I know what you're talking about, but I think people everywhere need to learn love, and work through their doctrinal differences. Sometimes this kind of learning takes YEARS, as I have seen in my own pastor and his family and church.
Post a Comment