« The Pillar and Ground of the Truth | Main | You can Experience it Also! »
Who Is Being Served?
Posted by Robin Foster | February 1, 2008
Recently, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, current President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has been taken to task concerning his openness to be nominated for President of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Some have labeled it a gross conflict of interest. However, if history has proven anything concerning entity presidents being elected as president of the SBC, this is simply not the case. One need only consider the exemplary leadership of E.Y. Mullins, L.R. Scarborough, or Paige Patterson.
Before I go any further, I want to make a statement concerning Dr. Rankin’s leadership of the International Mission Board (IMB). I appreciate his service and from all accounts that I have heard, he has performed with integrity. I also have had areas of disagreement with some of the directions of the IMB. One particular area has been the much-discussed Camel Method that has been promoted for use among missionaries in Muslim-dominated areas. I support Dr. Rankin as president, even though I may not see eye to eye on some issues. But Dr. Rankin is not the focus of this post, nor is the Camel Method.
The Foreign Mission Board (FMB), the predecessor of the IMB, was started in 1845 with two missionaries. At that time, James Barnett Taylor was appointed to lead the newly-formed FMB, and did so for twenty-six years until 1871. The executive secretary was appointed to lead the new agency according to the dictates of the Southern Baptist churches that supported it. Below is a list of past executive secretaries/presidents for the FMB/IMB until today.
· James Barnett Taylor 1845-1871
· Henry Allen Tupper, 1872-1893
· Robert Josiah Willingham, 1893-191
· James Franklin Love, 1915-1928
· T. Bronson Ray, 1929-1932
· Charles E. Maddry, 1933-1944
· M. Theron Rankin, 1945-1953
· Baker James Cauthen, 1954-1979
· R. Keith Parks, 1980-1992
· Jerry A. Rankin, 1993-Present
One thing that is interesting about Bro. Taylor is that he was a pastor and not a missionary. It could be argued that since this organization was newly formed, there was no readily available leader with missionary experience. However, the next man, Henry Allen Tupper, was also a pastor. In fact for the first one hundred years, the man at the helm of the FMB was a pastor. All this changed with the appointment of M. Theron Rankin in 1945, who was a missionary. William R. Estep in his book, Whole Gospel Whole World: The Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1845-1995, notes this, “M. Theron Rankin was the first foreign missionary to become an executive secretary of the Foreign Mission Board” (252). Since that time, the only men who have held the top spot in Richmond have been missionaries.
So, what is the point of listing all this historical data? Since the president is to lead the IMB according to the desire of the churches of the Southern Baptist convention, it is questionable as to whether a missionary, who has been out on the field for twenty to thirty years, may serve as the best representative of what the churches in the Convention believe and practice. Now, one could also argue that a pastor who has been stateside does not understand the challenges that missionaries face on the field and that he would be a poor choice for president. But, during the first one hundred years of the agency, missions flourished and grew from only two missionaries under the leadership of former pastors.
One possible dilemma from having a continued string of presidents who are former missionaries (note that I said “possible”) is that rather than speaking for the convention, a former missionary functioning as president, could be focused on speaking for the missionaries to the SBC, rather than providing effective oversight of the IMB on behalf of the churches of the SBC. Now, a president should be able to speak for the missionaries in addressing needs on the field, but even a former pastor can visit with missionaries on the field and help address issues to the SBC, so that the convention can provide the best in training and support to those doing the Lord’s work far from home. However, let it be clearly affirmed that the duty of the president is to the churches that support him as well as to the missionaries that serve on the field. A president serves the churches of the convention that sends missionaries to the IMB for service abroad. This leads to our next question: “Could a string of former missionaries appointed to the presidency of the IMB lead to an in-bred system that no longer recognizes the authority, beliefs, and practices of those churches who support those missionaries?”
Remember the argument against Dr. Mohler being President of the SBC? Some say that he cannot serve because he is an entity head. The belief is that this causes a conflict of interest in which he would speak for the entity of which he is president rather than the churches of the convention. However, there is one notable difference between Dr. Mohler being president of the SBC and a former missionary serving as president of the IMB. If Dr. Mohler is elected, he will serve most likely two years. Moreover, Dr. Mohler’s ministry is firmly planted in a local church, which enables him to be aware of what the desires are of the average church in the SBC.
Investigating the history of entity presidents serving the convention as president also proves the fears of some as unfounded. An entity head as president of the SBC could not create such a system that would only speak for the entity he serves. Looking at the past history of entity heads in the IMB, the influence of those leaders lasted for decades. The possibility that a system could be created that causes the focus to be more on the missionaries than the concerns of the convention is much greater for an IMB president, than is a short two-year term from an entity head as a SBC president.
Dr. Rankin will one day retire. What I would hope is that the convention allows for the possibility that a pastor may serve as President of the IMB. This pastor should be one who has led his church to support Southern Baptist missions as well as encouraging members to go on mission trips in cooperation with the IMB. A plus would be a pastor who may have served briefly on the international mission field himself. This president would understand that he serves the SBC in leading missionaries to win the world for Christ. Being a former pastor who has been stateside for many years and having a network of pastors in other churches, he would have an advantage as well as a natural wisdom for working with the trustees who represent the churches of the SBC.
So why not elect a pastor as the next president of the International Mission Board? He would better know the desires of the churches stateside. As for understanding the needs of the missionaries, he will have gained that from previous experiences and will gain more through intensives discussions with the field missionaries and their regional directors. A pastor’s leadership might reveal some flaws of in-breeding that may have occurred since 1945. With the positive possibilities of having a pastor at the helm of the IMB, I believe it would be a tragedy if the convention does not consider some qualified pastors to lead her mission-sending organization. This would aid in the continual need for the restoration of our New Testament and Baptist principles.
Topics: IMB Issues |
February 1st, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Robin,
Wow, I can’t wait to read what the missionaries have to say about your suggestion.
Les
February 1st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Thanks for a well-argued point, though I can’t help thinking that in the current over-politicized climate it will get lost in rancor. Probably not the wisest moment to write on this issue.
However, by the end you may have argued your point away because surely it is the character and sympathy of the person, not their former field of operations, that will decide. After all, your argument re representing the SBC churches would be equally persuasive for a lay person to be elected.
After all the current head of the NAMB is not North American.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Robin,
I’ll have to disagree wholeheartedly. I think it would be disastrous to place a pastor with no international missions field experience at the helm of our international mission organization.
I’ve tried to follow your logic and apply it to some other type of endeavor. Football came to mind.
Just for illustrative purposes, and for fun … let’s say that the head coach retires from a college football team. The administration is seeking a new head coach for the team. According to your logic, rather than seeking a former football player with field experience, the school should hire a classroom professor to coach the team. Why? Because that professor is much more in tune with the desires of the students and their families who fill the stands … and provide all of the funding and support for the team.
It just doesn’t make sense.
Robin, it’s been my experience that most of us typical Southern Baptist pastors are largely clueless about issues of missiology. Just our visits (short-term) to the field often leave them with weeks of “messes” to clean up. Again, I think it would be a bad decision.
Plus … there are plenty of missionaries on the field with pastoral experience, if it is that important.
The Southern Baptists in the pews have plenty of pastors representing them effectively. Let us not bemoan or deny our 5000+ missionaries on the field the representation of a capable, practicing missiologist in the president’s office of the IMB.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Let’s see…44,000 American pastors had 300K baptisms and 5,338 IMB missionaries had 600K baptisms last year. Who needs to learn from who?
Les
February 1st, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Les,
Salient point indeed!
Robin,
Its an interesting proposition, but I have another question based on a comment you made in the post. You said that the installation of a pastor as IMB president “would aid in the continual need for the restoration of our New Testament and Baptist principles.”
Do you really believe there are New Testament principles that our mission personell are violating, which need to be restored?
The reason I ask is because that last line seems to cast your entire post in the light of one who says “missionaries and missiologists have really messed up our approach to missions. What we really need is a pastor of a local church.” I’m not accusing you of this, simply stating my impression, and hoping to be corrected.
I hope all is well, and regardless of our disagreements, always enjoy the “back and forth” with you.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Les,
why…I can’t believe you would say such a thing! don’t you know that this is a Christian nation? come on…there are less people who need baptized around here…it’s not like over seas where entire nations are chock full of heathens and pagans! of course IMB missionaries would have more baptisms on the mission field then pastors would have in our fine Christian nation!
ok…that’s a joke….
what I really meant to say was,
AMEN!
February 1st, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Robin,
I would suggest that you have begun your post with a flawed premise, suggested by the very title which you express in the form of a question. The answer that you offer repeatedly throughout the post is that the IMB president ought to be serving the churches of the SBC. It seems to me that he ought to be serving first and foremost the Lord Himself. I have no doubt that you would agree with the last statement wholeheartedly, but it really is more than just quibbling about semantics to point out the difference between the two statements. Running throughout your post is the only thinly-veiled undercurrent that resurfaces over and over again on this blog about the need to be faithful to Baptist identity. That comes out a bit more clearly in your final sentence. That issue seems to overshadow everything else for you and your fellow bloggers, and so it impacts and (I would go so far to say) clouds your judgment at times. Your basic argument seems to be that a pastor would be in a better position than a missionary to ensure that the concerns about Baptist beliefs and identity that your group has espoused are effectively respected by the IMB.
Les and Geoff’s comments above underscore a vital matter though regarding the person who occupies the presidency of the IMB. That individual needs to possess a sound missiological mind and grasp firsthand the needs and challenges of those missionaries who serve with the IMB. That kind of mindset isn’t obtained by merely taking a couple of missions classes in seminary, nor even by participating in a handful of short-term missions projects, as important and vital as those are. The necessary skills needed to think critically and missiologically about cross-cultural missions is best derived in a cross-cultural setting. I think it’s no mistake that the IMB has recognized the wisdom since the days of Theron Rankin of having a leader who understands firsthand the challenges and opportunities of the work because he has lived and experienced them.
Your question, “Could a string of former missionaries appointed to the presidency of the IMB lead to an in-bred system that no longer recognizes the authority, beliefs, and practices of those churches who support those missionaries?” posits a situation that doesn’t correspond with reality. It further appears to be asked merely for the purpose of calling into question the loyalty of the current administration and missionary personnel to the recent direction of the IMB’s BoT and those who are apparently urging that group to take a harder stance on specific doctrines and practices that they deem to be fundamental to Baptist identity.
On a somewhat separate but related note, you raise the arguments against Dr. Mohler’s possible election as SBC president due to a conflict of interest and try and compare that with the case of a former missionary serving as president of the IMB. I have 2 observations about that. (1) You miss the point entirely about the nature of the conflict of interest. It isn’t so much that Mohler would be speaking “for the entity of which he is president” as you state, but rather (as many have noted) the office’s appointment powers that would in effect permit him to name those members of the nominating committee who would in turn name those who would serve as his eventual trustees. That is very much akin to asking the fox to guard the henhouse and effectively mitigates against responsible oversight of the institution by its trustees. (2) The issue of a former missionary serving for more than two years as president of the IMB is in no way parallel to that situation. He would have no appointment powers to name trustees to the IMB BoT and how his service would somehow constitute a conflict of interest is a mystery that you don’t clarify at all.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:15 pm
This is a good thought provoking post. I come at this from a different point of view. Having been raised in Independent Baptist churches, our pastor knew missionaries. He brought them to preach as they were raising support. He knew as much about missions as anyone including my seminary professors.
I love our Cooperative Program because and believe it is the best way to get missionaries out to the field quickly so they can do the job God has called them to do and that they do well.
But most SBC pastors know very few, and sometimes, no missionaries except those who they went to seminary with years ago.
So I am not certain that a pastor would be able to lead the IMB not because of lack of desire but lack of knowledge.
But that can be taken care of. People can learn new skill sets. He can rely on the great staff the IMB has to ‘fill in the gaps’. He can bring a pastor’s heart not just to missionaries, but also to getting missionaries to the churches so that we are not giving to Lottie Moon but we are giving to help __________ (fill in the blank with a missionary) reach a specific people with the Gospel.
for what it’s worth… my $0.02
February 1st, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Robin,
First of all, let me make clear I don’t have “a dog in the hunt” related to the Mohler nomination for SBC president. What I have to say in following is thus totally unrelated to that…
Although I can’t speak for all IMB missionaries, I do feel I have a fairly good pulse of how the vast majority might respond to your proposal on the future president of the IMB. And it is NOT favorably.
Geoff, Joel, & Gary have already expressed very well some of my main concerns. I whole-heartedly second everything they have written here.
One other important factor, especially given the dynamic created by all the events of the past couple of years related to the actions BoT, is there would be no more sure-fire way I know of than this to totally devastate the morale of the missionary force around the world. In my honest opinion, I believe it would be a total disaster for the Southern Baptist world missions enterprise.
I sincerely hope this is nothing more than a scatter-brained idea of yours and yours alone, and does not represent the line of thinking of others who may have influence within the SBC.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:00 pm
One more thing. If what you are suggesting comes to fruition, it would be the culmination of the underlying fears of many missionaries in response to the trends of the past few years in the BoT. It would be perceived as the crown jewel of all their actions up to now, and as exposing their true intentions they have had all along.
Let me make clear, I am not saying I believe this has been or presently is the intention of the majority of the BoT. I am not quite that cynical. I still believe in the good faith motivation of the majority of the trustees. But, if what you are suggesting were to come to place, that is almost certainly how it would be perceived.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Robin,
Very well thought out post. As an M on the field I disagree with some of your points, but that doesn’t change the fact that your post is extremely well thought out.
I am taken back that you still believe that those of us on the field are working outside of “New Testament and Baptist principles,” and need revising. We are Southern Baptists, raised in local SBC churches. Most of us who are on the field now did our training at post-conservative resurgence SBC seminaries. We follow a board of trustees that is led by SBC members, pastors and leaders. We sign statements and abide by guidelines made by SBC leaders (not missionaries on the field). Don’t you think we have a pretty good idea of how to do Baptist church-planting according to New Testament principles? Needless to say that final comment was very disheartening.
As for the topic of the post, there are many former missionaries who are also former or current pastors. They would, in my opinion, be the best choice possible. The prime example of quality in missionary service as well as pastoral service is Tom Eliff. I love Dr. Rankin and think he has done a fine job, but think that after he retires the IMB and SBC would be served well with someone of the Dr. Eliiff mold at the helm.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Geoff,
You wrote:
“I think it would be disastrous to place a pastor with no international missions field experience at the helm of our international mission organization.”
Really, “disastrous?” For the first 100 years, former pastors led the FMB. This was through the Civil War, southern Reconstruction, WW I, WW II and hard economic times. Most of that time it was done without Cooperative Program dollars. There was no internet or quality phone service for quick communication. To get on the field called for long and dangerous travel. Yet, these former pastors who led the agency, helped it endure through some of the toughest times in her history. History tells us that while disasters surrounded the FMB, it flourished under the Grace of God and the leadership of these former pastors who had little to no field experience. Imagine how much more they would have been effective if they had the communication and travel tools we are blessed with today?
Concerning your football analogy, that itself doesn’t hold weight. Pastors and missionaries are both in the same field. Winning souls to Christ and training others to do the same. Professors at a university teach students in their particular field. Coaches teach players to win football games. Totally different agendas, while both teach, they teach for different results. I see it more as a quarterback who plays for one team, but goes to another and learns the different plays and strategy of his new team while bringing his talents and gifts the team may not have had..
Les
You wrote:
“Let’s see…44,000 American pastors had 300K baptisms and 5,338 IMB missionaries had 600K baptisms last year. Who needs to learn from who?”
Your pragmatic, utilitarian, arminian statement is interesting since it is coming from a Biblical Calvinist. Charles Finney would be proud of you.
Just kiddin’ bro.
BTW, Praise God for those missionaries who shared the gospel! Praise God for the souls who have an eternal home in heaven!
The post is not about anyone needing to learn from anyone. I even stated that the President would need to be open to talking with missionaries so as to help the convention provide the best resources and training for the missionaries. It is not a question of teaching and learning, but coordinating and offering an insight from the churches who pay the bills.
Gary,
From what I have read from you, we agree on very little when it comes to the direction of the SBC even though I have respected your opinion. But I do agree with your statement that being true to Baptist identity does influence my judgement. I don’t believe it clouds or shadows it, but offers crystal clear understanding of what the Lord’s will is for His people. The problem I see with most people who disdain the current Baptist identity movement is that they see it as outside the Biblical witness and refer to it as man’s tradition. Baptists have come up with their beliefs by faithfully submitting to the Word. This is what I strive to do.
One concern I do have from your comment is how the appointment process happens. The president appoints the committee on committees who appoints the nominations committee who then appoint the trustees for the various agencies. And all of this gets its final approval with the convention. To say that Mohler serving as president is akin to putting the fox in the hen house, first questions the integrity of Dr. Mohler. Second, it questions the integrity of those who would serve on the committee on committees, nominating committee, and treats the messengers of the SBC as mind numb baffoons. It is would be obvious if the convention elects an entity president as her president, they would trust this man to act with integrity. The politics of questioning the integrity of someone because you disagree with them needs to stop. This may not what you intended to say, but basically it ends up there.
Joel,
Welcome back my friend. That statement means exactly what it says. We are in constant need to reexamine where we are at in light of the Biblical Witness. I do this myself and lead the church I pastor to do so also.
Certain statement like, “we are planting ‘baptistic’ churches” do worry me. Frankly, I have not found a definitive answer to what is “baptistic,” but what I have sensed is that there is a desire to waver on some doctrines in the spirit of ecumenicism. This has already been widely discussed.
I am not saying that those missiologists with the IMB have totally messed anything up, but I feel there has been a disconnect between the churches and the IMB. In fact at times I feel that there has been an adversarial role promoted by some seeking to spread mistrust among the trustees. A pastor might be able to heal some wounds that have been festering for some time. Now, let me make this clear, as I said in my post, Dr. Rankin has lead with integrity, so this statement is not about him. The thrust of the post is to open the possibility to examine some pastors for this position. If a certain missionary has the talents and gifts that fit better for the leadership needs of the IMB over some other candidates who are pastors, then I would vote for the missionary.
What some comments have stated is that we shouldn’t even look at any pastors. This is wrong and short sighted. I am asking for openness to the possibility that a pastor could serve in this role.
Thanks for the back and forth and I hope all is well with you too my brother.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Ranger
Thanks for the comment. You wrote, “I am taken back that you still believe that those of us on the field are working outside of “New Testament and Baptist principles,” and need revising.” I never said this. All of us need to reexamine if we are being true to the Biblical witness. If changes need to be made, then make them.
I believe the majority of Southern Baptist missionaries are hard working an seek to do the will of the Lord, but also realize their responsibility and accountability to SBC churches. I came to understand this when I was the secretary with the 2+2 program at Southwestern. I had the awesome privilege to interact with missionaries across the world and with those who visited with us stateside. Again, the vast majority fit the above description. I did run into a few who felt the SBC was divinely obligated to support them regardless of what they believed or how they operated on the field. This was about at the time when missionaries were required to sign the newly revised BF&M. Again, let me reiterate, the vast majority I talked to were willing to serve under the the accountability of the SBC. But there was a small percentage who felt they had the divine right for support with no strings attached.
I believe in our missionaries and the cooperative program. If I didn’t, I would not have led our church to increase our cooperative program giving over time until it reached 15%. BTW, thank you for your service.
David,
I don’t believe that appointing a Pastor as president would totally demoralize the missionary force on the field. Why would a godly man who wants to reach the world for Christ, with the talents and gifts necessary to lead an organization in doing so demoralize anyone?
February 1st, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Robin,
That was then … this is now. Yes, I think it would be nothing short of a disaster. Indeed, with the “right” pastor at the helm, I can vividly envision a missionary force that … rather than working with its leadership … would be forced to work “in spite of” its leadership.
You seem to put forth the notion that the IMB, under its leadership of trained missions practitioners, has somehow gotten “out of step” with the churches and pastors of the SBC. I tend to look at it from another perspective. I think the churches of the SBC, and their leaders, need to do a better job of “keeping up” with our missionaries.
Like the statistic that my friend Les Puryear cited shows … they seem to be doing something right.
And I think my football illustration is a most accurate parallel. Simply being the pastor of a church, even a mega-church, does not qualify someone to be the head of one of the largest, most influential, most effective missionary organizations in the world. Not at all.
In your original post, you said, “With the positive possibilities of having a pastor at the helm of the IMB, I believe it would be a tragedy if the convention does not consider some qualified pastors to lead her mission-sending organization. This would aid in the continual need for the restoration of our New Testament and Baptist principles.”
Considering the quality of people we are placing on the field, and the incredible job they are doing, I’m wondering which principles have been compromised are in need of restoration. Can you elaborate?
The overall tone of your post seems to say (to me … though I may be wrong), “These missionaries have created a mess that a good pastor needs to get in there and ‘clean up.’” If that’s the case, then I simply think you are wrong. Just a difference of opinion.
But I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of our missionaries in the field will agree with me.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Gary,
Thanks for commenting.
You talked about a “thinly-veiled undercurrent that resurfaces over and over again on this blog about the need to be faithful to Baptist identity.”
Based on this statement from you, I’m left with just one question: Dude, have you read our header?
February 1st, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Robin,
I’d have to agree with you that we undoubtedly don’t agree on very much concerning the direction of the SBC. My disagreements with the current Baptist identity movement don’t arise from a lack of concern about Baptist identity and distinctives. To the contrary, those are areas which keenly interest me and to which I have in fact devoted many years to studying and teaching. Our fundamental differences surely rest upon how those are defined, and the lack of freedom I see in the current movement to express those differences without being censured, labeled as a liberal, or deemed as non-Baptist. Baptists have drunk from many streams in their formation and growth down through the centuries, and unity in the midst of diversity was always considered a virtue and a goal to be sought until more recent times.
It was really the BF&M 2000 with its addition of the clause about being an instrument of doctrinal accountability that changed the modus operandi of the convention and its use of its own confessions of faith. I noticed that there was an interesting dialogue on here a few days back about ecclesiology. I arrived late to the discussion, having been out of the country on a missions trip to Guatemala, but several who left comments noted the irony of the inclusion of the preface of the 1963 version with its statements about the nature of Baptist confessions of faith—“That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility…Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches…That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so… That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.” For something that supposedly wasn’t to be imposed on churches or bodies of churches, and which purportedly was only a guideline in interpretation and not possessing authority over the conscience, the BF&M 2000 has certainly been used in those ways.
With regard to the appointment powers of the SBC president and the notion that integrity would prevent an entity president from bolstering his own position by appointing folks who in turn would name supportive trustees to the board of his institution, only the most extreme naiveté would fail to recognize this as a serious threat. For goodness sakes, it was the agreed upon strategy for achieving control of the entity boards by conservatives in their move to ouster moderates. Don’t pretend to tell me that it isn’t possible. It has already happened.
I do appreciate the civil tone in which you dealt with my observations, and I trust that what I’ve shared in this follow-up will not be construed as a personal attack on anyone. I speak as one concerned about the current direction of the SBC and the possible ramifications of what you suggest in your post. As a former IMB missionary myself, I would attest to the truth of David’s evaluation. Any such move in the light of the current climate of the IMB BoT would be a severe blow to morale and undoubtedly would be seen as another step in the strategy of a minority of power-seekers to control the SBC’s agencies.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Geoff
I have always respected you and have tried to stay on topic if we have interchanged dialogue. Whether it seems like it to you, I have not said what you are stating. I have already responded to your accusation and I don’t feel the need to repeat what I have said. It seems you are wanting to set up a a straw man rather than debate the ideas I have put forth. I have not claimed that missionaries have messed up anything. Again, praise God for the work He is doing through the hard work of our missionaries.
Ranger,
After rereading your comment, I believe Tom Eliff would be a fantastic choice for the Presidency. He is highly respected in Oklahoma and has been a great asset to the IMB.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Robin,
Both in FMB-IMB recent history, as well as the example of the vast majority of other international mission organizations, it is accepted wisdom that it is best for key leadership to have long-term international missions experience. As Gary says above, “The necessary skills needed to think critically and missiologically about cross-cultural missions is best derived in a cross-cultural setting.”
To go against the grain regarding this would almost certainly be interpreted by the majority of missionaries as a “slap in the face” and “vote of no-confidence” in who we are and the job we are doing. And, it would be hard for us to trust the missiological expertise of someone who had not been there “in the trenches” with us previously.
At the risk of coming across as elitist, I truly believe there are certain nuances of cross-cultural ministry that cannot be accurately understood without actual long-term hands on cross-cultural experience. To say, like you say to Geoff, that the difference of perspective between missionaries and pastors is not comparable to the difference of that between coaches and professors only betrays, in my opinion, your lack of appreciation for the complexities of cross-cultural ministry. Very few people with actual long-term cross-cultural experience would say what you said to Geoff regarding this.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Gary
Again, to compare what was accomplished with the conservative resurgence to power being waged by one person for their personal benefit is strangely odd. Let me repeat, to allude that one man, namely Dr. Mohler, would use the presidency mischievously for personal gain questions the integrity of the man.
It also questions the integrity of those who serve on the previously mentioned committees and trustee boards. It also questions the the resurgence itself. I am one who know mistakes and mishaps happened, but the men were open from the beginning of what their goals were and they went through the proper channels in accomplishing those goals.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Brother Les,
Just a point that needs to be made in reference to your Baptismal Stats for our M’s. I know that our M’s are hard at work and I praise God for their work.
However, I believe if you are going to use the baptisms of our M’s vs. the Baptism’s of our stateside churches, is a little misguided comparison. They are baptisms reported by churches, associations, and conventions to whom our missionaries minister. The claim that they are baptisms by our missionaries does not compare to the statistics generated by stateside churches.
Blessings,
Tim
February 1st, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Gary,
I have a non-whimsical question to ask you. You said:
I have an idea what you likely mean when you suggest that the BF&M has been used in “authority over the conscience,” although I would likely disagree with you about that. But I’m wondering if you intended to include the part about it being “imposed on churches” in your comment. If so, can you provide an example?
February 1st, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Geoff
I also noticed that you have repeated Les’ stats. I chose to not respond to the specifics of it because I don’t want it to seem like I am making light of the work our missionaries are accomplishing. But, let’s investigate what is behind those numbers.
Les compares international missionaries to stateside pastors. The statistic that Les gave cannot be given at face value. I believe, but I also leave the option open that I could be wrong, that the overwhelming number of those baptisms were not done by IMB missionaries. For that to happen, each missionary would have to baptize 113 people to reach those numbers. Allow me to repeat what Tim Rogers stated, “They are baptisms reported by churches, associations, and conventions to whom our missionaries minister. The claim that they are baptisms by our missionaries does not compare to the statistics generated by stateside churches.” Maybe David Rogers can help explain this further. I also know there are some missionaries, while working hard, are struggling to have 1-2 baptisms per year. What Les’ statement does is compare all the churches worldwide with the churches in one nation, the USA. It is really mixing apples and oranges.
Again, so my words are not misconstrued, Our missionaries are doing a great work and I applaud their efforts.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Gary
Please forgive me for going back and forth with previous comments made in this post. I catch some ideas and miss some other points of dialogue. In comment #7 you said this:
“The answer that you offer repeatedly throughout the post is that the IMB president ought to be serving the churches of the SBC. It seems to me that he ought to be serving first and foremost the Lord Himself. ”
The idea that serving the churches is not the same as serving the Lord would make no sense to the apostle Paul, who spent his entire life serving the churches in order to serve the Lord. My friend, you cannot separate the head (Jesus) from the body (His church).
February 1st, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Wes,
In response to your question above about the BF&M 2000 being imposed upon churches, I’m thinking of the pressure placed upon congregations by associations to adopt the 2000 version or be ousted from the association.
Robin,
In an ideal world, serving the churches would indeed be the same as serving the Lord, and I have no doubt that Paul saw his ministry as doing both. In the case of an IMB president’s relationship to convention churches though, we’re not talking about the same kind of relationship that exists between a church planter or pastor and a local congregation. I interpreted your earlier remarks to mean that a pastor serving in the role of IMB president would be more accountable to the churches than a missionary. It was that idea of accountability to the churches that I was subordinating to the more biblical notion of accountability to the Lordship of Christ. I hope you see the distinction.
February 1st, 2008 at 11:48 pm
I think that the following quotes by Jerry Rankin as referenced in the BP article at this link — http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=20057 — should answer most questions related to the IMB baptism statistics.
“We’re not claiming that this is simply the work of our missionaries,” Rankin said. “But we do feel that we are accountable to our board of trustees and Southern Baptists for reporting what results come from our missionaries and where they are serving.”
The IMB reports only on work consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message. Most of this work is not affiliated with the BWA. At least 80 percent of the new churches reported in the 2004 statistics are among overseas groups not affiliated with the BWA, Rankin said.
In addition, the IMB reports work only where its missionaries are “actively engaged” and “have an influence and ministry among Baptists in those countries,” he said. Once IMB missionaries train leaders in an area how to teach and disciple others, the nationals take the lead in starting their own churches.
“If we found out that missionaries were doing the baptizing, we would probably reprimand them,” Rankin said. “Do missionaries baptize? Yes, occasionally. Do missionaries start churches? Yes, they do. But a very small proportion of the new churches we reported would have been started by a missionary.”
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:06 am
David
You stated:
“At the risk of coming across as elitist, I truly believe there are certain nuances of cross-cultural ministry that cannot be accurately understood without actual long-term hands on cross-cultural experience.”
In spite of your claim that you do not want to come across as elitist, it seems that is exactly what you are doing. This is the same type of attitude that the clergy developed in the Middle Ages that later required the Reformation. “Trust us, we know what we are doing, and you don’t; you will mess it up.”
To suggest that I as a pastor don’t deal with cross-cultural issues is not correct. When I ministered in Central and East Texas, I understood better what was meant that “Texas is like a whole ‘nother’ country.” I have witnessed to Hispanics and Asians. Just moving up here to Oklahoma was a cultural change. The whole cultural difference argument loses steam when you consider that it is learning the sensitivities to the people you are trying to reach. That could happen in Stillwater Oklahoma where we have all kinds of people from Native Americans to Muslims just like you have experienced in Madrid Spain. I lived for three and a half years in West Berlin Germany as a kid. Sure there were some cultural differences, but I learned them and was able to get along pretty good in a foreign country.
The point is that we all learn cultural differences wherever we minister. I am not saying it is as difficult here as it is in a Saudi Arabia or Madrid Spain, but experiencing and overcoming it is still the same process.
One final point. If your argument that one must know the nuances of cross cultural evangelism to lead the IMB still does not hold weight. The nuances one learns is different for each area of the world. I believe the how the nuances are learned in Spain are totally different than how the nuances are learned and practiced in Saudi Arabia.
The fact of the matter is this, pastors (not all) stateside learn cross cultural differences to a different extent than what you did in Spain and even yours was different from those in the middle east. To prevent leadership in the IMB from a stateside pastor because of the false assumption that he has not had to learn cross cultural differences is a mistake I hope never happens.
Thanks
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 am
Robin,
Joel has well spoken here. You argue against your desire for Dr. Mohler to be president of the SBC with your argument for a pastor to be president of the IMB.
I realize you try to present a logic of some sorts, but it is the logic of a dog chasing its tail. You argue in circles.
One good thing is evident from this post though, Dr. Mohler should remain as he is and somebody else should be president of the SBC.
Why don’t you throw your hat in the ring? I will vote for you.
As to your idea for who would be a good person to replace Jerry Rankin, why not a WMU lady from some church that gives 32% to the CP? The argument you have used for a pastor would do just as well for a missional WMU lady.
I bet Tim Rogers can give you over 100 possible names from the North Carolina WMU. Many of them have the time to do it now too since they are not so busy with the North Carolina Baptist Convention.
cb
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 am
Gary,
I believe you are making a distinction where there is not one. Again, biblically, Paul served the Lord by serving the churches. You can’t separate the two.
David
It is late, so I may have missed it, but the question is does the numbers reported by the IMB reflect directly from the work of missionaries or indirectly from the indigenous churches and conventions?
Again, the statement by Les was comparing the missionaries overseas to the pastors stateside. If the IMB numbers include baptisms not directly related to the missionaries, unlike the numbers for pastors being directly related to them stateside, then there is a mixing of apples and oranges.
Again, I must say, praise God for the work He is doing through our hard working missionaries.
Gentlemen, it is late and I have an early day tomorrow. God bless and good night.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:26 am
CB
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I am no where near qualified for that type of ministry. Nor do I want want my character to be slandered out of fear. Ooops, sorry, that has already been done.
I believe that I clarified my argument concerning Dr. Mohler. Serving only two years would not lead to the situations I have described. Plus the president does not organize the infrastructure for the SBC like a president does for a seminary or the Ex Comm. Two years later another president is elected. Two years after becoming a president of a SBC entity, he remains to mold the infrastructure according to how he thinks he needs to accomplish the entity’s mission. I hope you can see the distinction.
Thanks.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:28 am
Okay, this time I mean it. Good night.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 am
Robin,
Forget all that stuff. I want to know what you think about the WMU lady leading the IMB?
cb
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:31 am
I read this a couple of hours ago and then I had to walk away from it before responding because it irritated me so much. I have a hard time not seeing this as an attack on Dr. Rankin. More than that I see it as a personal attack and not an attack on any one of his policies. Now that I have come back and have decided to comment I do so not in hopes that I can change Robin’s mind about anything- I think his mind is made up- but I do hope to affirm that there are M’s who feel very differently.
So, on to substance. Robin says:
Since the president is to lead the IMB according to the desire of the churches of the Southern Baptist convention, it is questionable as to whether a missionary, who has been out on the field for twenty to thirty years, may serve as the best representative of what the churches in the Convention believe and practice.
I have several problems with this statement which I believe to be the basic thrust of Robin’s whole post. First, as has been pointed out I reject the idea that the President is to ‘lead the IMB according to the desire of the churches’. I was a pastor before going overseas and my desire for the IMB President then as now was that he should lead under the guidence of the Holy Spirit. Let us argue forcefully concerning methodologies and what we believe to be the leading of the Spirit on different issues but at the end of the day I will support a man or woman who will stand and say this is what I believe God is calling us to do, not this is what 51% of those polled have suggested. As to your assertion that there is no difference between the Church’s desire and God’s desire well, I leave others to correct your papist ways.
Secondly, I wish to address this issue of elitism. I am not opposed to a pastor being called to the IMB Presidency if that man is 100% sold out to missions and has dedicated his life to the study of missiology and has a great understanding of all that we have learned over the last 150 years of doing M work under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. Alternatively, I assume you have no trouble supporting as a president of your seminary a man with no theological education but has dedicated himself to the study of the Bible.
But I can’t leave that there- I need to go on and affirm that there is a huge difference between what I do living here in Middle Earth and sharing my faith with Muslims in their own context and what some good folks at home do when they run into a Muslim at Walmart. To just call everyone a ‘Missionary’ and say it is all the same is an insult to God’s giftings and callings. My job is not harder than yours- even though currently I sit in a cold house which has not had water in 9 days- we both fight the same enemy and therefore we fight the same difficult battle. But fighting on land and fighting at sea is two completely different things with two completely differnent strategies and methodologies. To fail to recognize that is arrogant and foolsih.
Sorry for the long comment. In future posts might I suggest you restore unity by spurring one another on to good works instead of writing articles to attack those you disagree with, least of all Dr. Rankin whom I believe to be the greatest President the IMB/FMB has yet seen.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 am
Robin,
That’s why I wrote “at the risk of coming across as elitist.” I had a strong suspicion you might react like this. Since we don’t have a quorum here to call for a vote, it is hard to prove this. But, I am willing to stick my neck and claim that 98% of people, whatever the organization, who have spent at least 10 years doing international cross-cultural missions would agree with me. In a way, it is something you have to experience yourself to understand what I am talking about. But I sincerely believe that the mentality you are demonstrating here, the idea that ministry anywhere is basically, at its root, the same, and people are people wherever you go, is one of the main impediments towards seeing God’s work advance overseas. It is an over-simplification of the missions task. And many who have never really experienced the nitty-gritty of long-term missionary work tend to minimize the complexities.
I agree that different cultures are different, and just because you have lived in one doesn’t mean you are an expert in all of them. However, living for a length of time immersed in another culture, especially one that is very different from your culture of origin, gives you a very different perspective from that of those who from time to time do short little ventures out into the world of other cultures. It is also very different from living in the suburbs, and going into inner city USA to minister, and returning to your home in the suburbs again each night. Someone who has actually lived, day-in, day-out, immersed in a culture very different from his/her own, is much more able to appreciate and understand the situation of someone else doing the same thing in another culture than someone who has never done this.
Also, though Spain, where I have lived and ministered for the last 18 years, is very different, in many aspects, from the USA, I am not very sure, even, that having lived only there (in the privileged West) would adequately prepare one to lead an orgnanization that operates primarily in the 2/3rd’s world. It would be, at least, though, a good jump over the experience of those who have only lived in the States.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:08 am
Robin,
Regarding the baptism statistics, I thought the quotes from Dr. Rankin were pretty straight-forward. Read the article in the link for better context.
In any case, to be even more clear: No, the 600,000 plus baptisms last year were not all done by missionaries alone. They were done by missionaries and our minstry partners who have been directly influenced by our work, and continue to maintain an active relationship with us.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:31 am
Robin,
You said, “I did run into a few who felt the SBC was divinely obligated to support them regardless of what they believed or how they operated on the field.”
That’s the truth and despite only being out here for just over a year, I’ve already met a few as well! Unfortunately, I knew many pastors with that same mindset about their churches back in the states, which is a terrible shame.
I already respected Dr. Eliff from things I had heard and read about him before going to training in Virginia. After arriving in Virginia and meeting some other people headed to the field, I had serious concerns about the future work of a few due to their apparent lack of any theological training and IMO serious questions about what it means to be a church, and thus how we plant churches using the NT model (let me state that these people were the minority and often j-guys and gals who had yet to have any formal theological training).
During our theology week, Dr. Eliff quelled my fears as he very clearly defined the New Testament church and clearly explained each detail of the company policy concerning how we are to plant Baptist churches. It seemed that most people really enjoyed it (not just the theology nerds like myself) and learned a lot. The week was also a good time for those who hadn’t considered these issues to flesh them out and discuss them with Dr. Eliff or others who had studied them more. Dr. Eliff always made himself available in the cafeteria during meals and was always open to discussions about anything that crossed our minds.
IMO, someone like him who both understands the mindset of local Baptist churches from a pastor’s perspective, as well as what it means to endure on the field despite great difficulty, would be the perfect balance for leadership within the IMB.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:32 am
Ranger
Your comments, both affirm my concerns, yet calm them also. I thank the Lord for Dr. Tom Eliff and his willingness to serve and prepare our missionaries out in the field.
David
I appreciate your comments, but I still feel that you are saying, that someone like Dr. Eliff is not qualified to lead the IMB. Would you support someone like Dr. Eliff to lead the IMB? If he is not qualified to do that, do you believe he is qualified to serve in the position he is serving now? Instructing and preparing missionaries to go on the field.
Concerning the stats, the IMB includes numbers not directly related to the work of the missionaries. Therefore Les’ comparison does not come out in the wash. Again, praise God for the hard work they are doing, especially those who are striving to reach the lost, but are not seeing the visible fruits of their labor.
Strider
Let me be specific so that you don’t put words in my mouth.
I BELIEVE DR. RANKIN HAS LED WITH INTEGRITY. I SUPPORT HIM AS PRESIDENT OF THE IMB EVEN THOUGH I DO NOT SUPPORT SOME THINGS HE HAS ALLOWED TO BECOME PART OF THE CULTURE OF THE IMB (IE; CAMEL METHOD).
Just because I disagree with him in some areas does not mean I am call for a referendum to remove him as president.
CB
I haven’t forgotten about you. The answer to your question is no.
Everyone, I will be away for most the day. My son is performing in honors band up in Tonkawa and I will spend most my day traveling.
I appreciate many of the great discussions happening here.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
If the IMB Trustees persist in their present policies, they had better get ready for a proliferation of organizations for appointing and sustaining missionaries, because if a man is called to foreign missions and the IMB says no, folks are going to find a way to go.
(By the way, the “anti-spam word” required for this post is “LOVE”)
Blessings,
-jack-
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
jack,
real love is grounded in truth. and, there are some people out there who need to be told that our sbc dollars wont support them. that’s love.
david
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
As another m, I agree with Gary, David & Strider.
There is a difference between the pastoral role and the missional (apostolistic) role. I like Strider see this post as not only a veiled criticism of Dr. Rankin, but as an even less veiled criticism as what we do on the field. It is clear from New Testament teaching that the Holy Spirit gifts us and qualifies us to do the God-called tasks that are pre-ordained for us to do. If I did not believe this I would not have remained on the field these many years.
I believe that God supplies us with wisdom & knowledge to enable us to work cross-culturally. The many years in our host countries using a foreign tongue enable us to think and act in a way that gives our gospel message validity. We must earn the right to share such a life changing message. And we do plant “baptistic” churches, which hold to the Biblical doctrines that Southern Baptists hold dear. But culturally, they make not look exactly like the churches at home hence the word “baptistic.”
I agree with David, it is a very different matter planting your life, your family and your heart in a foreign place than it is dealing with someone at the local Walmart. Both are needed, but the approach has to be very different thus the need for “camel” type methods. (I’m unfamiliar with that so won’t comment on it.) This goes to the heart of being missional.
As an m, I need a president that understands that dynamic, that understands the physical & emotional toll that it takes on a family to serve overseas, and that grasps the enormous need to rely on the Holy Spirit to share the gospel in context. We have a president like that in Dr. Rankin.
I would not be in favor of a president that was just an “SBC pastor.”
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Robin,
I do not want to get into campaigning for any particular individual as the next president of the IMB. I have a high degree of admiration for Dr. Elliff. He is obviously extremely well qualified for the position he occupies now.
I do believe it is significant that he and his wife did serve 2 years in Zimbabwe, and have 2 daughters that have served as IMB missionaries. These factors would help to make up for a lack of more extensive overseas service. All things being equal, though, and apart from strictly personal considerations, I would prefer someone with more extensive overseas service for the role of president.
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
followingwherever,
I must first say that I appreciate your heart for doing what God has called you to do. I, too, have an ardent conviction regarding my own call to pastor the local church to which God has sent me. When asked by the pastor search committee about my thoughts concerning leaving Oklahoma and the Big XII South and heading to Missouri and the Big XII North, I told them, “Well, we need missionaries everywhere!”
OK…seriously, I am concerned about a dangerous tendency I believe I read in your comment here to my brother Robin. You either claim, or at least insinuate, that the calling to be a missionary equates to an “apostolic” calling and thus differs from a “preacher/pastor” role. I think you have missed, or at least misapplied, the distinction between apostle, missionary, and pastor. In the NT, the role of the apostle was a specific calling applied to those men who were the immediate disciples of our Lord and had been inspired by the Holy Spirit to author those books which we now identify as the New Testament. To my knowledge, there is no theologian, specifically in Southern Baptist life, who would assert that such a calling and giftedness is viable for today (the canon is closed, etc.). We are then left with the remaining two callings–missionary and pastor. I would certainly argue that these callings in both motivation and ministry are identical. The only difference between them is the setting (call it culture, geography, or whatever). We are all called with one calling and one hope of our calling. We are all called into roles of leadership within and with respect to the local church…to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. We as Christians are called to the same mission… to “go therefore into all the world and make disciples of all nations”!
As my seminary alma mater, a highly missionally minded Southern Baptist cooperating seminary, states… “To all the world for Jesus sake!”
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Volfan:
Do you support driving missionaries from the field who would not sign a creedal document?
Do you support denying missionaries a place on the field because of how they pray in private?
-Just trying to understand where you are coming from when you say “there are some people out there who need to be told that our sbc dollars wont support them.”
(By the way the anti-spam word for this post is “kindness.”)
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Scott Gordon,
Your comment in #41 is a very valid comment here and I thank you for posting it.
Jack,
I cannot answer for Vol, but I believe some missionaries should be sent home under certain situations.
If I sign a document stating I will work within certain perimeters and then I circumvent that document I should be dealt with accordingly and if sending me home is the ultimate conclusion after all else fails then so be it.
Frankly, Jack the SBC has never asked anyone of us to sign a “creed” or a document of “creedal” substance.
I would not think I should be sent home for how I pray in private.
I also think the new baptism policy is not totally in accord with the NT, therefore it should be revised.
I also KNOW Wade Burleson was not lying about the plan to rid the IMB of Jerry Rankin, but that is another subject.
I have also, always questioned Jerry Rankin’s ability to be president of the IMB since he was elected in 1993, but that will cause a fight so I will leave it alone for now, basically because all thise that might agree with me are now mad at me because I said Wade Burleson told the truth about the plan that many of us knew about for years.
Robin,
OK, so you think the WMU lady is a bad idea. Just asking.
cb
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Robin,
Add me to the multitude of missionaries who think that the person to lead the IMB is a career missionary, not a person pastoring a church in the USA. I agree with David Rogers, Strider and the several other active missionaries commenting here, and they said it much better than I could.
Why the push for a pastor? I have long had a theory, based on my years in the Air Force. The USAF was mainly a pilot’s organization. Thus, first promotions went to pilots. It has been that way within the SBC. A pastor’s organization with many pastors thinking that along with their M-Div came the gifting to be able to do anything and everything, better than anyone. Unfortunately, this has not proven to be the case.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Tim and Robin,
Brothers, you miss the whole point. We, in the USA, need to do what the missionaries are doing the way they are doing it.
The USA is not a Christian nation. It is a mission field that needs to be approached as such. We pastors need to be trained in being missionaries and we should train our people to be missionaries as well.
People are going to Hell all around us and we’re arguing about whether a pastor should be president of the SBC. God forbid that the IMB should be made to do things like we do them in America.
That’s my point and I’m sticking to it.
Les
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Robin:
Thank you for your candor. I appreciate it.
If I have misread posts by other missionaries formerly on the field regarding being required to sign the current BF&M in order to remain there, then I apologize.
(The anti-spam word for this post is “peace.”)
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 pm
My last post was in response to a previous post by CB, not Robin —sorry for any confusion.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Les,
I tend to agree with you as long as both here in America and in all places on the earth we strive to do all things in a biblical manner.
It has been my experience that you will agree with that so I base my agreement with you on that foundation.
cb
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Jack,
My point is the BF&M is not a creed as such.
As has been pointed out by many (very well by Danny Akin in San Antonio) the BF&M is a guide and nothing more. It is used to set perimeters not only for the IMB, but also for other entities of the SBC. I signed it and worked within its perimeters at one of our entities.
I do not believe it is a perfect document. It is not. No document of human origin is. Only the Bible is a perfect document because it has a perfect Author.
My point is that if I sign a document, giving my word to work within its perimeters, I should do so and if I cannot I should not sign the document. If I do sign the document and later find I cannot, in good conscience, serve or work within the perimeters set by the document I should resign my post or job and leave the entity to which I was hired or appointed.
The Bible is the only creed Southern Baptists have. Anything else is merely a document to aid in fulfilling our job or service to the entity by which we were hired or appointed.
It is not unreasonable to expect anyone hired or appointed to fulfill their duties or job description.
Signing a document in promise of working within the prescribed perimeters predetermined by the entity to which we have been appointed or hired is in keeping with good order and decency.
If though, the “entity handlers” suddenly change the perimeters or reinterpret them for no valid reason other than whim or a feather up their noses or in their “nests” the “owners” of the entity need to deal with or replace the “entity handlers” for the good of the entity and the good order of the Kingdom at large.
cb
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Les
Thanks for your statement. I will follow your resolve the next time I see someone writing a post arguing the case of historical premillennialism over dispensational premillennialism when the differences between the two don’t make a hill of beans when people are dying and going to hell.
David
So, Tom Eliff: a man with Missionary experience, whose daughters serve as missionaries, with impeccable integrity, who also pastored one of the leading SBC churches in America, and is now serving in the IMB is not qualified in your mind to be president of the IMB?
With all due respect to you my brother, that statement speaks volumes.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Robin,
You are a bold man, for which you have my respect. The Eliff statement does speak volumes. Greater volumes than we may realize, I fear.
cb
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:03 am
For those of you who like Dr. Eliff, he will be speaking at the Small Church Leadership Conference which will be held March 27-29. Check it out at http://sbcsmallchurch.com.
Commercial over.
Les
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:51 am
Robin,
Your comments in #50 attempt to back David into a corner…while I find such reprehensible, I am confident that David can speak for himself.
I might just add briefly to what you wrote…in your description of accomplishments you neglected to mention how, as pastor of one of the leading churches in the USA, said church defaulted on church bonds to a very hefty sum (I have heard $14 million, but cannot verify it). Would we want such a person in control of an agency with a budget in the hundreds of millions?
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:51 am
Robin,
I ask you plainly and openly:
Does “I would prefer someone with more extensive overseas service for the role of president” mean the same thing as “I do not think Tom Elliff is qualified to be president of the IMB”? To insinuate that it is, I believe, disingenuous on your part.
I am talking about principle, and you are trying to bait me into talking about individuals.
This is not about Tom Elliff. It is about whether or not the IMB president should have significant overseas missionary experience. If you want to make it about Tom Elliff, as I said earlier, “I do not want to get into campaigning for ANY particular individual as the next president of the IMB.”
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:09 am
10-40,
Please don’t get me wrong here. I am not throwing Tom Eliff’s hat in the ring to follow Jerry Rankin.
I am going to say he did not bring about that debt to the church. That was another guy. Tom Elliff did everything he could to stop that situation while he was there. It is not fair of you to just throw that out there without knowing the facts.
BTW, the debt was more like 8 million, not 14 million.
If you want to bust his chops do it over the Disney boycott. That was certainly a failed missions opportunity.
cb
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:13 am
One more thing,
Robin did not put David in a corner.
David commented. Robin responded. That is all. Sometimes our comments themselves put us in corners and rightfully so.
cb
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:30 am
Robin,
This topic is interesting and I’ve enjoyed reading the original post and following comments. Thanks.
I am also an m with the IMB. Here are my two cents. Like the other m’s here, I am 100% for a president of the IMB who has extensive experience serving overseas as a missionary. Jerry Rankin is widely respected by all of us, in large part because he and his family have spent many, many years doing the same things we are trying to do in a foreign culture, being salt and light in dark and sometimes unsavory places.
Just wondering… Have we ever had a seminary president who had not taught in a seminary? Have all the NAMB presidents been church planters/chaplains?
Katie
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 am
David
I am not being disingenuous with my statement. You first claimed that it was necessary for the President of the IMB to have field experience dealing with cross-cultural ministry. Once one candidate is brought forth, who was also a former stateside pastor and current leader in the IMB, you then claim, “I would prefer someone with more extensive overseas service for the role of president” and later adding that you would want someone with more “significant” experience.
My brother, I am not trying to put you in any corner, nor am I trying to embarrass you. Frankly, I have enjoyed our conversation here, and I have been challenged by your thoughts.
What I am reading and what was confirmed to me in past experiences by a small minority in the IMB and backed up by Ranger is a spiritual elitism on this subject. I know you to be a saint of God and a humble man. I do in fact admire you and your service in Spain. I have read your thoughts for awhile and have been challenged to rethink some of my beliefs. What I am concerned about is that when one man who is brought forth who met your original requirements, you step them up. I don’t understand this.
Sometime next week, I plan to write a post on what I believe the duties of an IMB president should be. Not that my word is infallible, but I would like to steer the conversation to looking at this topic. I would like to learn more of what others think and possibly we can grow from the experience.
While you are stateside, I don’t know if I will have the opportunity to meet you, but I hope we can in fact meet if God permits.
Again, I am perplexed at how you think 2 years of missionary service, many years of pastoral experience, and current IMB experience is not significant enough to lead the IMB?
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Robin,
Maybe I can illustrate it this way…
I just voted for Mike Huckabee the other day in the early polling for the Tennessee primary. I did so, because out of the various candidates on the ballot, I feel he is the best one. However, I would PREFER the President of the US have more experience in dealing with foreign policy. Does this mean I do not think Huckabee is qualified for the job? No! But, if there were another candidate who had all the positive qualities of Huckabee, and also had extensive foreign policy experience, I would likely vote for that candidate.
Does that make sense? Do you get my point? From my perspective, 2 years of missionary experience is definitely better than none. But, then again, 20 or 30 years is much better than 2 years.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Robin,
This is a bit absurd, if you look at it objectively. Apparently, the editors of SBC Today feel comfortable with hosting a series of posts on who the new president of the IMB should be and what his qualifications should be. Should we expect another series on the leadership of the ERLC? How about SWBTS? NAMB? I have repeatedly heard from you guys how we should support the system and our leaders and you are currently engaging in a discussion that can do nothing but undermine confidence in Jerry Rankin’s leadership of the IMB, whether you believe that or not. How about if we save discussions like this for when there is actually an opening? Do you know something we don’t? Or, is this just what you want to see happen?
As far as a pastor being the president of the IMB, that could work on some level, I suppose. But, it would be foolish, I believe. Within the SBC, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of qualified missionaries. I have ministered cross-culturally in the U.S. as well, Robin, and I can tell you with all confidence that ministering cross culturally in California is quite a bit different from engaging in mission work in the Himalayas of Northern India, and I have done both. The biggest difference is that while you might cross cultures in America, you still LIVE in a familiar culture, for the most part. You are still a part of the dominant culture. When you are ministering (not just residing) in a foreign, especially non-European, culture, you are the minority, the outsider. You come from a position of cultural weakness and lack of knowledge like you could not possibly understand in the U.S. To be successful in that environment takes a special type of person, not just someone who knows how Baptist churches are supposed to work and who is a soul winner. Beyond being successful personally, you also have to be able to lead a missionary force that is over 5,000 strong and has personnell on every continent. A daunting task, to be sure. Few are up to the challenge.
As far as David goes, he is anything but elitist, Robin. It was unfair to accuse him of that and it did a lot to derail your conversation, in my opinion. He just wants someone competent to run the IMB and not a “Baptist Identity” pastor who can tow the party line of the IMB Board of Trustees, but who doesn’t understand the difficulties of church planting amongst unreached people groups. Should we not expect someone who leads ALL Southern Baptists to actually have lived out what he is leading us to support?
I think this would be a terrible idea, but I would not be surprised to see it happen. We seem to be going the way of bad ideas lately.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
David
First, good choice with Huckabee.
Second, I believe it all depends on what we feel the next IMB should be able to do for the next 15 to 20 years. So from what I gather you feel that experience on the field is a disqualifier if the person does not have 20-30 years of it.
Whether a candidate has 2 years or twenty to thirty years does not does not register as high to me as a man who can not only promote a biblical vision, but can also garner greater support from churches so that we can support more missionaries overseas. Tell me of one president who has led training in cross cultural ministry and I will tell you of a president that has wasted his time. That is not what a president should be doing under our current conditions. We hire experts to do this.
The early leaders were able to do this under the most difficult of circumstances. What I have asked and will continue to ask is that we don’t close the door on a possible candidate who has had pastoral experience.
Alan
I thought you reformers were all about open dialog? I have put this idea out there for when we consider the next president. I have not called for the removal of Dr. Rankin. I discussed with church members at my last church what that church needed in their next pastor before I was called up here. And no one was trying to push me out the door. Dr. Rankin will retire. When? That is up to the Lord. I have only started a discussion that has helped me understand some of David Rogers concern. I pray he understands some of mine.
But I guess it is okay on blogs to undermine the leadership of Paige Patterson or Al Mohler. Or it is just fine upon the news of Jerry Fallwell’s passing to be critical of his ministry before the family has had a chance to bury him.
Please, don’t try to take the high road when so many “reformers” have blazed a trail on the low one. This is a discussion so that we understand each other better. If you want to condemn me for that, you have your own blog.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Robin,
I don’t understand why you continue to insist on putting the words “not qualified” and “disqualifier” in my mouth. That choice of terminology is what I consider to be disingenuous.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
David,
20 or 30 years experience? And that would make him a graduate of which of our seminaries in what year?
David, think about what you are saying related to the possibilities of his theological foundation as far as the quality of his education would be concerned.
That also should be a factor in this equation. It has most definitely been a problematic factor of the past. Has it not?
cb
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
David
Pardon me if it seems we are playing a game of semantics. But you would not choose someone with 2 years of experience over someone with 20 to 30. Would it be better to say that one would be more qualified than the other?
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
David
In your estimation of course.
Sorry, I hit the wrong key before I was finished.
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Robin,
I don’t want to condemn you for anything. You pout a lot of thought into this post and I interacted with you on it. You left the comment section open so I stated my opinion on your post.
I’ve never said a negative word about Paige Patterson, save criticizing his having lunch with Dwight McKissic without telling him that his chapel sermon would be yanked.
Al Mohler’s candidacy for the presidency of the SBC became fair game when he threw his hat in the ring. I have no doubt as to his ability to lead Southern Seminary - he has done a fine job and I am n