« Prayers for the Kaufman Family | Main | Evangelism Debate and Emergent Realities »
Getting the Facts Straight: Hershael York
Posted by SBC Today | April 15, 2008
In a post on his blog, Dr. Hershael York, who is a trustee of the International Mission Board, gets the facts straight and corrects some of the misinformation concerning the attrition rate of missionary personnel:
Interestingly, the attrition rate has actually declined since the IMB passed the policies on baptism and private prayer language that some people find controversial. Another way of putting it is that the attrition rate has dropped since John Floyd became chairman of the IMB. Now, do I think Dr. Floyd can or should take credit for that? Of course not. But I think it just as foolish when some critics of his or of the board simplistically blame the board or Dr. Floyd when missionaries leave.
You can read his post in its entirety by clicking here.
Topics: Baptism, IMB Issues, Missions, PPL, SBC Issues |
April 15th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I am one of the missionaries who resigned during the leadership of John Floyd. I did not resign because of either of the two issues, but let me tell you something, those are REAL issues. No so much the PPL but the baptism one for sure.
I baptized my youngest daughter while in Thailand in a hotel swimming pool, just after this unbiblical decree went out. Even though it was an Annual General Meeting and there were folks from Richmond and even trustees there, they did not attend. My own regional leader didn’t want to attend because he was afraid of what might be said of him.
I WAS BAPTIZING MY DAUGHTER!
Representatives from the Personnel Selection Department of the IMB were there, too, but did not attend the baptism. I asked them whether or not my daughter was now disqualified from missionary service with the IMB because her ordained SBC IMB missionary father had baptized her in a swimming pool instead of an SBC church in America. They told me that according to the new policies, she would have to be baptized in an SBC church in America.
YOU TRY TELLING THAT TO MY DAUGHTER!
I am HIGHLY critical of John Floyd. I called (since I have resigned) for his resignation. I called for answers regarding many different issues . He called me on the phone and had the audacity to ask me if I was tape recording his call. HE CALLED ME! He then made it very clear, by his comments, that he had my IMB personnel folder in front of him. Why would he want to make it clear to me of that? Because he was trying to imtmidate me.
You guys can hate Burleson all you want to, but you need to understand: John Floyd was a bad chairman of the Board of Trustees. He seemed to be led by personal agenda and personal bias. Get your stories straight before you start singing his praises.
Rick Boyne
Pastor
Immanuel Southern Baptist Church
Wagoner OK
918-485-5115
http://www.immanuelsouthern.com
rick@immanuelsouthern.com
April 15th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Rick,
Let me see if I understand you. During an Annual General Meeting and as part of your local church’s worship service, you were performing a baptism of your daughter as part of her obedience to our Lord’s command, identification with Him in baptism, and identification with a visible, local body of baptized believers?
As to your account of your interaction with Dr. Floyd, I will leave you to your recollection. Even if this encounter took place precisely as you have described, that still does not present ANY argument for the blatant lies regarding the number of resignations from the IMB being linked as having resulted from the aforementioned policies. This ad hominem is a distraction from rather than an answer to the information posted by Dr. York.
Sola Gratia!
April 15th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Let’s see…JF was a ‘bad’ chm. with a ‘personal agenda’ and a ‘personal bias’, was he? And that would be your personal opinion, unsullied by personal agenda and personal bias? Uh huh…
If we have IMB field personnel calling for the resignation of their employers, trustees of the IMB, then they should understand that they do so at the risk of their employment. Sorry, my friend, no one in the SBC elected you to set policy. The trustees may be wrong but they are doing the job that they, not you, were elected to do. I am critical of some IMB trustee decisions and perhaps would disagree with some of JF’s positions, but the SBC administrates the IMB through duly elected trustees, not through polling the field personnel.
On the baptism of your daughter - an honest question: Were you not a member of some local (in the sense of a visible congregation, not necessarily local geographically) church even while serving in Thailand? If so, is there a reason that your local church was left out of your personal, family baptismal ceremony? Is your position that the ordinance of baptism should be available for any administrator in any circumstance?
(I don’t have the baptism policy in front of me, but I don’t think it requires a church in America to be involved.)
Just asking…
BTW, I don’t hate WB, I even agree with him sometimes. I do think it is better for him not to be an IMB trustee.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
rick,
another question…to go along with the ones that william mentioned…would it have been so hard to contact the authorities over you in thailand and ask them what you should do in regards to baptising your daughter? i’m honestly asking this…not trying to be mean.
david
April 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
David:
David, David, always just asking questions.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
tom,
curious minds want to know.
rick,
dr. john floyd was a professor of mine in seminary. he is a godly man who has a heart for the lost. he is a man of integrity, and yes, i’d say that he’s very concerned that things are done decently and in order. as a professor, he was tough but fair. he also loves people. and, if you want to know something else….his wife is a wonderful christian lady.
david
April 15th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
An ordained missionary should ask permission on whether to baptize his daughter? I fear baptist identity and Christian identity may be diverging.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
David:
I do not see your questions as just being curious, you always appear to me to try and be critical in a sly way, always questioning someone elses judgement.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I just do not see where someone gets baptized as being very important, whether it is a pool or a church. How many more rules and regulations are going to be added.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Tom,
In my mind it more about the in relation to whom rather than the where.
I don’t care if it’s down by the riverside as long as it is administered by the local church. That is why we, as Southern Baptists, have always discussed baptism as a church ordinance. The scriptures speak of those who accepted Christ as being baptized and added to the church…leadership from a local church is always present.
Baptism is not something done on a whim (& let everyone understand this is no slight to Rick…I have spoken with him by phone regarding his situation and while we may not fully agree, we understand each other as brothers in Christ)…when I speak about a whim or otherwise, I’m talking about accepting a baptism performed in a back yard pool by a 10 year old after he has led his 8 year old friend to Christ. I do not believe that to be scripturally valid, just as I do not consider some group of Christians getting together at someone’s house and passing around popcorn and lemonade and calling it the Lord’s Supper (no joke here. I actually know that this was done) to be valid.
I think this argument sidetracks from the focus of what Dr. York was attempting to say in his post. No one can, without lying outright, assert with any authority that the policies regarding PPL & Baptism have caused missionaries to resign in any substantial fashion.
Sola Gratia!
April 15th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Scott,
It was very nice to speak with you on the phone just now. As I said on the phone, I’ll now repeat (just a bit) in writing:
I did not mean to distract from Dr. York’s information. I am glad that he is setting the record straight. My beef is that it appeared to make John Floyd a hero. I, out of personal experience, have to disagree with that assessment.
I wanted to make sure folks understand that there are real lives affected by the policies. In regards to the PPL, in my 12 years overseas (Journeyman time included) I NEVER once saw any IMB missionary with a personal prayer language or who spoke in tongues (except for real foreign languages) I don’t know why the PPL policy was ever created; it doesn’t make sense to me.
William,
The sarcasm wasn’t lost on me. Yes, I have personal bias, but I’m not too sure of what my personal agenda might be unless it is to make sure that there is a balanced perspective of John Floyd.
In regard to being critical of policy makers: put those six shooters back in the holsters, there partner. Your comment is a little over-kill, isn’t it? By the way, I said that AFTER I resigned, I called for his resignation; not while I was still a missionary. You called me “my friend”, but from the sounds of your comment, I don’t think you really think of me that way and you have never met me or spoken to me.
Now then, in regard to the my daughter’s baptism: I baptized my daughter under the authority of my church back in the US. There was no local Baptist church for us to be involved with in our city. None. There were local Thai churches, of course, but they were of the pentecostal kind and we chose not to fellowship with them. Due to some extenuating circumstances, the missionaries often met together in a loose fellowship or gathering, but we, at that time, weren’t a proper “church”. If you would like to call me and let me explain exactly what the situation was, I will be happy (and I mean that) to tell you about what the circumstances were. (My number is on the first comment above.) And, no, my position is not that baptism should be available for any administrator in any circumstance.
(This part is free for anyone who cares) I am not part of the Burleson Coalition, or whatever it is called. I’m not part of the “I-can’t-stand-Wade-Burleson-or-anything-about-him-Coalition”. I honestly don’t care. Don’t dumb me into a camp on one side or the other; I’m on God’s side.
David,
I did ask the regional leader. He said he would leave that up to me. I asked my immediate supervisor. He gave me the same answer. No one moved to prohibit me; another colleague baptized his daughter the next year at a different hotel swimming pool.
(Remember, Southern Baptist Churches only exist in the United States. Baptist churches outside of the US can be any flavor of Baptist you can imagine. For example, in Hong Kong, many Baptist churches have Cognac at their deacons meetings.)
All the things you said about John Floyd, I do not doubt. But being Godly doesn’t make him a good chairman.
Robin,
It was very nice to speak with you just now, too. Thanks for calling!
April 15th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Scott Gordon:
Why even have a policy about PPL and Baptism?
April 15th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Tom, that has been my question all along.
Why does anyone care how I pray in my private prayer closet? Why is it an issue?
If I speak in tongues in public? That’s a legitimate issue. I was appointed through HMB (pre-NAMB) several years ago and they were adamant about that. I assume IMB is as well.
But PPL? The first P is for PRIVATE. Why does anyone care?
I am still a little ambivalent about the Baptism thing. My associate was originally baptized Church of Christ. He was re-baptized (or baptized biblically for the first time). However, if someone came from a Bible-believing Wesleyan church (some practice immersion as an option) and had been baptized by immersion upon profession of faith, I’d have no problem with that.
Still, I have the same question about the baptism thing. I went through the missionary appointment process. I was poked and probed physically, spiritually, emotionally and doctrinally. If I was qualified in every way as a Baptist missionary (and the process is thorough), why would they care about the secondary details of my baptism.
That has been my quarrel all along. I just don’t understand why this matters. Dr. Floyd seems to think it is life and death.
I don’t get it.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
One more thing. My dad also knows Dr. Floyd. Calls him a fine Christian gentleman. I am sure that is true.
It is okay to disagree with a fine Christian gentleman, right?
April 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Brother Rick Boyne,
This is the first time that I have seen you comment on SBC Today. Welcome and I pray that you return often. Your arguments are very concise and articulate. I do want to say that I am sorry that you have left your service to the IMB. That is sad.
I do not want to re-visit something that is painful for you. I had the honor of being the one that baptized my daughter. Therefore, I know the experience of which you speak. If I understand your situation that you have described, you came together with other M’s at some type of M gathering. It was at that gathering that you baptized your daughter in the pool at the hotel where this M meeting was taking place. If this is the correct understanding there are some serious issues here. Baptism is an ordinance of the church. If you say that you were baptizing under the authority of the universal church, then you have one problem. That is the universal church has not been assembled. Baptism is performed under the authority of the local church body. If you had the authority of a local church there in your serving country then where were they when you performed this baptism? That is the issue that many SB have a huge concern with theologically.
Let me say what it is that I am not saying. I am not saying that you have to baptize your daughter in the local church in the US. I am not saying that you have to baptize your daughter in a baptismal pool in the church building. I am not saying that you have to have permission from your RL to baptize anyone.
Let me say what I am saying. I am saying that if you were under the authority of the local church that sent you to the mission field and your daughter was being baptized as a result of your starting a church on the mission field she has been scripturally baptized. I am saying that baptizing in a pool in a local hotel is ok as long as the local church under whose authority you are baptizing has approved this service. I am saying that the permission you seek to baptize your daughter comes from the local church not your RL or your Field Supervisor.
Allow me another question as I strive to understand your position. If you did not think what you were doing was something that was not permitted, why did you feel you had to ask your RL and FS if they had any problems? One more thing concerning this issue. Does your RL and FS not standing up in support of you tell you anything concerning this action?
Blessings,
Tim
April 15th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Tim Rogers:
In my reading of your comments it sure sounds like you are saying to Rick Boyne that he must have done something wrong since the RL and FS did not support his actions. Could it be that they were wrong? I just don’t understand all these rules and regulations to baptize someone.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Brother Tom,
You fail to point something out. I did not say any such thing that you allege. It was Brother Rick that pointed out the RL and FS did not support his actions. There is a such thing as collegiality.
Blessings,
Tim
April 15th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Brother Rick,
I encourage you to read Dr. Thomas White’s post on Believer’s Baptism.
Blessings,
Tim
April 15th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
As important as baptism is (and it is VERY important to me), I am far more concerned about the ongoing existence of believers bereft of participation in a church. Especially if we expect those believers to be mature spiritually and to be offering leadership in ministry, we ought to want them to be receiving the encouragement, exercising their gifts, and laboring under the accountability of an ekklesia.
If there’s not one, a group of missionaries ought to be qualified to start one, right?
April 16th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Bro Tim,
To be honest, it is hard to tell what you are saying and what you are not saying by saying what you are not saying and by saying what you are saying.
I actually read this blog every time it has a new post. Nothing ever really prompted me to comment until today.
Why do you sat that it is sad that I left my service with the IMB? I had a very clear, very personal call from God to be released from overseas service to pastor a church in NE OK. There is nothing sad about it.
I NEVER said my RL and FS did not support me. They did not attend the baptism because they were wary because of the new policy and there were trustees at this missionary meeting. No one knew where all this was really headed. The RL spoke to me on several different occasions afterwards with explanations on why he did not attend, all pertaining to the new policy. I never asked either of them “permission” as they do not have the authority to grant permission to baptize. I asked them for their opinion; their counsel. They both told me that under the circumstances, they knew of no BIBLICAL reason I couldn’t procede with the baptism. A year later, they both attended when my colleague baptized his daughter in a different swimming pool.
As I said in my earlier comment, there was no local church. In a similar manner as the Ethiopian eunuch, my daughter (in not so many words) said, “Here’s water; what prevents me from being baptized?” If you would like to discuss this over the phone, I “should” be in my office by 9 am CDT tomorrow. My phone number is on the original comment #1 above.
Please find one generation of missionaries who have not baptized someone on the foreign mission field in the absence of a local church. I challenge you to that.
Quite frankly, despite your welcome to the site, I really don’t feel welcome here. I wrote a comment about something I felt very strongly about and have been met with condescending and patronizing comments directed toward me. I’ll be the very first to say that I am not perfect. I am fallen. I am broken. It is by God’s grace alone that I stand. However, these attitudes toward a new commentor have a tendancy to limit dialogue to site-friendly subjects only.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Rick,
Well done and congratulations on your daughter’s faith and baptism. The authority to baptize was given to you by Christ alone. Thank you for your service.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Rick,
Do you believe what Bill has stated to you in comment #21?
cb
April 16th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Rick, you said that you “baptized my daughter under the authority of my church back in the US.” If this was not acceptable under the IMB’s policy, then I would join you in protest. If folks from IMB personnel selection still maintain that this is not acceptable, then I would be quite surprised. I don’t doubt your word that such was said at the time.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Brother Rick,
No one has spoken to you in any condescending way, neither has there been any patronizing going on in any of the comments that I have seen.
You said; “Not so much the PPL but the baptism one for sure.” after you said; “I did not resign because of either of the two issues, but let me tell you something, those are REAL issues.” You then go into a comment seasoned with, what appears to be some bitterness, as to how neither the RL or the FS would attend your daughter’s baptism at the hotel swimming pool where all of the M’s were together for their meeting. It leads one to believe the policy on baptism played a role in your seeking stateside service as a pastor. I praise God with you that you have been called to pastor in OK.
Allow me to take your scenario and apply it to stateside. I am going to Indy this year and plan to arrive on Saturday. I like doing this because we enjoy the Pastor’s Conference and attending the COSBE Worship service on that Sunday morning. I meet with other pastors and tell them that my daughter accepted Christ and I am going to baptize her in the pool at our hotel. I do not have the authority from the church that I serve to perform such a baptism. I can do it if I want, there certainly is nothing stopping me from do such. However, it is not a scriptural baptism as it is not under the auspices of the local church. Have you asked your leadership in your current place of service if something like this were to happen at a gathering of pastors if they would see anything wrong?
It is the local church that Jesus left the authority to baptize. Who was Jesus speaking to on that hillside before he ascended back into heaven, just people standing around? In Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye (KJV), other translations say Go, therefore, is speaking about the group, it is not speaking about individually. While we witness individually, we are responsible to get the person into a local church. We are not to go out witness to them, lead them to Christ, Baptize them in their backyard swimming pool, then leave them to fend for themselves.
As for calling you, I will try to call you later on today. I believe I met you at the Small Church Conference. If not, I may have you mistaken with someone else.
Blessings,
Tim
April 16th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Brother Rick,
I posted my comment #24 before without reading your comment #11.
Allow me some latitude and I promise you that I will call.
First you say in that comment; “Now then, in regard to the my daughter’s baptism: I baptized my daughter under the authority of my church back in the US. There was no local Baptist church for us to be involved with in our city. None. There were local Thai churches, of course, but they were of the pentecostal kind and we chose not to fellowship with them.” You, my Brother, have a scriptural baptism on your hands. If you, as a Missionary, have been granted authority by your local church in the states to baptize on the Mission field, then you are doing what they have sent you there to do.
Second, your RL and FS need their hindparts hung up to dry because they would not attend and support this ordinance. You should have called them to task, much like Paul did Peter, a year later when they attended your colleague’s daughter ordinance of baptism. They did not attend your daughter’s because they were afraid of the Trustees that were there for the meeting? How baloney eating, boot lapping of your RL and FS.
Third, here is the bottom line for me. If your initial comment was meant to be a slam at the policies of the IMB, you have not presented the whole case. In your initial comment you never said you were baptizing under the local church authority here in the states. It was presented as a group of M’s getting together and one of you baptizing their daughter in the swimming pool. That is an un-scriptural baptism. However, if you are getting together and acknowledging that this baptism is taking place because we have not planted a church yet and we are going to baptize her under the authority of the church back home, then you have a scriptural baptism.
Blessings,
Tim
April 16th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Tim,
Your comment to Rick in#25 is to be applauded. Thank you for the grit to do it.
Bill,
God gave the church the mandate of Baptism and the only vested authority to perform it. It was not mandated to Rick, you or me.
Rick’s problem seems to have arisen because men of God sought political safety rather than biblical purity. Tim has well spoken.
Rick,
I am sorry that you went through what you did. Those who should have supported you failed you and I know that is a painful thing. Of course, Jesus knows it better than all of us and I am sure you will agree that we all have failed Him. I thank Him for His mercy. I also thank Him for saving your daughter. His grace is everlasting and totally sufficient.
cb
April 16th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Tom,
In response to your question in number 12…
Why even be Southern Baptist as part of the IMB?
SOLA GRATIA!
April 16th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Scott Gordon:
In response to me in number 27, can you elaborate.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:22 am
CB: I, Rick, and you are part of the church.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:31 am
CB,
Nope. I don’t entirely agree with Bill’s statement. Jesus gave the authority to the church.
Tim,
Yep. I’m human. There is still some bitterness, but I’m working on it.
I think we did meet at the Small Church Conference. It was great, wasn’t it?
The purpose of my first comment is that I disagree with the assessment that John Floyd is to be exonorated as a “good chairman” and that even though a lot of folks disagree with Wade Burleson, he still has some real truth to what he said, specifically regarding John Floyd.
To be sure, I am NOT bitter at my RL. He, too is human and did what he thought he had to do. (after trying to re-read all of my own comments above with a pounding sinus headache, I now realize I was in error about my FS not attending the baptism. He DID in fact attend my daughters baptism service)
+++
Now, let’s get something else clear as mud: since Floyd left, the policies are now guidelines. That ought to tell us something right there. I seriously doubt that my daughter’s baptism will disqualify her from missionary service under the “guidelines”; it very well could have under the policy.
I love the IMB. It is filled with wonderful Godly folks whose desire is to see the Kingdom of God advanced on earth. I love my RL, FS, colleagues, and yes, I even love John Floyd. I just don’t happen to like him a lot right now. (But I’m still working through that). I miss being a missionary. I didn’t resign because of a policy, or a inter-personal relationship gone sour. I resigned because God, in His infinite wisdom, wanted to pick me up out of the foreign mission field and plop me down in a hurting local church in the buckle of the Bible Belt. I had ALWAYS thought I would retire with the board. I NEVER thought I would pastor. When I asked God about it, He said “don’t ask, just obey”.
So, here I sit, 8 months later watching God restore a church which has had 2 splits in the past five years, with 2 different pastors. I’ve watched God DOUBLE our attendance in that short amount of time. Let me tell you what: it is an exciting time! And the best par? God gets all the glory for it.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I agree. God gave the authority to baptize to the church. I haven’t said anything contrary to that.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:45 am
rick,
i agree with tim rogers and cb in thier answers to you in #’s 25 and 26. your daughters baptism ought to be looked upon as valid. i, too, have baptised in a swimming pool before….the man was paralyzed and in a wheel chair, and the college near us had a handicapped lift on thier pool. our church went over there after worship one sunday night, and we sang and baptized that man in the swimming pool at a secular college. a lot of my members remarked that it was one of the most inspiring baptisms that they’ve ever attended.
God bless you, bro. God bless your daughter. i’m glad that she’s saved. also, like tim r., i didnt see any condescending remarks made your way, and i hope that you will comment more often. you sound like a good guy.
cb, when you really get down to it, the most liberal person in this blog may be tim rogers. did you know that he dances???? a baptist pastor dancing!!!!
did you know about that, cb?
david
April 16th, 2008 at 10:45 am
My apologies for an error. (I’d like to blame a sinus headache please)
The IMB policies were changed to guidelines BEFORE Floyd left his office.
I apologize for the former inflammatory innuendos created by my comment.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:46 am
cb,
also, what makes matters worse about tim dancing, from sources that i have in north carolina, he really doesnt dance that well,either.
david
April 16th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Brother David,
If I can ever figure out how to place something on a blog you will regret that you made those last two remarks.
:>)
Blessings,
Tim
April 16th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Brother Rick,
Dr. Floyd is still Chairman of the BoT with the IMB. Dr. Chitwood’s office does not begin until the end of the convention.
Blessings,
Tim
April 16th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Bro Tim,
Thanks for the clarification.
I seem to be striving to uphold my comment above: “Clear as mud”.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Can someone tell me what these comments have to do with the article?
April 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I’m glad to read Dr. York’s statistics, but probably for different reasons that most here.
I have been told more than once by an m who is not supportive of New Directions that personnel are leaving, not because of the guidelines, but because of New Directions and because of Dr. Rankin’s leadership.
So rather than to try to spin Dr. York’s numbers one way or another, I”ll just go on the record as being glad to know that the attrition rate is not on the increase and that those personnel who are leaving don’t appear, by and large, to be leaving for ideological reasons.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:46 am
tim,
please no. we really dont want the image of you shaking your groove thang to be stuck in our heads. so, please, please, please do not put any video of you cutting a rug on you tube, nor on your website. thanks in advance.
david
April 16th, 2008 at 11:46 am
People will resign for many reasons, but leaving because of Dr. Rankin’s leadership sounds like more of an excuse than a real reason. The biggest single factor in the past 10 years for ideological resignations is the requirement that missionaries must re-sign the BF&M. If you have any idea what a person must go through just to be appointed then you will know that it was an affront to be made to sign the BF&M2K or face termination. That was a HUGE mistake on behalf of the BoT.
You will always have disgruntled people, for we are all human. But to continue to be upset with Rankin simply doesn’t make sense. Most of the folks who are upset with new directions (which certainly isn’t new anymore) were involved with institutional missions and who had to get out of their offices and “do” missions. At least that is my perspective.
New Directions had a HUGE effect on me and my family. The very job we were appointed to do was eliminated by ND. Did I quit? Did I get mad? Did I hold a grudge? No! If you are called to missions, you ARE CALLED to missions. And let me tell you, international missions isn’t for everyone. A nice 10-14 day mission trip is not an accurate picture of what it is to live day in and day out in a foreign culture.
Blaming leaving on Dr. Rankin? Sounds like a good excuse as any to leave. Very convenient to blame the leadership. That way, you can pretend that you are resigning on principles.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Brother Rick,
Last comment today as I have to get busy doing what God has called me to do–study His Word.
You referenced your new place of service in comment #30. Congratulations on the increase that God is bringing your way. Also, I am sorry that you are experiencing a sinus headache at this time. Those can hurt immensely and also make you say things you believe is one way but when you go back and read it is not what you were saying at all.
As for your daughter’s baptism, were you authorized by the church that you were out of to be an agent from their local body to baptize on the mission field? I am asking this because as an agent of my local church, my deacons would be all over my head for attending a pastors gathering somewhere and baptizing my daughter in a swimming pool in the hotel.
Blessings,
Tim
April 16th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
If your deacons are all over your head for baptizing someone in a pool maybe you need new deacons.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Rick:
Amen!! The baptism policy is unnecessary.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Brother Rick,
You miss the point. It has nothing to do with baptizing in the pool. It has everything to do with the proper agent performing the ordinance without the proper authority. The authority of the local church bestowed on the agent is not given for the agent to perform ad hoc ordinances.
Blessings,
Tim
April 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
If I am reading some of the comments above, and they believe that individuals can baptize anyone, outside of the authority of a local church, then it is clear that we need the baptism guidelines changed back to a policy.
The Lord’s Supper and Baptism are ordinances of the local Church, not for us to practice as individual believers. Anything less than that is clearly not Biblical and equally clear not Baptist. Anyone practicing such has no business being supported by Baptists as missionaries anywhere.
That said, I completely agree with Tim about Rick’s baptism of his daughter. So long as it was done under the authority of a N.T. Church then it was Biblical.
Ron P.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Bill,
Thank you for your clarification in comment #31.
In truth there are many that do say things contrary to the church having authority to baptize.
cb
April 16th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Tim,
Rick made it plain that his church “back home” gave authority for him to baptize his daughter in comment #11.
End of story. The IMB guys should have backed him up. You said so yourself. Why are you asking him this again? Do you have any new reason to doubt what he has already said and what you have already supported?
cb
April 16th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Uh, I didn’t answer the question in comment number 43. That was another “Rick”.
I’m going to answer you with an answer I’ve given before, then I’m going to bow out of this comment thread:
There was no local church in Thailand. I baptized my daughter because I had the authority from FBC, Vinita, OK.
God Bless.
Rick Boyne
April 16th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Rick B.
I didn’t say I agreed. Just that ND was the reason given. My larger point was that I’m glad the statistics don’t support that notion any more than they support the notion that droves are coming home because of the new guidelines. I’m glad statistics don’t really support any notion of m’s leaving for ideological reasons.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Vol,
Tim once danced 500 feet out of a plane without a ‘chute.
Lynard Skynard was so impressed with his dance they wrote a song about him called: FREEBIRD.
cb
April 16th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
CB,
I gathered from Rick in #43 (not Rick Boyne) and Tom in #44 that they thought Tim’s example of baptizing someone at a gathering of Pastors was not problematic and not unbiblical. If I misunderstood them, I apologize. But I think their comments suggest otherwise. If so, their views are clearly outside the parameters of Scripture and Baptist history, beliefs and practice.
Ron P.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Ron P,
I am not sure as to their reference as to whether one was speaking of a swimming pool as not being improper as to body of water and the other was not just taking issue with the Baptism policy, but just in case…..
Christ Jesus our Lord mandated the church to baptize all who professed themselves as His followers as an act of public obedience. The church He spoke to at the time constituted both the church local and the church universal. Thus,….
Local NT churches are the only entities on earth having the authority to carry out the mandate of Christ to administer Believer’s Baptism. Therefore, any and all persons acting independently of a local NT church in administering Baptism are failing to function in a biblical manner.
Example: Pat Boone baptized Wilt Chamberlain in his own swimming pool many years ago without benefit of a local NT church’s authority. Wilt’s baptism was not biblical. Of course, in all probability, according to his autobiography several years later, neither was his profession of faith.
cb
Sad but true
April 16th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
CB,
Well done.
Ron P.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Well, I emailed IMB and asked about such a baptism done overseas under the authority of the stateside local SBC church. The answer was:
“Your question was about someone who is baptized by an SBC missionary who is working under the authority and permission of his stateside SBC church. As I understand the guidelines we would accept that baptism. The same principle applies to someone who is baptized in the military by and SBC endorsed chaplain.”
While I don’t doubt Rick that some of the imb folks were a bit flummoxed about the guidelines or policy, as he described his actions Rick was perfectly sound in his practice. I am unclear as to the differences between ‘policy’ and ‘guideline’ in this matter nor am I clear on how John Floyd should be involved in Rick’s criticism of this incident.
At any rate, the guideline seems sound to me and would not prevent the normal, biblically sound baptismal practices that our field personnel have always dealt with.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Brother CB,
As I love correcting you, I have found a point of correction in your comment to Volfan in comment #51. I fell 500 feet in a collapsed chute in 1978. I believe the Lynyrd Skynyrd plane crash was in 1977. Therefore, the late Ronnie Van Zant did not have me on his mind when he began words, “If I leave here tomorrow, would you still remember me? ‘Cause I must be traveling on girl, there too many places I have to see.“, he did not have me on his mind. :>) But, hey, I do remember many nights sitting in my trailer with my stereo blasting while air guitar playing to the break.
Blessings,
Tim
April 16th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
CB: You said Jesus gave His command to baptize to the local and universal church, and then you go on to say that only local churches have the authority to baptize. That seems to be a discrepancy.
I said that the authority to baptize belongs to the church. I just want to clarify what I meant so I’m not giving a false impression. I was talking about the universal church. I am a strong supporter of the local church and I don’t believe in approving or encouraging “lone ranger” Christians. I believe every disciple has a responsibility to associate with a local body of believers. I am not, however, prepared to declare all baptisms performed by a genuine believer as invalid if they haven’t been explicitly given such authority by a local body. I think it’s the best way, but I can’t accept that absolute.
Is this really an issue with SBC missionaries? Do we have missionaries who don’t have SBC authority to baptize? My bigger concern would be the landmark-ish policy for prospective missionaries but that’s probably an argument for another time.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Brother Rick Boyne,
Thanks for clarifying comment #43 was not you. As we have seen from Brother William, the IMB has concurred as to what we have said all along about the baptism policy.
Blessings,
Tim
April 16th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
i have listened to the lynyrd skynyrd song “freebird” probably more than anyone else on the planet. tim, i like you, can remember many nights with freebird blaring on my stereo system. anything by skynyrd was great in my book.
david
April 16th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Bill,
It would take far to much time and space to compare Landmarkism with Baptist: theology, history, practice and policy.
All I can say here is that they are not the same. Although, Landmarkism does “favor”what I will call “baptististic principles.” It is due to this “favoring” of the two that people get confused when Baptists begin to speak of historic Baptist ecclesiology. It becomes easy to present the Landmarker accusation and muddy the conversation.
What I described is not Landmark theology. It far predates the Landmark movement.
There are differences in the Church Universal and the Church Local.
One would be that the church universal has no leadership other than Jesus, as revealed by the Word of the Father and empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Only the Trinity is accountable for a “member’s” (I use this word just for lack of a better one at the moment) entrance and a “member’s “judgement before Christ at the appointed time” (trying to stay from eschatological arguments by speaking of judgement that way).
The Trinity has given revelation as to a member’s acceptance, teaching, fellowship, and testimony, responsibilities, privileges, expulsion and leadership within the New Testament for the Church Local.
Baptism is an act of obedience to Christ, testifying to the Church, both Local and Universal and to the world-at-large that one is a follower of Christ.
Bill, who was the Great Commission given to? Both the church universal and local at the same time. Both were one and the same when Christ gave it.
The Church Universal does not determine members. That is the work of the Trinity. The Church Universal does not discipline members or judge them in this life or the one to come. That is also the work of the Trinity.
It is the Church Local which carries out the Great Commission and the mandates of Christ on this earth as decreed by the Trinity and revealed in God’s Word.
It is the Church Local who is given authority to baptize, to disciple, to discipline, to accept and to expel those who profess to be followers of Christ.
I know this is too brief, but I hope it helps you to see what I am saying and why it is not Landmarkism.
cb
April 16th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Tim,
You poor TAR HEEL.
Freebird went through many changes between 1973 and 1989 when it was once again done with lyrics.
Brother, Freebird was Alabama born developed and cultured. You cannot school a Sabanite about his own music ’cause you just ain’t from SWEET HOME, ALABAMA.
cb
April 16th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
cb,
Your description above is great. I prefer to use the term “body of Christ” vs “Universal Church” to avoid the confusion. Yet your breakdown was indeed right on.
As per the topic and comments,
I find it odd that we keep hearing stories and then when verified, here that they are nothing more than misunderstandings or speculations once the source is gone to and the answer is listened too. Funny how the old story of gossip is true today and was yesterday!
April 16th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Vol,
You are right. Tim is the most liberal person on this thread.
Tim, BTW, it was Villa Rica’s brothers, Pancho and Lefty who packed your ‘chute back in 1978. Just thought you might want to know.
cb
April 16th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Tim G,
Read my comments over at Peter’s place on his latest post.
There are some things I cannot back down from because I know what happened. I can’t change that. I am trying to remedy my errors by repentance and apology when necessary and it is always necessary when I am wrong in what I say. At the same time it would be just as wrong to deny what I know to be true in order to be accepted by anyone.
Tim G, trying to finish well is kinda hard. At least, it is for me.
cb
April 17th, 2008 at 4:56 am
Brother CB,
You say; “’cause you just ain’t from SWEET HOME, ALABAMA.” To which I respond, THANK GOD!
;>)
Blessings,
Tim
April 17th, 2008 at 6:30 am
CB, Give us proof, Wade would never do that.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:50 am
CB: Although I disagree about the absolute necessity of local church authority for baptism, as I said, I think it should be the norm. But I wasn’t suggesting your view was Landmark. I believe the IMB policy/guidelines for missionary qualifications are landmark-ish. In other words, to insist upon re-baptism of someone baptized as a believer by immersion upon profession of faith in Christ in a Nazarene or Pentecostal church is outrageous.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Jeff T,
The only proof I can give you is the doctrines of ecclesiology as is presented in the New Testament.
I believe with all of my soul, heart and mind that the Church Local is the only authority for Baptism on earth. I have arrived at that position from Bible study, and the study of Biblical and Systematic Theologies both formally and privately.
If I understand Wade properly he does not have all of the same positions I have relating to ecclesiology. He does claim the same sources for his positions as do I. He has made that plain over and over.
There is no other proof either of us can give. We greatly differ here ,but we have both presented the only “proofs” a person can give with integrity.
cb
April 17th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Bill,
I gave myself to the study of Nazarene theology for two years (2004-2005). I believe the Nazarenes to be a wonderful group of Christ-Followers who are great servants of God and I cherish my time among them as a gift from God during a time when I greatly needed fellowship with people who love Jesus and have a high view of Scripture. The Nazarene fellowship I was with helped me to deal with some serious things in my life before the Lord. I shall never forget those people and the Nazarene pastor who was a shepherd to me in that time.
As I said earlier, I gave myself to the study of Nazarene theology for two years. I believe with all my heart the Nazarenes are part of the Body of Christ on this earth doing a great job of spreading the gospel as is mandated by Christ in the Great Commission.
Yet, I know and they know we are not of “like faith and order with them.” There are most definitely some theological differences between them and Baptists, especially dealing with the doctrine of the church and with eternal security.
Therefore, I could not accept the Baptism of a Nazarene on the same terms as I could accept that of others of a “like faith and order.”
If the pastor I spoke of earlier were to come as a candidate for membership in the church I serve as pastor there would be several things we would have to deal with before he could become a member of our local church. One of those things (but not the only thing) would be that he would have to be baptized according to that which we believe baptism to represent.
I also know that I could not join his fellowship as a “member” unless I renounced certain beliefs I hold to as biblical. I did fellowship with them. I was nurtured by them. I will see them in Heaven. But I would not have been allowed to join their fellowship here as a member due to what I believed, especially relating to the Security of the Believer. If I were not a Baptist, I would be a Nazarene. But, I believe baptistic theology to be closer to biblical theology than any other theology on this earth. Therefore I will maintain, and protect a Baptist Identity until the day I am called home and get to be with my brothers and sisters within the Body of Christ who just as strongly maintain and protect their identities and theology as Christ-Followers.
cb
April 17th, 2008 at 9:06 am
CB: I respect your convictions. I believe that anyone baptized as a believer upon profession of faith in Christ has been obedient to Christ’s command. I would not diminish that obedience by re-baptizing them. I find the very idea (not you) offensive.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Bill,
I understand. I am in no way offended, as I was not offended with my Nazarene brother. Nor should I be. I am speaking of Baptist distinctiveness and not the fundamentals of the Christian faith. There is a difference.
My adherence to the fundamentals of the faith identifies me as a Christian. My adherence to a Baptist distinctiveness identifies me as a Baptist and in my case a Southern Baptist.
The first identity is primary and we are able to fellowship as brothers within the orthodoxy thereof.
The second is secondary and we can fight about that while we fellowship in the primary until Jesus comes and straightens us both out.
cb
April 17th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Bill,
One more thing.
Naturally, I would not call it “re-baptism.” I would call it “biblical Baptism.”
cb
April 17th, 2008 at 9:55 am
CB: Just so we are clear: John Q. has professed Christ as Lord and Savior and was baptized by immersion as a believer in a Nazarene church.
Has John, in your estimation, been obedient to Christ regarding baptism?
April 17th, 2008 at 10:04 am
bill,
jane smith gets baptised by immersion into the mormon church…is this a biblical baptism?
little johnny b. gets baptised by his mother in the backyard, above ground swimming pool…with no one else around but her other two children. it was by immersion, though. is this a biblical baptism?
edward “lucky” snickers gets baptised by immersion by a non-trinitarian, lose your salvation pentecostal. is this baptism biblical?
aunt floradine gets baptised by immersion by benny hinn on a trip to israel. would you consider this a biblical baptism?
i really want to know your answers to these, bill. i’m not just trying to be funny. although, some of my scenarios might be considered funny by a few. i would still like to hear your answers.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:10 am
If he is baptized as a believer by a Nazarene fellowship (church) I can assure you ( if it is not a Nazarene church which has become lax relating to their specific theological distinctiveness) they would consider him to be obedient to Christ and I would have no problem in working with him to advance the Kingdom or in Christian fellowship with him.
If he were to decide he wanted to become a member of the Baptist church I serve he would have to be baptized (but only after other differences are dealt with and unity is achieved theological as is specific to Baptist distinctiveness) in obedience to what we, as Baptist, believe to be a biblical Baptism.
Bill, I am not trying to be complicated. I am trying to answer you to the best of my understanding as one who is an adherent of the fundamentals of the faith and as one who is distinctively Baptist.
cb
cb
April 17th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Bill,
I must leave this conversation now. I am to go and teach the way of salvation according to the fundamentals of the faith.
If you or my Nazarene friend were to be with me, I bet you a $100.00 neither of you would disagree with one thing I will say. That is due to our adherence of the fundamentals of the faith.
Until later.
cb
April 17th, 2008 at 10:36 am
CB: I’m not talking about what the Nazarenes think. I think I am hearing that you do not consider John to have been obedient in following Christ’s command to be baptized. In effect, you consider him un-baptized. Am I being fair? And what makes his baptism invalid is the (in your view) incorrect doctrinal beliefs of the administrator regarding eternal security. I am trying to tease out the meaning of your words without doing injustice to them.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:47 am
I am very concerned about the attitudes on baptism that we have seen on this thread. I don’t want to sound arrogant or disrespectful- maybe if we were face to face I would not perceive the things I think I am perceiving. So, with that unhelpful intro here goes.
Baptism is an ordinance given by Jesus to his people. When Jesus stands on the mount and says ‘All authority in Heaven and earth is given to me’ he does not then say, ‘And now it belongs to you.’ Jesus never has abandoned his position as the head of his Church. There are zero verses giving the qualifications of the baptizer. There are zero verses in the Bible that talk about the authority of the local church in baptism. What we have are logical inferals. CB has already said that when Jesus gave his disciples the command to baptize that they were pretty much all the church there was. Logical inferal number one: The Church is the entity that baptizes. We also have this big unruly discussion about the Universal church verses the local church. Well, the universal church is big and I can’t get a hold of it, I can’t control it, and I can’t really fellowship in it so we need to emphasis the local church. Logical inferal number two: The local Church is the church. Oh, and by the way, the local church consist of the organization that I have registered with a constitution and a tax-exempt status with the US Govt. So, some have then come to the conclusion that because of logical inferals number one and two therefore unless Rick Boyne has the express permission of his back home organization to baptize his daughter then he should not do it- and if he does she is not SCRIPTURALLY baptized. I challenge you all to believe that this is not true. And furthermore, it is dangerous. By establishing small organizations that you control and calling them the CHURCH and then demanding submission and obedience you are usurping the place of Jesus. It is arrogant and it is not tolerable.
Now, I do think that people who are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ought to be a part of a local fellowship. That is excellent practice. There are lots of verses of scripture that talk about how we as Christians must live in community and love. But Baptism is into Christ. He is the head of the Church- local or universal is all the same from his perspective- and he is the sole authority. He tells me to baptize and I baptize period. I love the local church. I plant churches. But they are only SCRIPTURAL churches if Jesus is the head. It is hard for me to see how Jesus is the head if we think we are in the postision to validate someone elses baptism or not.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I am in agreement with Strider. Baptism is the visible entry into the universal church. It can, at the same time, be the entry into a local body. But it is not a denominational membership initiation. Requiring someone who has obeyed Christ in believer’s baptism to be re-baptized makes it a denominational membership initiation. There is nothing in scripture that requires adherence to eternal security as a requirement to be recognized as an authority to baptize.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Brothers Strider and Bill,
Please tell me where this universal church was when Jesus told us to bring a member to the forefront for discipline in Matthew 18. If Jesus was speaking of the universal church then every time one comes before the church for discipline, then we have to bring them to every organized local body.
Brother Strider,
You do have some good points but you have a serious flaw. You are making the mistake that it seems our Brothers and Sisters in the Emerging (I cannot always remember the difference between Emergent and Emerging) movement are making. They desire to remove everything, theology, historical councils, and everything else and go back to scripture. The other group Emergent, I believe, sees wisdom in retaining the historical understanding and theological truths hashed out in the councils. The flaw I see in your Logical inferal number one: The Church is the entity that baptizes., is in relation to whom Jesus was speaking. If I follow your argument, then I cannot make the logical inferal that Jesus was speaking to me today. If I am bound not to make the logical inferal that the goup of people standing there were not the first local body of believers, as well as the seed of the universal church, then we are stuck with saying that Scripture must speak only to those living at that time. Once we venture just a tad down that trail, we must accept that the Scripture cannot be valid as the Word of God that speaks to us today.
Blessings,
Tim
April 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I don’t see the problem. There is the universal church and there are local churches. Some instructions are given to the universal church and some are given to local churches. Tell me this: Do individual Christians have to be invested with the authority of the local church to preach the Gospel? Jesus uttered both commands (preach, baptize) in the same breath to the same people.
The question is not rhetorical.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Bill,
Christians most certainly must be under the authority of the local church to be accountable for the veracity of the Gospel message they are to proclaim. To claim otherwise invites trouble.
Case in point, I know of a man in Oklahoma, Les Feldick (see his ‘ministry’ website here), who lauds the universal church and deplores the local, visible expression of the church. He prides himself in not being associated with any local church. He also prides himself for preaching what he calls “Paul’s Gospel”–as contrasted to Peter’s and even Jesus’ Gospel–a ‘gospel’ in which one need not repent of sin…only believe. His aberrant, heretical view of multiple ‘gospels’ (see this site here for further details of Mr. Feldick’s problematic teachings) continues precisely because he is not under the authority of any local church which Scripture commends and commands to be the pillar and ground of the truth. We are all commissioned with the message of the Gospel within the framework of the accountability of the LOCAL & VISIBLE body of Christ, the church.
As Tim has well said, if the local church is irrelevant, then the church discipline passages and practices evidenced in the Bible make absolutely no sense.
Sola Gratia!
April 17th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
So Christians who have not yet joined with a local body, or are between churches, or are in an area where there are no local bodies, must not present the Gospel to the unsaved?
Our differences boil down to the distinction between what should be vs what must be. I fall into the “should be” camp.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Strider,
As I said and you seemed to agree; this is bigger than what blog threads can express.
With that in mind; I must say, it is my opinion you have missed much of what I did say if I understand what you are say. Because what you say I said is not what I said. Not in any way.
cb
April 17th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Sorry, but I need to post anonymously since I am overseas in a closed area of the world.
I have enjoyed this discussion about the authority for baptism. I especially enjoyed seeing how the “heat” was dissipated as you began to understand each other. Obviously, for Rick, this is an emotional issue, and for good reason, imo.
I do think we should try to appreciate one fairly unique aspect to Rick’s situation. As he stated, he was overseas without the benefit of a local church of like faith and order and the options available to him were really not clear-cut like they might be in the States.
I understand his situation as I can illustrate by the following information. Before I came to the field, I was a local church pastor. My oldest child accepted Christ and I baptized her in our local S. Baptist church as her pastor. That is the “traditional” way if you’ll allow me to put it that way.
My second child was saved while we were on the M field and I also baptized him, except I did so in a river, along with four other nationals who had been saved recently. One other national was also baptized that day by a different M who had led him to the Lord. This area was some 2 hours from my national Baptist church in the city which doesn’t have a baptistry anyway. There was no local church in the immediate area. However, I did invite my local Baptist church from the city to attend and some members did attend. I also asked my national Baptist pastor to talk to my son before he was baptized. I mainly did this out of respect for my pastor and so that my son would have another point of contact regarding this special day that he would remember later on.
I didn’t “ask” the national church to give me permission specifically, but I would say that they gave their blessing in an overwhelming way. I assumed that as an ordained Baptist minister who has been commissioned by the IMB as an M and who has also been commissioned by my local SBC church in the States to come to the M field that I have been given their authority to perform baptisms on the field.
My third child accepted Christ while we were on stateside assignment and went forward requesting baptism in the local SBC church we were attending during stateside. That was not our “home” church but we did transfer our membership there during our stateside assignment. After my daughter went forward, I was contacted by a minister from the church who asked me if I would like to perform the baptism myself. I was elated and accepted their invitation to baptize my daughter. When I baptized her, I acknowledged the authority I had been given by that local church.
So my three children were all baptized in different circumstances. As far as I’m concerned, all three were equally valid, although very different. Under the new guidelines, perhaps my son couldn’t be appointed with the IMB. I think he could, but am not really sure. While I am not excited about that thought, I am not mad or worried either. The IMB has the right and authority to decide whom they will appoint, but they do not have the authority to say what is biblical baptism and what is not. I may be wrong, but I think that is what Bro. Rick is trying to say.
Sometimes we Ms do not have the luxury of doing everything exactly the way we might do it in the States. The best we can do is try to be respectful of authority placed above us and follow the Bible as best we understand and as closely as is possible under the circumstances.
I will just say that if IMB Ms who have been commissioned by our SBC churches and appointed by our mission board can not assume that we have the authority to baptize our own children on the M field, then we are in a world of hurt, because very few baptisms on the M fields where I have served are as cut and dried “by the book” as most people back home seem to assume they are.
Please don’t take these comments to imply that I don’t think biblical teaching on this issue is important because I do. Also, I write this from a very conservative point of view. Finally I must say that I personally know John Floyd to be a wonderful, godly man and I know his sole concern is that we all be faithful to the Word. I am not for “every man does what is right in his own eyes” kind of theology. But I do sympathize with Rick and understand that sometimes the application of policies is not as clear-cut as might be assumed.
I have written too much, probably too late. I just thought I would mention the practicality issues that Rick faced which others commenting here may not have to face when serving stateside.
EA IMB M
April 17th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Brother Anonymous,
Thank you for this heart story that truly presents a picture of the difficulties you all have doing the work God has called you to do. I understand that everything is not as neat and sweet as the policies identify.
I feel, however, you make an overstatement concerning my position, I would say our but I do not want to place words in another’s mouth. It seems that you are assuming that I believe a baptism has to occur in a ‘traditional’ baptistery in the local church. That is not what is being said, though you may feel it is being communicated. The child that you say you have doubts over whether the IMB will view it as a scriptural baptism meets all of the criteria. Everyone understands that M are commissioned by the local church to go forth. Your jobs are to lead people to faith in Jesus Christ and baptize them planting churches. As I understand your task, you are to be planting churches and for you to be faithful to the Scripture you must baptize converts. Also, to be faithful to the Scripture you are to connect that convert to a local body of believers, be it a full fledged church that meets in a church building, or a house church that meets in a home. We all acknowledge that and understand that.
What I do not understand is the seemingly responses that give the apperance that if I am on vacation and witness to a person on the beach and that person gets saved. I am then free to take that person into the ocean and baptize him/her and leave that place and move on. That person then can wait for 5 or 6 months, years, or decades, and go to the local church and join that church on profession of faith and baptism by immersion. that church accepts it without even questioning the candidate and then this person feels called to be a M. During the interview process it is discovered and the IMB is supposed to accept it as such, because a local church did not question the candidate as to their conversion and their first step of discipleship.
Blessings,
Tim
April 17th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Brother Tim Rogers,
I like the analogy that has been brought up several times…..
If you (a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ) did happen to be on vacation and had the privilege to clarify an Isaiah passage to a young man that was sitting on a bench a couple of blocks from the ocean at Myrtle Beach, and during that conversation you discussed with him the great gospel passages in Romans concerning the burial and resurrection of Christ and our participation with Christ and how water baptism is a command and depiction of that great reality.
You realize that this man’s travels are coming to an end and he has to get back to the Airport in a few hours to catch a flight to Africa where he and his family live in the midst of the Islamic world. After hearing the gospel with clarity and precision and through what you perceive as genuine repentance he has been convinced by the Spirit of God of his new birth in Christ and as he stands to embrace you realizing his close proximity to ocean and says “there is water, what would keep me from being baptized”?
How would you answer him? And what if anything would impede his request to Christ’s command?
Blessings,
Chris
April 17th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Chris,
Thanks for this great hypothetical. I think Tim’s gone to bed, so I’m going to answer for myself, and perhaps he’ll come along and straighten me out.
I, as “a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” would happily baptize that new believer in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then and there. At my next opportunity to stand before the congregation I serve, I would report the details of this encounter.
Because of my ongoing, accountable relationship with this congregation, I would be confident that, had they had prior opportunity, they would have given joyful assent to this exercise of their authority as the body of Christ. I would not view my actions in conducting that baptism as a presumption upon their authority, but a legitimate exercise of it, because I am in that ongoing, accountable relationship. So I would give an opportunity for an ex post facto expression of congregational approval, due to the extenuating circumstances presented.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Thanks Brother Wes,
I agree that you certainly should baptize.
How would you handle the man going back to his home country that is Islamic…or would that make any difference at all?
Once Tim wakes up,….he will have fun with this one.
Blessings,
Chris
April 17th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Chris,
I would first of all make sure he had a Bible, confident as I am that, as someone has said, if you give someone with no prior knowledge but a desire to study a Bible, you’ll get a Baptist everytime…
While that’s somewhat tongue-in-cheek, if no further contact were possible, I would not lack for confidence that the Holy Spirit would lead the man into the truth. With communication being what it is, I would hope that some avenue for further discipleship could be established, such that he would eventually, through his own witnessing and baptizing (which I’m sure my church would be happy to authorize
), see the formation of a local church where he lives.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
CB- If I have misunderstood you then I apologize. I am sticking to my understanding of baptism however.
Tim- Logical inferals need to be made but know they are dangerous because our logic and God’s are nearly never the same. But on this issue I do not understand why we make it so hard on ourselves. There are truckloads of verses that specifically describe how we as believers should love one another. Loving one another occurs in community which is called church. This is not a mystery. But we, taking our cue from the Catholic church have made baptism our initiation rite into the Church. The Bible never says this. We are baptized in the name of the Trinity. By not separating these two things we inadvertantly make the Church equal with God- the Catholic mistake in my humble opinion. The truth of my words here are born out in the IMB policies. Speaking as a former pastor I can not imagine anything that would make me angrier than for the IMB to tell me who can and can’t be a member of my church. Let me explain. Let’s say you have a member of your church called into M work and you send them to the IMB. Now, the IMB may come back and say to you- Hey, this guy believes some really wierd unbaptist things. Please disciple him some more. Or they may come back and say, Hey, this guy is not emotionally stable. We can’t use him. Ok, you say, I understand we will work with him. But under the new baptism policies what you have is the IMB coming back and saying, Hey, we have decided that you made a bad decision in accepting this guy for membership. The Baptism BY EMERSION that you think is ok is not ok. Personnally I would hit the roof. Now again, if their complaint was that this candidate’s theology was out of wack then I would say, Wow, thanks for pointing this out let’s work on that. But they are saying, this candidate’s theology is fine but the theology of the baptizer is wrong so we think you made a mistake in accepting his baptism. My response to that. John 4. Jesus was baptizing by the Jordan, but not Jesus but rather his disciples. If Jesus thought it was ok for Judas Iscariot to baptize then the position of the baptizor must not be too important. Logical inferal 3.