When Scott Brown was running for the Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy, he knew he was up against tremendous odds. However, he did not allow that to stop him. He stated his perspective of the current situation exactly concerning Health Care. As a matter of fact, he told the voters in Mass. that he would vote against the Health Care Bill that was before Congress. Brown won and that, as the late Paul Harvey would say, is the rest of the story.
I thought about Scott Brown as I contemplated the lay of the land in the SBC. Dr. Bart Barber did an excellent job pointing to the defining characteristics of Baptist. He even went so far as to use the term Baptist Identity. A term some have bandied about in a negative way to embarrass others into abandoning distinct baptist principles. One of the embarrassing ways some have tried to take such a stand is to comment in such a way as to make us look like “old fuddy duddys”. You would hear a phrase spoken in a sermon like “If the 50′s ever return many will be ready”. That term tries to make the churches that call for a clear Baptist Identity to appear as being outdated and not keeping up with the times. Thus, in respect of the past, I just want to say that we would not be ready if the past were to ever return, because our doctrine of ecclessiology is so weak. I have identified several era’s of our past that marked, I believe, our ecclessiological center and I am unembarrassed to be identified and tightly connected. As we move forward with the Great Commission call from our Task Force, I caution all of our invigorated younger pastors; “Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein,…”
I live in the evangelistic fervor of the SBC in the 1950′s. The greatest time of growth recorded in SBC history was that of the 1950′s. It was during that time that we saw our roles expanding beyond the dreams of our founders. It seems that God’s hand of blessing rested on Southern Baptist. Certainly we were confined to mainly a southern region. Yes, we did miss the boat on civil rights. However, the heart of Southern Baptist was to get the gospel to the lost and it was revealed in the baptismal rates of the time. It was during this time that churches would be planted because a revival was held in a tent and those that were saved desired and were encouraged to begin a church. It was during this time that associations and denominations did not start churches, but encouraged, enabled, and enlisted churches to start churches.
I live in the missionary fervor of the Missionary Society in the 17 & 1800′s. Oh, yes, I live in the missionary fervor of an Adoniram Judson. He left the states on the payroll of the Congregational Mission Board, and while on the ship realized his need to follow in obedience of our Lord in the proper mode of baptism. Adoniram Judson refused to be supported by the Congregational board until a Baptist board could be found to support his missionary endeavor. Mr. Judson could not gain permission from the Indian Government to enter India but found an open door to Burma. Once in Burma, Adoniram and Ann Judson worked corageously and through the hardship of burying their 8 month old child, but after six years saw their first convert. Adoniram Judson recorded in his journal after the converts baptism;
“Oh, may it prove to be the beginning of a series of baptisms in the Burman empire which shall continue in uninterrupted success to the end of the age.”
Their ministry of perseverance reveals the missionary endeavor that I remain unembarrassed to see remain with us in the SBC. I do not care if a Missionary does not win a soul for the first six years of his career. Why? God has called me to support him and I will do it. I remain unimpressed with half a million baptism reported by the IMB as they are not baptism by our own missionaries. If Adoniram Judson were in today’s IMB I wonder if he would have had a job after two years. We probably would have never seen Burma influenced for the Gospel. From Judson’s first baptism in 1819 until his death of 1850 there was recorded 210,000 converts to Christianity in Burma. If we had more Adoniram Judsons today Burma would not be 89% Buddhist, 4% Islamic, and only 2% Christian.
I live in the Radical Reformers fervor of the 1500′s. This movement began before the 1500′s but was accentuated and materialized in the 16th Century. These Radical Reformers responded against the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformation that maintained a desire to keep the church a part of the state. It is in this past that I take my stand. People in this reformation lost their lives through being drowned, some as a satirical response, due to their Biblical convictions of Believers Baptism. One early reformer, Caspar Schwenkfeld von Ossig held teachings on the Lord’s Supper that caused Luther to publish his sermons concerning the subject. Schwenkfeld von Ossig rejected infant baptism and taught that believers should give evidence of regeneration.
I live in the Wycliffe fervor for the Scripture to be understood by everyone like that of the 1300′s. John Wycliffe was the theologian that translated the Bible into English from the Latan Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate was the only translation he had available and he led in the reform of Roman Catholic church. The Pope was not happy with Wycliffe’s teachings and his translating the Bible into English. This so infuriated the Pope that the ordered, 4o years after Wycliffe’s death, that his bones to be dug up and crushed and scattered across the river. This is the past I live. I stand solidly with John Wycliffe in his desire to translate the scripture into the language that the people understand. I desire to translate Scripture every Sunday into the language of the people sitting in the pews listening to me. I will stand, as John Wycliffe of the 1300′s stood, on the formulated principle that the Holy Scripture holds the unique authority for the belief and life of a Christian. I live in this past.
I live in the past, of salvation’s availability for all fervor, like that of the first century saints. During the first century the disciples witnessed to the salvation of our Lord. It was the salvation of Jesus Christ that was available for all. If one reads the book of Acts one will find that Paul came to a point of taking the Gospel to the Gentiles. He witnessed to the Jews and Peter even began taking the Gospel to the Gentiles in Acts. One will find that Paul wrote the book of Galatians for the purpose of explaining that the Gospel was Jesus Christ plus nothing. This Gospel was available and the disciples of Christ presented it under great difficulty and sometimes under the penalty of death.
I live in the fervor of the Cross. It is in past as it is the fervor of the Cross that drives me in my every day life. Jesus died on that old rugged Cross and the love that Jesus has for each of us is revealed on that Cross.
Oh, the love that drew salvation’s plan!
Oh, the grace that brought it down to man!
Oh, the mighty gulf that God did span at Calvary!Mercy there was great, and grace was free;
Pardon there was multiplied to me;
There my burdened soul found liberty at Calvary.By God’s Word at last my sin I learned;
Then I trembled at the law I’d spurned,
Till my guilty soul imploring turned to Calvary.
It is in the past of the Cross that I live and try to minister. I pray everyday that I can share the story of the Cross with someone.
Thus, if you accuse me of living in the past, I take that as a compliment. It does not mean that I do not make use of the new technologies and new ideas of today. It does mean that anything that doctrinally does not fall in line with the things of the past, I am not willing to be apart of it. I praise God for the growth that is coming with the new church plants and the excitement and fervor of the young pastors planting the new churches. But, lest we forget, there is a generation and culture of churches that we must never reject. We seem to reject them because they are known as the “traditional” church, or the Baptist Identity crowd. Lest we forget, some years ago, Bill Hybels stated that he could not change much at Willow Creek because they had traditions that could not be changed. I live in the past and I am not ashamed to say I do.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Living in the Past? You Bet I Do! Looking to the Future? With Anticipation!! :: SBC Today -- Topsy.com
A hearty AMEN to this post!
Les
Tim, are you admitting to being an old fogey?
A really good post, by the way.
Brother Dave,
I was an old fogey when being an old fogey was not cool. :)
In all seriousness, we really need to take heed to the doctrine of the past. One item of concern for me with the younger pastors is their desire to reason around already established doctrines. I am certain there are doctrines that need to be strengthened and even removed, but we need to be careful that we do not “throw the baby out with the bath water”. Some doctrines, while not mentioned in Scripture, certainly have their support from Scripture.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim. Your last statement in the above comment is the reason i would have a very hard time having a pastor identified with the BI movement. Supposed clear teachings to you look an awful lot like legalism to me …
Jim,
Believing and obeying the things that are clearly taught in the Bible is not legalism. It’s called obedience.
David
Tim,
I do not classify my differences with those of you in the Baptist Identity camp as matters of being up-to-date vis-à-vis being old-fashioned or “fuddy-duddy.” As far as I am concerned, what matters is the truth of Scripture; and, if it is considered out-of-date by the majority, so be it. As far as I am able to ascertain, on the essentials of the gospel, and even on the majority of so-called “Baptist distinctives,” I am in agreement with you, and the rest of the guys there at SBC Today. There are a few matters on which we disagree. And, my reason for disagreeing with you on these matters is a sincere difference of understanding regarding what Scripture teaches, not a desire to be up-to-date.
I do think, however, that in questions of methodology (not doctrine) we must do our best to communicate in a way that makes sense to the people of our time and culture. Do you really think, for instance, that Southern Baptists of the 1950s, if they were to be time-transported to today, would have the same evangelistic effectiveness as they did in their own time? I think that appropriate contextualization is a biblical principle, and that, in order to be truly biblical, we must adapt (in our methodology, not our doctrine) to the times in which we live.
Also, you said:
“I remain unimpressed with half a million baptism reported by the IMB as they are not baptism by our own missionaries.”
I wonder if you would have also told Paul you were unimpressed with his missionary baptismal record, when he said, in 1 Cor. 1:14-15, “I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name”?
Personally, I am more concerned that the job actually gets done, than I am with who gets the credit. And, in many, many cases (probably the vast majority), it is probably better that national believers do the baptizing, and not us.
Tim,
“Lest we forget, some years ago, Bill Hybels stated that he could not change much at Willow Creek because they had traditions that could not be changed. ”
There is,at times, a difference between traditions and being bibical. Traditions (never forget some use scripture as well) can lead to legalism. One example. A couple approached me at my home church and said that the KJV was the only version that should be used in the church. Though it is a tradition at my home church to use the KJV there are many that have also approached me and asked what version I use becuase they have problems understanding the KJV.
When the translation becomes a barrier for beleivers reading and understanding scripture do you not think it might be time to stop living in the past and let go of tradition? Just asking for your thoughts on this.
One more thing. What did you mean by: ” If Adoniram Judson were in today’s IMB I wonder if he would have had a job after two years. We probably would have never seen Burma influenced for the Gospel.”
Thanks.
Jeremiah
We needed personal witnessing in the 50′s and now.
We needed solid doctrine and now.
We needed numbers then as now-as they represent souls that can be saved for eternity.
But will we sell out for them.
I say this as a church planter whose ego can be effected by the tun out.
Had a conversation with a young Methodist youth pastor- his compaint was about Hell preaching-I wondered is that really a problem in mainline churches?
Crowds as we know can be drawn by whacky youth groups, I – phone give aways, and being a hot social spot.
We will be seen as ignorant with a belief in creationism,
intolerant with a belief in Christ alone in salvation.
I went to a liberal non-SBC seminary and inerrancy would be and is not even a argument on the radar.
I see a lot of young ministers who fear not being relavant, contemporary, intelligent more so than being stong in the gospel.
The gospel is offensive. We need to lose our reputation.
We believe the Lord draws people to salvation.
My concern is that the lost will still know and can trust Baptist churches in the future to hear the true uncompromised gospel, and not be confused and subverted by fluff and relavance when the Spirit
calls. We must, obeying the Great Commision and prepare to be obidient in evangelism and gospel presentation when the Spirit draws them.
Relavance will lose it’s zip at least by every 5 years or middle school and high school cycle of years. Then you have to be relevant-relavant and relevant-and the main thing is lost -and you will be relavant and that too will be lost.
Lost people hate the gospel and our not saved because they are enemies to the gospel. They will hate and mock gospel witness agressivly or pasivly. When they are saved they will be glad you stayed true to what matters. As Billy Graham was mocked in his first New York crusade a city minister said Graham set back Christianity 40 years. Graham said in so many words he was shooting for a 2,000 year set back.
In Christ Alone!
Fletcher
In Christ Alone!
Fletcher Law
Nice word Mr. Rogers… I thank God for the men like you who gave their time to a young man like me. While other churches were busy trying to atract me with the lights, camera, and action I associated with my former ultra-heathen lifestyle, the men from the 50′s came knocking on my door every monday night until I let them in.
I Cor. 11:2
Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.
Brother Jeremiah,
How many years was it before Judson saw a convert? In today’s IMB he would have been removed from that region or released all together.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
“How many years was it before Judson saw a convert? In today’s IMB he would have been removed from that region or released all together.”
This is on time I am glad your wrong. We have people serving in certain areas that have yet to see a convert in the last few years. How do I know. I am in contact with them. There are some very difficult places we have Ms located and converts are litterally one in a few million. There is more patience in the IMB than i think you understand. Of course I can only speak for the harder areas because those are the Ms I am in contact with. The Board knows these regions are tough and that beleivers are not easy to come by. In all reality alot of these regions are just like the areas Judson served.
One quick example. One friend of mine serving in a country i cannot name because of security risks has been serving there with his wife and 3 girls since 2005 and have seen but one or two converts. He is still there and ministering daily to his muslim friends. They just recently gained two more units to help in their daily ministering. Their reputation in the community has been steadily growing over the last few years and just wait and see before long their will be a native church in that region.
I am glad that these Ms in these tough regions are doing it Judson style because if not they may have left out of frustration at not winning thousands to Christ. Instead that are toughing it out, relying on God.
Jeremiah
Tim,
You said:
“How many years was it before Judson saw a convert? In today’s IMB he would have been removed from that region or released all together.”
Just wondering, what is your basis for that statement? After years of service with the IMB in a spiritually hard place, and observed first-hand how the IMB deals with missionaries in situations similar to that faced by Judson, I find no justification at all for what you say here. I urge you to think twice before writing publicly things you apparently have very little knowledge about.
David Rogers,
Tim can speak for himself, of course, but when he said,”I remain unimpressed with half a million baptism reported by the IMB as they are not baptism by our own missionaries;” I think he meant the fact that the IMB reports these baptisms as their own. It’s the reporting part, not the baptisms. In other words, it’s not that Tim is unimpressed with that many people getting saved and baptised. But, its the fact that the IMB reports those baptisms as our missionaries baptising that many, when in fact, its the natives baptising that many. Does that make sense?
That’s what I think Tim meant, anyway.
David
Yall are correct that the IMB is getting more patient about reaching people groups that are more closed to the Gospel. But, I also know of missionaries that have been sent to other countries that were “more open” to the Gospel. They were removed from the country where they were working, in order to reach a “more open” country. So, in reality, both Tim and yall are correct.
David
Brother Jeremiah and David R.,
Glad to hear that the IMB is becoming more open to this. However, for every M you tell me about that are serving in this capacity I can share M stories of threats being issued by those in command over them to report baptisms and converts. I know personally of one M who was about to retire that was threatened with losing his retirement because he did not report what the supervisors in Richmond thought should be enough baptisms. So do you really want to get into this back and forth? Suffice it to say that I praise God that the IMB is responding to this, but I also know this has not always been the case.
Blessings,
Tim
David W.,
According to the IMB website:
http://www.imb.org/globalresearch/faqs.asp#ten
“What is the Annual Statistical Report?
The Annual Statistical Report tracks church growth among field entities where International Mission Board field personnel worked or partnered during the reporting period. As such, the report summarizes the work of field personnel AND THAT OF THE BOARD’S OVERSEAS BAPTIST PARTNERS” (emphasis mine).
Also, I don’t know about the IMB getting “more patient.” In my years with the IMB (1994-2009), my experience is they have always been patient with slow results in difficult countries, especially if they are relatively unreached people. If anything, the trend has been, lately, encouraging people to move from “harvest fields” (such as Latin America) to more unreached (and often less responsive) areas (i.e. Muslim people groups). In the cases in which you are aware of people being moved to a “more open” country, are you sure that responsiveness to the gospel had anything to do with the decision on the part of IMB leadership? Many times, other factors enter into these decisions, as well.
Tim,
RE:17
I am sorry, but I call your bluff on that. Unless you are willing to provide names and more details, I do not accept your story about “threats” on the part of IMB leadership.
I will add that I have not always agreed with every strategy decision on the part of IMB leadership, sometimes at local, sometimes at regional, at sometimes at global levels. And, at times, I have communicated directly with them regarding my disagreement. But, they have always been open to dialogue. And, I have never felt “threatened” by anyone (except in the case of a few trustees during the controversy over new policies a few years back).
Many times, we hear of cases involving individual missionaries, but do not know all of the factors and extenuating circumstances. Also, in any organization, there are always decisions made, from time to time, and leaders in isolated situations, that do not reflect the overall direction of the organization.
What I am saying is that, after approximately 15 years of first-hand experience with the IMB, I am willing to put my word on the line vouching for the integrity of IMB leadership overall.
And, I am not saying we should be “Stepford” supporters, never asking hard questions. But, out of love for the work, and respect for those the Lord places over us, I believe, unless we have clear evidence to the contrary, we should be willing to give our leaders the benefit of the doubt, and, when things don’t appear as we feel they ought, look for other possible explanations.
Brother David,
I guess you will have to accept my word. I will not place in jeopardy the Missionaries that are serving. Suffice it to say I know of M’s that have been threatened by their superiors to produce results or be moved to another place of service. I also know of a MD that went through CIU and instead of going to the place the Board promised him he was told he would go to another place of service. Oh, guess what, he is no longer serving as a SB M. So, ask the hard questions all you want, you know as well as I that heavy handed tactic are used by those in command.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I believe you are slandering people who are good people, and people who have been placed in charge of the IMB by due processes we have set up as a convention. And, I do NOT “know as well as (you) that heavy handed tactic are used by those in command.”
That is a very judgmental thing to say. You are criticizing other people’s motives without knowing their heart. And, I will not just let it slide, without calling you down on it.
I know nothing about the particular cases you cite. But, is it possible that particular types of ministry that were not producing results were discouraged, rather than missionaries being moved because a particular place was spiritually hard or unresponsive?
Also, during the application and placement process, there are often particular ministry requests that must be changed, because circumstances on the field change. I have seen that happen on numerous occasions. But, I have never seen any evidence of any great conspiracy to promise people one thing, and then not follow through, because people were not “producing results.”
Brother David,
I know nothing about the particular cases you cite. So you know everything that goes on in the IMB? I don’t expect you to know about the particular cases I cite, that is the reason I am telling you. It seems odd to me that you hold me so tightly accountable to produce my cases but when others speak of cases you accept it and even encourage more of their words. It appears that this has become more for you than me citing instances. Thus, I have produced for you all I plan to produce. But in order for you to understand that I am not merely “making this stuff up” the following is from a Missionary currently serving.
Blessings,
Tim
David Rogers,
Tim Is not making this stuff up. He is correct in his observations……just as was Keith Eitel a few years ago.
The trustees of the FMB made a serious mistake back in 1993 and the evidence has been spewing out like the Gulf Oil Spill for years now. If you ask for the name of the mistake, I will not give it to you. We will just call it the JR mistake.
Jim Champion,
you said
“I would have a very hard time having a pastor identified with the BI movement. Supposed clear teachings to you look an awful lot like legalism to me”
Amen to that brother, I had someone tell me that the bible clearly taught that I should take bong hits and snort cocaine while I was in Amsterdam. These two activities are done non-chalantly over there and aren’t against the law. Its just like the idea that I can’t have a couple of drinks. I was doing this socially and stayed completely sober. I took the bong hit because I liked the way the organic marijuana tasted, not to get high. I didn’t get high and it was just a way of socializing with friends. The same went for the cocaine line I snorted. Its a social aspect of the culture I was in and I didn’t get high off of it. I just like the way it numbed my face, teeth, and mouth. Its a quite nice affect and did a moderate enough amount to stay sober minded. Also, I didn’t break any laws. These same principles apply to an alcoholic drink. I don’t believe having a couple of beers or drinks is sin, and its legalistic to say the bible teaches against this activity as well as a social bong hit of ganja or social bump of cocaine. Just because these three substances have led to the ruination of many families and individuals, led to many murders and child neglect….any attempt at scripturally addressing complete abstinence from these three usages is being a legalistic pharisee.
David Campbell
P.S. I hope you can see the completely ridiculous nature of this post and understand that just because an activity isn’t specifically addressed in the scripture, doesn’t mean its not sin or uncondemnable.
First sentence above should have read “Amen to that brother, I had someone tell me that the bible clearly taught that I should NOT take bong hits and snort cocaine while I was in Amsterdam
I hope I am misunderstanding your hint – I hope you are not saying that hiring Dr. Rankin was a mistake – and even if you think that, I hope you are not saying that publicly. I usually just read this blog, but when I saw what you seemed to be saying I could not resist asking if you were saying what it looks like you are saying. For someone to blog publicly that they disagree with a duly-elected leader of an SBC entity is one thing, but to call his election a 17-year mistake is bolder than I can believe. Hopefully I misunderstood. And if so, disregard this post. For the record, I served for 10 years (1996-2006) with the IMB.
Tim,
Your description of the IMB process seems to be completely different than anything I have heard of or experienced. I am currently a M with the IMB in a highly challenging/dangerious area. In no way does the has the IMB ever pressured anyone in my region with the threat that we better get results or else. Have you ever personally worked with the IMB, or are you hearing all of these stories secondhand?
It would be very sad if these stories were accurate, but in no way are they indicative of the IMB as a whole. As with any entity (the IMB included), there are always managers that fail to act according to proper procedure. If what you say is true, it sounds much more like a rogue regional leader than official company policy (again, speaking from personal experience with company policy).
I have a huge problem with your statement “If Adoniram Judson were in today’s IMB I wonder if he would have had a job after two years. We probably would have never seen Burma influenced for the Gospel.” Quite honestly, you have no idea what you are talking about. In your attempt to be cute you have hypothesized something that is simply untrue. Yes, you have spoken to a missionary who has had a bad experience. I wonder, did you speak with the IMB to get their side of the story before you slandered them? There are always two sides.
Please, take the time to learn about what IMBs policy actually is before you criticize it. Hearing a story or two simply isn’t good enough. Believe me, if their policy was as you say, I wouldn’t have even considered working with them in the first place.
Since CB mentioned Eitel, I figured it would be prudent to point out that most of the issues he raised back in 2003 have been addressed in one way or another by trustees over the last several years. If some haven’t, then perhaps the trustees bear as much responsibiliy for that as the administration. No?
I won’t chime in on the other nonsense except to point out that the person Tim R. quotes above makes some pretty good points. Unfortunately they are good points that in no way substantiate the notion that the board has (or has had) a punitive policy in place regarding numbers of decisions.
Stuart,
The issue had been raised long before 2003. And at this point, it is quite evident we (We meaning those who saw the problem in the beginning.) were all right back in ’93.
And to say the trustees “bear as much responsibiliy for that as the administration” is one of the great understatements of SBC history. The trustees bear the burden of their actions.
Wow. Well, for the record, as a missionary who served for 10 of Dr. Rankin’s 17 years, I take issue with the wholesale condemnations in your statements, and especially with the flippancy with which you seem to make them (I hope I am misreading you and if so, I apologize). There is no perfect missions agency leader in this world, but I dare say that none of us has any idea what the pressures are like as the President of the IMB, with the entire SBC looking on. It is fine to disagree with some policies or methods, but I always felt that Dr. Rankin’s motive was to make disciples of all the nations. To compare that to the oil spill is not appropriate if you ask me.
Respectfully submitted
I am sure that most any Southern Baptist would at least desire to “make disciples of all the nations.” That in itself would not him or her a good candidate to serve as president of the largest mission board in the world.
And for your information, the trustees were not assigned to find the “perfect missions agency leader in this world.” They were assigned to find the best qualified missions agency leader possible within the ranks of the SBC. They failed. And the did so with willful intent.
And one more thing for your information there Ronny, my comments are not made with any degree of “flippancy” at all. They are made with a sorrow that long predates your 10 years of service.
Wow. All I can say is wow. What in the world has Jerry Rankin done or failed to do that you feel the need to slander him so? You have all the honor of the Obama supporters at his inauguration, singing “Nah, nah, nah, nah, hey hey hey, good-bye.” CB, do you really feel that you know enough about biblical missiology/SB missiologists to say that Dr. Rankin was the wrong man for the job, and further, that the IMB trustees “failed with willful intent?” Please enlighten us: Who was the right man for the job?
In regards to Tim Roger’s post #23, I don’t see how on earth that M can make that statement in light of Romans 10. We’re talking about people dying and going to hell, here. They can’t hear if no one preaches to them. This M’s logic is absurd. The people being turned away aren’t unaccredited Bible college drop outs: They’re the cream of the crop, skilled in the Word, passionate about God’s glory, joyful believers and proclaimers of the Gospel. This M is concerned that the new recruits know their theology. I’m concerned that he know his!
Brother/Sister C,
I have a huge problem with your statement I am sorry you have a huge problem with my statement. However, you have signed in here using a bogus email and also saying that you were serving in a “dangerous” area. But, your IP address reveals you are on the computers in Virginia. Unless there is some unknown area of Virginia I am not familiar with I personally cannot see the need for such privacy.
Brother Stuart,
Pray tell the reason this M was concerned that statistics was an overriding goal?
Brother Ronny,
First, thank you for your service. Second, I am not sure you read Brother CB right. I do not read that his statement was the disaster of the oil spill is the same. I read that the appointment of Dr. Rankin led to a more “open” appointment policy of M’s that cared nothing for SB theology or ecclesiology.
Brother Paul,
When was the last time that sitting president of an entity publicly slammed another sitting entity president? Even Dr. Keith Parks waited until he was out of the position to make his personal attacks. Oh, and what was the need for the policies that brought all of the attention it did back in 2005/06? Look, Dr. Rankin has given valuable leadership through some tough times. No doubt. However, it does not negate the fact that he was pushed on SB by a search committee that disregarded the concerns raised by some.
As to my comment in #23, you said;
When was the last time you served on the mission field? Doesn’t it seem prudent that you reserve your concerns about someones personal theology until you can serve where this brother serves? You have with carte blanc thrown out everything this M has reported. This M’s email came to me and I advised him on remaining private because of fear for his job. He is willing to go public with this. So, I do not believe I would be questioning someones theology, it may be that you would be surprised as to whom this is.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
This conversation has strayed into waters that I dare not tread. But, getting back to the original article, take heart Tim, that there are “Judson’s” on the field. They are in pioneering areas where no one else has yet step foot. So one day we will again see hundreds of thousands come to Christ though it may and probably won’t be at the hands of SBC Ms directly. It may not happen your life time or mine, but God is using our Ms just as he used the Judson’s.
One more note, I was a bit of a techy back in the day and just because an IP address says one place or leads you to believe its one place dont always swear by that (not saying that they arent in VA). Friends on the field use proxy servers. Some times you can’t access certain sites in certain countries without them. Google it.
Jeremiah.
Brother Jeremiah,
First, I agree with you that we have Judson’s in places in today’s IMB. I have not said we do not have Judson’s serving in hard to reach places. I appreciate our M’s and do everything I can to support them. I lead my church to increase their CP plus this last year we received the largest LM offering in the history of the church. So, please do not read my article as some slam against the IMB because it isn’t and at no place can you point to that I have put down the IMB or her M’s.
Are there problems in the IMB? There certainly are and we hold our Trustees accountable to get those straightened out. We have M’s on the field pointing to the problems as I have produced for you an email from one serving.
As to the IP address. I do understand that it is possible to need a proxy server. However, what raised the red flags of suspicion on comment #28 was the email that could not be verified. Had I had a legitimate email, I would never have called attention to the comment and would have fully interacted with it.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
You are right, I am not writing from a “dangerous” area but am stateside now, scheduled to return in October. I didn’t give my email address because…well…I hate giving out my email address. I don’t want to post something in a blog and then begin receiving regular emails from the host or host company. Not saying you would do this, but as a general rule I don’t give my email when it isn’t necessary. Why, instead of dealing with the content of my post, did you simply question my legitimacy and honesty?
Getting back to the subject…I’m surprised in post #36 that you say “at no place can you point to that I have put down the IMB.” You (unfairly and inaccurately) hypothesized that Judson would be fired after two years in today’s IMB…exactly how is that not putting the IMB down?
On the other hand, I sympathetic to the M that you quoted on post #23. The budget cuts are hard and people are being turned away. This is extremely sad and something that I hope will change soon. That being said, I think the IMB will be much improved after going through this tough time. This financial strain will force the IMB to be more streamlined, efficient, and financially responsible. The IMB will hopefully emerge from this time “leaner and meaner” as the saying goes. The M is also right to say that while the quantity of missionaries will decrease, the quality will certainly increase. There is a silver lining to this difficult financial time.
Tim,
Thank you for your gentlemanly response in #34. I can’t speak to whether or not the appointment process became more open. I know that when we were asked to sign the BFM 2000, I was ready to sign it 100 times over. I thought it was a necessary process. There were missionaries on our field who were not in line with the majority of Southern Baptists theologically (though they may have been nice people or well-meaning). This did not mean they should not be missionaries, just that they should not be receiving salary from the SBC. They did not come to the field during Dr. Rankin’s era, though.
This whole discussion becomes very complicated for people who have never met and carrying it out on post threads. I am probably as “old fogey” as Tim. I do believe much of our desire to welcome the world into the church means we lose the distinction the church is supposed to hold (see Acts 5:13-14).
But I add to this framework ten years on the field doing mostly pioneer church planting. It is a different animal than the local church pastorate in America. I saw the wonderful, needed changes Dr. Rankin brought to the IMB’s methodologies (of course, others have a right to disagree on this). Because of God’s unmistakable call of God back to the pastorate and to an unchurched area of the USA, I painfully left one of the best organizations in the world – the IMB.
The only reason I jumped into this fray (and I need to get back out – I am a pastor and I have 7 children and one on the way!) is that I thought C.B. was taking too harsh of a swipe at Dr. Rankin.
May God bless you all and may He see fit to use the SBC in His Kingdom’s work.
Ronny
Brother/Sister C,
You are correct. When I saw the bogus email address I felt your content was merely bait to draw me into debate for something other than a legitimate concern. Let me assure you that your email address will only be seen by the blog administrators of which there are 4. We do not give that information out and we never begin some add campaign or sell the information. Though you are still using the bogus email I will give the benefit of the doubt and engage your thoughts. Thank you for coming back and affirming my deductions. You did not have to do that and I admire you for such a stand.
Comment #28
You say that you have never felt pressured to produce. As I understand it the M’s get together once a year in a retreat setting. It is there that reports are presented and discussed. Are you telling me that your supervisors never express dissatisfaction or regret that one M is recording 100′s of baptisms while another is recording less than 10? Or one M is recording 25 baptisms while another has recorded 0? In speaking with M’s serving in various areas, I am being told that Regional Directors and others higher are placing pressure on M’s to produce results.
I have contact with a M who is serves as a kind of “encourager” to other M’s. He tells me he counsels all of the time with M’s that are in fear of loosing their status because of under-reported numbers. As to this being “company policy” I will tell you that I do not beleive it to be “company policy” However, one “rogue” (your words, not mine) regional director is one too many.
My statement in comment #36 is not a slam on the IMB. I am merely stating the facts as have been reported to me. I am not slaming the IMB, but merely pointing to issues that need to be addressed. Once again, I support the IMB and the M’s serving. But the facts remain that pressure is being placed on the M’s to produce #’s.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Ronny,
Congratulations on the coming birth or your new child. Welcome back to the pastorate in the US. With your new work in the pioneer area of the US I pray that our paths may cross and I can be of assistance to you in your work. If I can, please do not hesitate to email me your needs and I will certainly pray about ways we can help meet them.
Certainly agree that many of those who would not sign the BF&M2k were appointed before Dr. Rankin became president. However, lest we forget, Dr. Rankin did not have a sound theological standing among majority SB at the time. His appointment caused rancor among the brethren and trustees should have been more vocal in their opposition. It reminds me of Dr. Page’s appointment. The trustees that disagree should not hid behind the screen of “Executive Session”. They should take their concerns to the SB at large. If that would have happened when Dr. Rankin was appointed I believe he would not have been appointed. All of this does not negate the excellent work he has done since being in that position. However, if you remember the pressure was on the search committee to appoint a M because Keith Parks was a M. The state editors were pushing hard for a M and did not want Tom Eliff because he was closely tied to the Conservative Resurgence.
Dr. Rankin has done a great job. I am still concerned with his attack against Morris Chapman. Not that Dr. Chapman didn’t need someone to say the things that Dr. Rankin said. But you know as well as I that on entity head should never publicly speak against another entity head, unless there is immorality, unethical practices, or financial mismanagement.
Blessings,
Tim
I want to amend a couple of things I said in #38. (1) I said, “I do believe much of our desire to welcome the world into the church means we lose the distinction the church is supposed to hold (see Acts 5:13-14).”
I did not mean that we shouldn’t WELCOME the lost into our churches. I was referring to some of the methods we use to ATTRACT the lost. We have a saying at our church, “Everyone should feel welcome; no one should feel comfortable.” By that we mean that if the Gospel is presented and our methods are Biblical, all of us should feel a little uncomfortable.
(2) I said that pioneer church planting is different than the local church pastorate. I mainly mean that cross-cultural pioneer church planting is different than the local church pastorate in your home land.
Thanks.
Ronny
Paul Butterworth,
I will try to answer your questions.
“All I can say is wow. What in the world has Jerry Rankin done or failed to do that you feel the need to slander him so?”
Answer: I have not slandered Jerry Rankin. I said he was not the right man for the job back in 1993 and he was not. That is not slander.
You have all the honor of the Obama supporters at his inauguration, singing “Nah, nah, nah, nah, hey hey hey, good-bye.”
Answer: This is not a question I realize, but it certainly presents the strength of your understanding of the history of the FMB/IMB over the last 30 years. Nonetheless, here is my response: This statement is just too stupid to address and shows the lack of depth you have relating to the subject matter at hand.
“CB, do you really feel that you know enough about biblical missiology/SB missiologists to say that Dr. Rankin was the wrong man for the job, and further, that the IMB trustees “failed with willful intent?”
Yes I do. And in addition, I know enough about biblical, systematic, historical and practical theology to know he was the wrong choice in 1993. I would like to ask you how knowledgeable are you in theology, missiology, SBC history and biblical understanding? Are you capable of making any statement with any assurance and certainty or do you just make statements based on emotion and sentiment and a little Kumbaya theology thrown in for flavor?
Please enlighten us: Who was the right man for the job?
That would be speculation beyond any worth at the present, for that particular mule has long left the barn and is too far gone since the trustee failure of 1993. Therefore, the real question now is; Who is the right man for the job of cleaning up the present mess the IMB is in and do the current trustees have the ability to find him?
“Dr. Rankin has done a great job.”
Tim Rogers, you big sissy. He has not done a great job.
Nonetheless, I love you anyway and consider you a stand-up guy in spite of this lapse into sissyness.
Tim,
The comments very clearly deal with the number of people on the field and the slow-down in appointments. To frame it with the opening statement “If we as SOUTHERN BAPTISTS are mainly about statistics…” indicates that some saw/see/have seen having a huge missionary force as an important statistic. Which they have. Which is why he goes on to make that point that a slowdown in appointments isn’t necessarily a “bad” thing.
I still fail to see how anything he wrote indicates the existence of an official and punitive policy regarding the reporting of “decisions”.
I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that and move on.
CB, (RE #30)
I wasn’t trying to be critical of the trustees.
I think one could well argue that those of Eitel’s concerns (I use his name only because he wrote the “vision assessment” in 2003. Surely his views weren’t his alone and the questions had been around since before 2003.) that were not acted upon by trustees are more matters of strategy than theology. Robust discussion on matters of strategy (“harvest fields” vs. people groups, church planting vs. institutional, etc.) is healthy as long as it’s not framed in “liberal vs. conservative” language. IMHO.
CB,
I saw Tim wearing a pink shirt at the Pastor’s Conference.
David
Stuart,
The trustees who made a poor decision in 1993 were not liberals. By that time, most all of the liberal trustees were gone. The trustees who made the poor decision of ’93 were simply too weak to take a strong stand and do what needed to be done for the good of the FMB, SBC and the lost world in general.
Stuart, please don’t get me wrong. I believe the trustee system of the SBC is a good method and should not be changed. Yet, I know that our boards, institutions and agencies have had a “run” of weak trustees in these latter years. I call them Boot-Strappin’-Baloney-Eaters. Too many of them go to board meetings with their resumes in their back pockets, seeking to feather their own nests. They have neglected the reason they were elected as trustees and have sought to pull themselves up by their own boot straps and they have eaten all the baloney fed to them at the “Dog and Pony Shows” put on by the various administrations or power structures of or within the boards they serve.
It takes grit to serve honorably as a SBC trustee. We need men and women of true grit to become trustees. Are you a man of true grit Stuart? or would you be dazzled by a steak dinner and a chance at a pie-boy job as a convention employ or a bigger church? The temptation is strong. The road is a long hard ride. But if you have the grit, it is a noble venture and a worthy service.
Vol,
He also had on silk socks as long a pair of women’s hose the very same day. In addition when we went to a Steakhouse for dinner, he ordered Quiche and Mineral-water.
Stuart,
One more thing. Keith Eitel’s white paper was right as rain.
Gentlemen, I sadly do not have time to interact with you point-by-point. But as to you immediately attacking my own alleged credentials as a commentator and failing to deal with the content of my posts, suffice it to say I hold a Bachelor’s degree in missiology from Boyce College and am a candidate for a second on in systematic theology/missiology from SBTS. I am currently the teaching assistant of a returned M who gave 20 years IMB service and is now a prof at Boyce. I have met and worked alongside Ms in multiple Affinity clusters in the IMB, including one substantial internship. For serious security reasons, I cannot tell you now I know some IMB workers, but believe me, I know many. Seeing as I go to Southern, I believe I can vouch for the quality of the people who are being delayed because of the budget crunch. They are my friends. They know the Lord. They love the Lord. They desire to tell people about the Lord.
CB Scott: Much of your dislike for Uncle Jerry seems to stem from his interaction with Morris Chapman. I’m proud of him for that. He had the guts to stand up and say what needed to be said. Need I remind you that Rankin didn’t start this fight: Chapman did, with his downgrade of convention speeches and Baptist Press manipulation. Make no mistake: I completely understand what the CR meant and what Chapman did in it. He’s to be commended and respected for it. It does not, however, give him carte blanche to impose his ideas on everyone. He was a general in our glorious revolution. That does not make him king for life.
Chapman aside, CB, you want to talk missiology, let’s talk missiology. What about his missiological strategy do you disapprove?
Back several years ago, I posted a lengthy response to the Vision Assessment over at my personal blog, Love Each Stone. I tried to post a link here, but it is apparently still in comment moderation. Maybe the hyperlinks didn’t make it through the pre-determined filters.
In any case, I do not agree with Eitel’s or CB’s assessment. The issues are probably too complicated and the response too long to discuss appropriately on this comment stream.
Maybe someone can rescue my comment with the links out of comment moderation.
David,
It was good to get the opportunity to meet you in Orlando. I appreciate you point of view on many things. But as you know, I still contend you were and continue to be wrong about the FMB/IMB and what has happened within that entity in these latter years.
But let me quickly say, you are not a sissy like your cousin Tim Rogers. You did eat real man food during our lunch together.
Paul Butterworth,
I have not mentioned Morris Chapman in this comment thread. Obviously, you have me confused with someone else. My position as to Jerry Rankin being a poor choice goes all the way back to his first becoming a candidate.
He was simply the wrong guy, at the wrong time, for the wrong board, for the wrong convention.
David,
I re-read the paper again yesterday after CB brought it up. I still agree with parts and disagree with others.
CB,
I enjoyed meeting you and eating–what was it, Asian wraps, or something like that?–together.
I don’t claim Jerry Rankin, or other IMB leaders during the Rankin years, have been perfect. But, I do think that, in general, the work of world missions has prospered under his/their leadership, and God has greatly used him/them.
Now, as far as not being a sissy is concerned, I have a straight up question for you. Other than the specific issues dealt with in Eitel’s Vision Assessment white paper, and the Eitel, Patterson, Hadaway follow-up paper, do you have any other particular discrepancies with Rankin’s leadership and missionary strategy/philosophy? Or are your concerns pretty well summed up in those documents?
I’m going to try posting my two links to those documents, and my replies, that I mentioned earlier, separately now, and see if they will make it past comment moderation, just in case you need to refresh your memory on some of this.
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/05/historical-documents-baptist_27.html
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/09/reply-to-brad-reynolds-keith-eitel.html
Yay!!! It looks like we made it through comment moderation this time.
David,
It’s been a while since I’d read back through all that. Especially enterntaining was reading back over the comment stream on Brad’s old blog.
Regardless of whether or not the incidents that were cited in the white papers were “isolated” or “systemic”, it’s fair to say that the majority of those concerns are irrelevant now, considering:
* Everyone must sign off on BFM2K.
* 2+2 adn 2+3 programs have been bolstered.
* ILC under new leadership.
* Boundaries for GCC parentships are clarified and codified.
* Boundaries for contextualizaiton are clarified and codified.
* Definition of church is codified.
* Guidelines for planting churches that meet the “definition” are codified.
* (And how could we forget) Rebaptism and prayer-language “guidelines” are in place.
Based on all of those policy changes and “course corrections” over the course of a decade, it seems fair to say that if anyone still has issues, they would fall into one of two (or both) categories:
* Lingering issues over Harvest Fields vs. People Groups methodology and their impact upon research method, strategy planning, prioritization of personnel and budget, etc.
* Unresolved personal prejudices.
The former is something that should always be open to robust debate within the camp as long as one view isn’t put forth as “more biblical” or “more theologically conservative” than the other.
The latter is just kinda sad.
David,
As I stated to Paul Butterworth, my concerns with Jerry Rankin go back to 1993. Theology plays into the mix also.
Paul Butterworth,
Forgive me for failing to address your missiology comment.
I never stated that I wanted to “talk missiology.” I was responding to your question: “CB, do you really feel that you know enough about biblical missiology/SB missiologists to say that Dr. Rankin was the wrong man for the job, and further, that the IMB trustees “failed with willful intent?”
My answer was, Yes I do. Now, Paul, if you desire to enlighten us as to how his strategy was so successful, you have the floor.
CB,
Do you not wish to tell us what your specific concerns, that go back to 1993, are? And, what specific theological issues play into the mix?
Are they all dealt with in the Eitel papers? Or, are there additional issues, as well?
David,
You know full well what the issues were unless you were on Mars at the time.
CB,
I am aware of the issues raised in the Eitel papers. And, I am aware that Rankin’s PPL was also an issue. Beyond this, I do not know of other issues.
Now, do you want to answer my straight-up question or not?
CB,
BTW, and FYI, from 1990 to 1994, I was in Spain, with an interdenominational mission organization called Bible Christian Union, and SBC politics was not one of the big items on my radar screen, at the time.
CB,
I too would like to know what issues you are referring to with Rankin. I was not on Mars in the early 90s. However, I was in elementary school and thus have no earthly idea what you are talking about. I don’t understand your hostility toward Rankin. What exactly is your grievance? I can’t seem to find anything online concerning SBC controversy towards Rankin in the early 90s. Can you give me an explanation? It may help explain why Rankin’s name has seemed to conjure up so much hostility on this blog.
Matthew,
Why is it that my saying Jerry Rankin was the wrong man mean that I am being hostile toward him?
That has become the strange drink of the SBC in these latter years. Any time a person makes an honest statement relating to another person’s performance or theological leanings, it is interpreted as hostility.
I have no hostility toward Jerry Rankin. As far as I know he was a good missionary. But he was a poor choice for president of the FMB/IMB.
General Grant was a great general, but a terrible president.
Hostility is not the issue here.
David,
Your were at home enough during those years to know the issues. I am not going to let you push me into speaking of details that many on this comment thread will not understand.
Again, Keith Eitel’s white paper was right. You do not believe that to be true. Therefore, you will not believe me. either. But I will say it a little stronger. The truth of Eitel’s white paper will stand. It will stand because it is true.
Pressler and Patterson were right in ’93. Today, there are other trustees who were involved with the hiring of Jerry Rankin who have admitted that a mistake was made. People who were not trustees, but were very involved with the process at the time have also admitted that a mistake was made. None of those people are being hostile. They simply had a gut check in the last few years and know rthey were wrong. That is about all there is to it.
CB: I don’t think it’s unfair to ask you to explain your reasonings for being so adamantly against Jerry Rankin. I agree with you that Grant was a bad president. I could explain why I think he’s been a phenomenal president, but, you haven’t explained why you think his strategy poor. Having gone to David Roger’s blog, I would by and large agree with his assessments regarding the SWBTS critiques of IMB policy. I certainly have my own concerns that complementarian practice be in place and I also have some critiques for things like the CAMEL method, etc. However, what I saw in the SWBTS critiques were logical fallacies of going from specifics to generals. Of course isolated incidents occur and of course not every M is as solid as I would like. However, to lambast Jerry’s presidency without specifics is not logically sound. I see the over-arching themes of his presidency as being solid: strong pursuit of church-planting, shifting to the People Group focus, targeting UPGs.
CB, you simply can’t say “You know and I’m not going to tell you.” If you can’t substantiate your charge, don’t make it. I mean, I heard from some field personnel that Paige Patterson wanted to be IMB president when Jerry was elected. Is that what you’re referring to? Perhaps the people who told me this were mistaken. Behold the danger of dependence on heresay.
Brother Matthew,
That is just wrong. Dr. Rankin’s name does not “conjure up…hostility” on this blog. Find the areas that Dr. Rankin has been slammed. The issues those of us who have spoken against Dr. Rankin are theological or methodological. I have never spoken against entity leaders, and this blog was started to support the trustee system. What you have done has painted us as being against the IMB which is not true. Dr. Rankin made an unprecedented move when he openly and publicly attacked Dr. Chapman. He did this after he announced his retirement. The issue I have against Dr. Rankin is that his intent was wrong headed and his desire was evident. The GCR examined every entity except the IMB. Their report targeted the NAMB and completely overlooked the IMB. Dr. Rankin seemingly sided with the GCR Task Force and unloaded the guns against Dr. Chapman cutting his budget by 1/3 while increasing the IMB budget. His mouth should have remained shut and he decided to whine like a spoiled baby over the issues that Dr. Chapman was trying to point out.
His behavior in his last few months revealed his true motives, and that was sad.
Blessings,
Tim
TIm, I apologize for saying that this blog has been hostile toward Rankin. That is not really what I intended to communicate. I was really referring to the perceived hostility seen against him by CB in this specific comment stream.
CB, maybe “hostile” is the wrong word for me to use here. You are critical of Rankin for issues that go back to the early 90s. I am genuinely wanting to know what those issues are since you have made many strong statements regarding it. Let me further clarify that by “critical” I only mean that you are giving your honest assessment of Rankin’s election/presidency (your critique). This is intended to be as neutral of a statement as possible. Personally, I have no problem with you being critical of Rankin on this blog, but when you are you must explain your reasoning. Most Southern Baptists under the age of 40 have no idea what controversy surrounded Rankin in the early 90s…thus, you shouldn’t just criticize him and then make some vague reference to a 17 year old controversy. Again, I have no problem with the criticism, but am merely wanted an explanation of it.
Paul Butterworth,
Your use of words like “hostility” and “lambast” have no merit. No one has lambasted Jerry Rankin. No one has been hostile to Jerry Rankin.
I have actually answered your questions as to why Jerry Rankin was basically a poor president. I directed you to Keith Eitel’s white paper. The paper is accurate. The paper is true. You, along with others reject the substance of Eitel’s white paper. That is your right.
My position is simple. I believe Jerry Rankin was a poor president of the FMB/IMB. I, with knowledge, affirm the white paper of Keith Eitel as an accurate assessment of the problems within the IMB.
My position is based on what I know. It is not based on hostility toward him as a person. It was poor of you to make the effort to relate my position on Rankin’s presidency to me being hostile or any desire on my part to lambast him. You also were wrong to link my position to a personal friendship with the Chapman’s. One has nothing to do with the other. Morris Chapman is a big boy and he can take care of himself….and has for many years.
Ultimately, as I stated earlier in this comment thread, the true source of the problems within the FMB/IMB rest at the feet of several very weak trustees who failed to carry out their assignment as caretakers of an SBC entity.
Paul,
That should have been, “You also were wrong to link my position to a personal friendship with the “Chapmans” not “Chapman’s”
Matthew,
There is no “vague reference.” Read Keith’s white paper. Read Baptist press from during the selection process of Jerry Rankin. The truth is there. Do the research. Make your own conclusions.
But, just consider this: Paul Butterworth was not there or involved. David Rogers was not there or involved. I was. Tim Rogers was.
Why is it that you do not ask Paul Butterworth and David Rogers why they believe Jerry Rankin to have been a good choice considering the fact that they were not involved in any way at the time of his becoming president?
It seems that the only reason you question me rather than them is because my opinion is negative toward the Rankin presidency. It seems that the post-modern gospel of “Be nice-Be tolerant” rules the day among far too many Southern Baptists today.
Matthew sometimes the truth is harsh. It is not always neat, tidy and nice. Jerry Rankin simply was not a good president of the FMB/IMB and his tenure proves it. It is that simple. You read the history. You make your own conclusion. I have made mine…..and with no hostility.
Someone else would be better qualified to give an overall appraisal of the effects of Jerry Rankin’s leadership during his years as IMB President, or I would, if I had the time right now to do the needed research; but I can share some general impressions.
1. Statistics don’t prove anything. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons may have good statistics to show, but that doesn’t mean (at least, in one important sense) they are doing a “good job.” However, I do think it is significant that statistics related to growth in missionary appointments, SBC church involvement, overseas baptisms and church plants, etc. under Rankin’s leadership has been spectacular. I would have to take more time than I have right now to give the specific statistics (and if someone has evidence to the contrary, have at it); but that is my general impression from the information I am aware of.
2. When I was appointed to the IMB (after one term in Spain with Bible Christian Union), a lot of the old administrative procedures and “missionary culture” from the old FMB were still in place. I was able to observe much of this first-hand, and was able to hear stories of how it was before from other veteran missionaries. The changes introduced in this area under Rankin’s leadership were “night and day.” Annual mission meetings that used to be a lot of bickering over who gets what car, who gets what house, etc. became times of inspiration, and real strategic encouragement.
3. Agreements which had existed with national Baptist unions, which, in many cases, were putting a stranglehold on the advance of evangelistic and church planting work were annulled. Now, in some cases (perhaps many), I think this was done too abruptly and in an extreme manner. But, this was something that needed to be done. And the work of Southern Baptist missions around the world today is much better off than it was before. And, it took a lot of courage, and bold leadership, to pull off.
4. Jerry and Bobbye Rankin have been great friends and encouragers to the missionaries and workers throughout the IMB. Their sincerity, and personal love and concern for those who have served with them, is very transparent. My observation, down through the years, is that the great majority of IMB personnel share this assessment of the Rankins as individuals.
In our Western Europe regional meeting in Germany in, I believe, 2006, at the peak of “trustee-gate,” Jerry Rankin stood up to great the gathering of missionaries, and there was a spontaneous standing ovation that lasted for several minutes. Jerry Rankin was a leader who connected well with those who served under and alongside him, and was very good at inspiring and encouraging others in their work toward the completion of the task.
5. Jerry Rankin is a man who, in his Christian character and example, has shown us as missionaries, Southern Baptists in general, and, indeed, believers around the world, what it means to walk closely with God, and live the Spirit-filled life. If he has had conflicts with others (such as the recent words written between him and Morris Chapman), the evident motivation behind Rankin’s word has been his enthusiasm for the task of world evangelization, and his urgency for seeing the lost of the world won for Christ.
6. Jerry Rankin has been visionary in introducing concepts and ideas that, in my opinion, are biblically on target, such as the seeing the work of the Great Commission as a God-sized task, that depends on prayer, spiritual warfare, and the unified effort of all of the Body of Christ (including other GCCs) in order to be fulfilled.
See, for example, here: http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/05/historical-documents-baptist_23.html
There is much more I could say. But, I will leave it at that for the time being. Needless to say, I believe any shortcomings of Rankin’s tenure as IMB President have been far outweighed by his merits and accomplishments.
The basics of Eitel’s white paper are below. I believe it to be true.
Trustees elected Jerry A. Rankin as the Board president on 14 June 1993. For the first four years of his administration, Rankin built his team and pointed the Board to the early stages of a “New Direction”. In the spring of 1997, Rankin acted to dissolve CSI, reconfigure the entire Board structure, and openly advocate a set of new directions. What was new was an emphasis on church planting that resulted in movements or the contagious exponential expansion of churches. The means of accomplishing these new directions were to streamline the administrative operation of the Board on the field by dissolving the archaic localized mission administrative structures in the countries where the Board traditionally worked, move toward the unevangelized edges of each region by city or people group segment, and to move to the unreached areas more intentionally.
Rankin’s “New Directions” campaign drew the Board more directly into the network of GCC’s, again with no mechanisms in place to filter or check the entry of unbiblical practices other than the specific theological preparation of the individual missionary. Yet, under the Rankin administration, there has been an obvious and apparently intentional move away from requiring seminary training for the key roles related to church planting or church development. Pre-Rankin, the normal requirement was an MDiv or equivalent plus two years of pertinent experience. Today one may assume such roles with as little as 20-30 semester hours and there is a spirit or culture within the Board that downplays or undermines the need to even go to seminary at all. If it weren’t for the Trustees holding the line on this requirement I am afraid that seminary requirements would be dropped completely. In lieu of seminary training, business management techniques and/or secular training in a variety of fields are much more highly prized and encouraged. While not meaning to demean the value of such backgrounds in general, I am concerned that evangelism, church planting, and discipleship are in the hands of theological novices. It raises serious questions regarding whether the end justifies the means when the types of churches planted increasingly do not reflect a biblical ecclesiology, Baptist values, or in some cases even appear Christian.
Additional issues surfacing as the Board has progressed more deeply into “New Directions” ideologies relate to the role of women in missionary ministry, especially in the strategy coordinator (SC) capacity. SC’s, or Strategy Leaders (SL’s) in some regions, are the heirs of the earlier non-residential missionary model. The concept has evolved in numerous ways and is never quite the same from region to region or missionary to missionary. In one sense, this kind of flexibility is the strength of the concept. In another sense, it has little or no structure in place to regulate theological concerns. Women, while certainly capable in numerous ways to do ministry, should not be placed in doctrinal or ethical authority over men, and the SC role often causes this to happen. Additionally, partnering with GCC’s is supposed to be guided by concentric circles of levels of partnership as outlined in David Garrison’s book on church planting published by the IMB. Yet, there is no theological statement of boundaries. By default the structure collapses and SC’s frequently lead their teams to partner with theologically suspect organizations. Again, without clear boundaries regarding GCC’s and guidelines for partnering, with many who are theological novices guiding the process, problems emerge.
In the final analysis, the “New Directions” campaign seems to reflect the same theological position inherited from the Parks era. Theological definition is minimized and that which is “new” reveals it’s roots in the very theological heritage that influenced Parks to conclude that doctrine divides and missions unites.
IMB Future: Biblical Renewal
In order to synchronize the IMB with the theological convictions of the SBC, consistently expressed since 1979 and to set the Board’s course directly back into the evangelical roots that were the convictions of the founders of the convention, then there must be a system set in place whereby biblical and theological inquiry is not minimized in importance. Rather it should be affirmed and elevated to serve as a critiquing mechanism for setting the policies, practices, and procedures of the IMB in line with Bible as true Truth that instructs, informs, and determines the IMB’s worldview and culture. At this juncture, I can only present a rough set of ideas for doing this, but that does not minimize my commitment to the desired outcome. At least the following should be serious considerations:
• Recruit administrators committed to theological renewal of the Board.
• Change the appointment criteria and procedures to encourage theological preparation. Enlarge and encourage development of the 2+2/3 programs in the six SBC seminaries and Mid-America.
• Revise the entire curriculum and teaching staff at the MLC to create a coherently biblical foundation for missions, cultural adjustment, cross-cultural communication, and church planting. Procedures used at the MLC should be more “family friendly” and not use secular personnel management techniques that are thoroughly unchristian in nature (e.g. negative peer review processes).
• Renew the office of strategic planning to inculcate proper research techniques, move away from trendy data analyses (e.g. Barrett’s model), and bring a balance to the view of the world needed to engage global harvest fields, especially among the unreached, that is untainted by ecumenical premises and thoroughly biblical.
• Generate theological definitions and boundaries for partnering with GCC’s, review the nature of the SC/SL position and create alternatives suitable for women that are in line with the sentiments of the BF&M 2000, and create guidelines for church planting that will insure healthy theological development and be reflective of Baptist distinctives.
• Create a budget and planning process that prioritizes transparent use of funds and one that causes everyone to sense an accountability even to the little children in VBS programs or widows that faithfully give to the Board, as well as everyone else.
• Additionally, budgeting should balance the work in established areas with those in pioneer areas. The nature of the work in each will necessarily be different and the budgeting processes should reflect that reality.
• Create a synergy within the Board’s culture that will minimize the competitiveness and enhance the value of a “koinonia” spirit generated from a common, likeminded faith.
• The aim of these types of changes is to solidify the foundation for engaging in missionary activity. Hell is real. Heaven is real. Everyone that has ever lived, or shall someday live, will spend eternity one place or the other. We’ve been charged with the responsibility to make sure everyone knows The Way to salvation through Christ’s finished work on the cross alone. Shaky theological foundations that erode confidence in the integrity of the text of the Bible soon undermine the integrity of Jesus as the main character of the Bible and His exclusive statements regarding the need for salvation in and through Him. So the goal is to do our share of winning the world to Christ and to see His church established in every city, town, and village, thereby pleasing Him without care for the ways of the world.
Here is the second paper presented by Keith Eitel. Drs. Paige Patterson & Robin Hadaway assisted him in this second paper. You folks read this and make your own conclusions.
In keeping with a simple and yet focused discussion format, the following depicts the primary concerns raised by the “Vision Assessment” white paper written by Keith Eitel and the subsequent flow of email and letter exchanges that bring us to this meeting. A given issue is stated, then supporting evidence is offered, and finally a possible way forward is proposed. The incidences cited as examples to various issues are only representative. Numerous other instances could be noted from multiple regions over about 15 years of observed practice on the field. In other words, these ARE NOT isolated incidences. They are systemic problems running throughout the structure. In addition, details supporting Eitel’s contentions have been contributed by Robin Hadaway. Some of these comments are from Hadaway’s paper, “Rejoicing Together: Balancing the Biblical Perspectives: A Missiological Analysis.”
Issue One: What is the precise policy and practice relating to church planting? Are we planting Baptist (not merely Baptistic) churches? If the practice is varied, what are the guidelines for determining whether we plant a Baptist church or not? To what degree are we involved in ecumenical church planting? What theological guidelines do we have to prevent this as we partner with the Great Commission Christians around the world?
Observations
• SD21 data has a curious pattern for gathering the data. 10% of the entire field force was surveyed to discover a variety of things, mostly reflective of how well they’ve understood the Church Planting Movement (CPM) concepts and methods. However, the section designed to determine whether the IMB is planting Baptist churches or not is only an opinion scale from the 15 regional chairpersons of the trustee board in consultation with the 15 regional leaders. This same material could have been easily included in the field survey given to the field missionaries. This in and of itself reflects a skewed methodology, but more importantly it seems to imply that the field findings might mitigate the desired outcomes and demonstrate that we are not consistently planting Baptist churches. Rather we’re planting churches that reflect more the mix of ideas inherent in a blend of Great Commission Christian ideas, often neo-charismatic leaning and quasi Biblical (see a discussion of this GCC concept below).
• While on sabbatical in the fall of 2002, Eitel observed five different locations and the network of work in those locations in China. Consistently, there seemed to be an emphasis on the GCC partnerships as vital to the process of planting churches. Dr. David Garrison’s booklet on Church Planting draws concentric circles of levels of partnership. On paper it looks feasible, but in practice in China (Eitel has also observed this in numerous other settings), it breaks down. When pioneers are first entering a people group or city, finding any other believer to work with is an encouragement. Natural bonds of friendship and affiliation develop. The momentum of these relationships carries over and causes the concentric lines of partnership (which are designed to determine when and how missionaries should partner) to collapse. It’s easier to ignore doctrinal differences and not push Baptist distinctives in order to foster a so-called unity in planting the churches. This type of unity is superficial and will usually erupt into conflict after the initial phases of planting the churches. In order to avoid this syndrome, some missionaries advocate and practice a method of planting so-called churches that means brand new believers are encouraged to share Christ immediately, gather a group of unbelievers together and teach them the essentials of the faith to bring them to Christ, and then in a pyramid fashion, the cycle repeats rapidly. While this is indeed a great evangelistic tool, it does not foster maturation of the church, leadership development nor establishment of long-term vision or stability for the church. It seems to rely almost exclusively on the early sections of Acts as a foundation for this model while ignoring the patterns of maturation found in the Pastorals and General Epistles. Nevertheless, this rapid reproduction allows the missionary to avoid the doctrinal issues that come with GCC partners yet they do not compensate for it by taking the time to “commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”
• In Islamic contexts, the GCC influences are stimulating unhealthy contextualization patterns that undermine New Testament Church Planting much less anything Baptist. For example, a missionary wrote to me about this very issue. He stated that someone working with Frontiers had come to teach them about how to establish C-5 Islamic churches. This missionary goes on to say that another GCC partner was willing to call someone coming from an Islamic background that is in a C-5 church plant a believer even though that person emphatically denies the deity of Christ. Yet, this approach to CPM is encouraged and doctrinal concerns are subsumed to foster a so-called unity. Conversely, Dr. Hadaway reports that his strategy in Sudan called for starting Baptist churches (and calling them Baptist) from the beginning. This work has grown through the team Hadaway started and others have continued to over 85 churches and 100 “outreach groups.” His rationale for the persecuted world was “since it was illegal to start any kind of church in Sudan, one might as well start an illegal Baptist church than an illegal non-defined church.”
• In 1992 Hadaway (then an SC) attended a strategy meeting where SC’s were encouraged to partner with Eastern Orthodox churches in their strategies. Dr. David Garrison (then a CSI administrator) said at this meeting, “It does not matter the gender of the pastors of the churches with whom you bring into your areas.” In addition, SC’s were encouraged to include charismatic groups such as the Assemblies of God denomination in their strategies, including church planting.
• In late 1996/early 1997 Hadaway (then a supervisor of SC’s) attended a meeting called by David Weston to plan to enter the country of “Narnia.” CBF representatives (husband and wife) were invited by David Weston to this meeting and attended to take part in the evangelism and church planting strategy. They were introduced as CBF representatives in the meeting Hadaway attended. Although today’s SC’s are given the Garrison document concerning concentric circles of levels of partnership, it is still up to each SC how he or she applies the guidance. Each SC has the freedom to partner with whomever they desire.
• These and numerous other examples can be offered but suffice it to say we’re likely not involved in the formal Ecumenical movement per se, but we’re heavily involved in the Evangelical version of ecumenism by default due to a lack of careful partnering and questionable church planting methods.
Possible Solution
• For all forms of church planting, any partners involved should be inherently in agreement with the BF&M 2000. This will provide a clearly Baptist blueprint for the established pattern of the church and all GCC’s should be able to agree with these beliefs or we should only partner with them on more superficial levels, if the doctrinal differences are not so significant as to undermine partnering at all.
• Since 1963 missionary candidates have been allowed to become missionaries without totally agreeing with the BF&M. Missionary candidates have been permitted to register their disagreement with particular points of the BF&M as long as they agree to “ teach in accordance with and not contrary to” the 2000 BF&M. However, such allowances place missionaries in the uncomfortable position of ministering counter to their own beliefs- something difficult, if not impossible to do. When IMB leadership asked the Region Leaders (RL’s) and Vice Presidents to sign the 2000 BF& M, two RL’s could not sign the document. One RL resigned his position, while the other signed with an annotation. The IMB is the only SBC agency that allows their personnel to disagree with specific elements of the BF& M. Seminary professors at the six SBC seminaries cannot object to points of BF& M and agree to “teach in accordance with and not contrary to” the BF & M. Presently, even ADJUNCT professors teaching at our Southern Baptist seminaries must sign the BF&M 2000 without annotation. We are in the interesting situation where we have many missionaries and even some Regional Leaders who can serve with the IMB in responsible capacities but could not teach even as a visiting professor at one of our six seminaries. This issue was discussed in early 2002 at an IMB senior Management meeting attended by the President, Vice-Presidents, and the Resident Regional Leader (Hadaway). John White introduced the subject by calling for a “post decision analysis” of how IMB leadership had handled the BF&M 2000 issue. In response to John White’s call for free and honest discussion, Hadaway said, “If anyone cannot sign the 2000 BF&M without annotations they should not be missionaries.” The President asked me, “So you would disagree with the IMB’s long-standing policy of allowing missionary candidates to note their points of disagreement with the BF&M.” Hadaway replied, “Yes, as other SBC agencies do not given their employees this option.” Therefore, IMB trustees could better insure that missionaries will follow the BF & M if all missionaries who are appointed to supervisory, RL, and Vice-Presidential roles are not allowed to express points of disagreement with the BF & M. If the trustees do not desire to revisit the BF&M issue with regular missionaries who have signed with annotations, then this board should appoint only applicants who can fully affirm the BF&M. In addition, those who are appointed to supervisory positions (SC’s, Strategy Associates, Richmond Associates, Administrative Associates, and Associate Vice-Presidents) and those who are elected by trustees (RL’s, Vice-Presidents and President) should affirm the BF&M without annotations.
Issue Two: How many of our IMB missionaries are involved in the neo-charismatic movement, and what is presently being taught and advocated by staff concerning “spiritual warfare”?
Observations
• Each year, Eitel leads three short-term mission teams of students somewhere in the world to engage the fields and contribute to the evangelistic and church planting strategies of numerous SC’s worldwide. When working in a Central Asian country in the summer of 2001, the region sponsored a “spiritual warfare” workshop for our students as a preface to engaging in prayer walking through a city. The individual leading the workshop was seconded to the IMB from Frontiers and said he wasn’t taking an extreme approach to spiritual warfare. However, he studied at Fuller Seminary under John Wimber, Peter Wagner, and Charles Kraft. He definitely showed strong influence if not full embrace of their extremist positions e.g. territorial spirits, new revelations, and a complete lack of understanding whether seeking after spirits is more important than simply speaking the Gospel. When prayer walking, we were strictly told not to talk to the people of the city but only to be open to a word from the Spirit.
• Career missionaries often speak of problematic workshops where such ideologies are given and without any critical biblical reasoning allowed. They’re often made to feel as if they are not fully Christian if they even raise a question about the legitimacy of any aspect of such a presentation.
• Missionaries on the field are implementing these things. One lady missionary felt she had to exorcise her curtains of evil spirits. Many who embrace these things are taking it in without thinking it through biblically. Most that fall prey to these strange doctrines have had little or no theological education and don’t have the tools with which to analyze what they’re hearing.
Possible Solution
• Short-term solution would be to redesign the workshops throughout the field structures and bring the subject into biblical balance. Primarily, creating a “reactive” not a “proactive” approach to dealing with the demonic world. That is, be proactive about speaking the Gospel and only stop to deal reactively with demonic issues when/if necessary.
• Long-term, strengthen the required biblical and theological requirements for appointment to give the missionaries better depth understand of Scripture and practice in analyzing issues theologically.
• The IMB receives career, associate and apprentice missionaries from many theological seminaries. In addition, the IMB receives ISC (Journeymen, Masters and ISC) missionaries who have not attended college at all. Since the missionary force comes to the IMB with such varied backgrounds it is no wonder that different beliefs and practices come into conflict with one another on the field. Theology and PRACTICE courses are needed at MLC so that missionaries understand the acceptable parameters for personnel.
Issue Three: What is the policy and practice of the IMB regarding gender roles? Are women placed in supervisory roles such as Strategy Coordinators over men? Are women encouraged to learn to baptize converts and administer the Lord’s Supper? Are women urged to be the de facto pastor “leaders” of house churches or any other missionary assignment like the Strategy Coordinator role?
Observations
• One lady student, while serving in her 2+2 assignment, was asked if she wanted to be the SC for a particular city. She declined sensing it was best for a man to serve in that capacity. When the male SC and his wife went home and chose not to return, a lady SC was put in his place. Our student was suddenly ordered to perform the ordinance of baptism for a set of new believers. She was distraught as these are exactly the kinds of things she wanted to avoid. She did more than her share of evangelizing, but she didn’t think it was right to perform pastoral-like functions. Until she appealed to a higher authority that intervened and got her SC to relent, she was in a predicament. The lady SC, by the way, had never been to seminary, was middle-aged, and divorced yet served in a pastoral-like role. Our student thus described the conflict she felt having to sign the BF&M 2000 and then being taught to perform both ordinances while at the MLC (a practice that has only recently been stopped, at least temporarily).
• Curtis Sergeant, the former associate vice president for Strategy Coordination, has had significant input in the design and implementation of the MLC curriculum and teaching of the CPM methodology, especially over the past 2 years. He interprets the BF&M 2000 very strictly and concludes that as long as lady missionaries are not serving specifically as pastors of local churches, then the IMB is in compliance with the document. Yet, he turns around and says in an email correspondence to Eitel, “ . . . if anyone asked me, I would certainly have nothing against it [having ladies administer the Lord’s Supper] . . . All disciples are ministers, however, including women.” Again, in the MLC handout he uses to teach on CPM methodology, he concludes by giving the reader an impression of what the newly established church might look like. “They [the churches] frequently have women in key roles in the church. Women are viewed as ministers, as having spiritual gifts just as much as men, even in patriarchal societies.” Again, in his D.Min. Project, he affirms this same value with the fine line of distinction affirming that a lady should not “pastor” a local church but may do all the ministries of a pastor e.g. administer the ordinances, teach, and lead. By emphasizing that the New Testament requires multiple elders in a local congregation, women can fully participate in leadership roles without holding the title of “pastor”, functionally circumventing the restrictions he acknowledges elsewhere. Sergeant has had significant influence on the SC structure on the field in numerous regions. He states in his Project that over the course of the years he personally taught 727 SCs (Strategy Coordinators) and was the primary resource person for 150 others (see page 14 of his Project). Additionally, in his present role he teaches hundreds of new missionaries headed to the field and encourages ladies to assume leadership roles that are pastor-like, even the performance of ordinances.
• Throughout the world, lady SC’s function and are in roles that restrict them from being a pastor of a local congregation but are unrestricted as to their ministry functions, fully assuming pastor-like leadership and decision making roles.
• During an SC training in Eastern South America in September of 1999 Kathy Hadaway heard a single, 25 year old female tell some other participants that she regularly “preached the main Sunday message and gave the invitations” in many Baptist churches in Brazil. ESA Regional Leader, Hadaway met with her and forbade her to continue in this practice. A year later at another meeting, Kathy Hadaway heard another single, female missionary say, “they won’t let us preach in the U.S., so we come down here where we can preach.” This sort of latitude in the role of women on the mission field led to the ordination of Ida Mae Hays by a local Baptist church in Brazil in 2001 shortly before her IMB retirement. In the same service she received the title of Pastor Emeritus. Hadaway, Kathy Hadaway, and IMB trustee Johnny Nantz asked Rev. Hays to rescind her ordination in a meeting at the Atlanta airport. She told us, “I don’t want to be a pastor,” and said the action by her local church was strictly honorary. Despite some misgivings the ESA trustee committee decided to believe Ida Mae Hays and graciously allowed her to retire without rescinding her ordination. However, a year later she was called to become the senior pastor of a Southern Baptist Church in North Carolina. Today she enjoys the joint titles of Emeritus IMB missionary and Senior Pastor of a Southern Baptist Church in North Carolina.
Possible Solution
• Fully re-evaluate the SC model. Ascertain the pastor-like functions inherent in the actual practice of being an SC. Cull out those functions and restrict those assignments to men. Create a different role with a different title to assume complimentary duties that enhance the SC’s functions in establishing churches. This complimentary role can be performed by either ladies or men as long as there is a male SC.
• The IMB trustees need to clarify the proper roles for all missionary women, including the issues of ordination, supervising men, preaching, and administering the ordinances.
Issue Four: What is the rationale for the approved abandonment of many of our “harvest fields in places like Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa?
Observations
• A joint, “ad-hoc committee” of trustees and senior IMB leadership designed and implemented “New Directions” in 1997. This committee recommended to the Board of Trustees the internal absorption of CSI (Cooperative Services International) into 14 (later 15) new regions (an expansion from the former 10 areas). New Directions was called “a new paradigm” of overseas leadership and was designed to have a “dual focus” to reach the harvest world and the unreached world. The idea was that Southern Baptists would have a global presence.
• A couple of years into New Directions, leadership began speaking of “Strategic Directions for the 21st Century.” It became evident that the IMB planned to scale down work in the places where Southern Baptists had been working for many years (except parts of Asia). In one of the Regional Leader Forums, Hadaway asked the Senior Vice-President-Overseas, about the change from a dual focus to a strictly unreached people focus. He replied, “We’ve changed our mind.” The decision to change from a dual focus to a single focus was reached by staff with minimal trustee input and was not announced to field missionaries until several years later (last Fall).
• At the Global Summit of Senior IMB leadership and the 15 Regional Leaders in August of 2003, another restructuring appeared on the horizon. In a strategy exercise Hadaway was assigned to a table with Curtis Sergeant, former Associate Vice-President for Strategy Coordination and three other Regional Leaders. Sergeant’s notes (which he shared with the group during the exercise) called for reducing the 4 America’s regions from (approximately) the current 1,200 missionaries to a projected 200 during the next 2-4 years. In addition, Sergeant called for placing about 1,200 IMB personnel in S. Asia (India), and approximately 1,150 missionaries in E. Asia (China). The President and Overseas Vice-President verbally affirmed this “strategic realignment” advocated by Sergeant and the Global Research Department (GRD) during the ensuing discussion. Hadaway asked them, “Do you think Southern Baptists are ready to support a mission board with almost 45% of their personnel in only two countries, India and China?” The response was to the effect that it had not been thought of in that way.
• The software used by the IMB Global Research Department (GRD) during the Global Summit weighted every strategic category heavily toward population. In other words, the number of people in a country outweighed every other factor. The office of Strategy Coordination is recommending a radical shift based upon a one-to-one ratio of IMB missionaries to population (see Hadaway paper) instead of strategically placing personnel according to multiple factors (including receptivity and Church Growth principles). Therefore, the heavily populated countries in Asia will within four years make the IMB effectively an “Asian Mission Board” with almost 65% of all IMB personnel assigned to that continent (the 5 Asia regions). Is this the vision of the IMB trustees or the staff? Such a redeployment will mean abandoning Latin America to the charismatic influence (70% of all evangelicals in Latin America are said to be charismatic) and ignoring the plight of the desperately poor people of sub-Saharan Africa who have considerable fewer resources than most of the world.
• The IMB leadership is proposing another regional reorganization. Staff’s plan calls for the America’s to be reduced from 4 to 2 regions. Sub-Saharan Africa will be reduced from 3 to 2 regions. (Asia is being reduced from 5 regions to 4 regions, but the rationale given for that was so it would not seem the America’s were being singled out). Rather than planning this restructuring with the trustees (as was done in 1997), this radical change in strategy (abandoning the harvest) and structure (reducing regions from 15 to approximately 11) was decided with little trustee input, with most trustees being informed after the fact.
• During the May 2003 RL Forum the Regional Leaders were told that due to the budget shortfall and strategic needs, the Overseas Leadership Team (OLT) and administration desired to look at the IMB organization. With this on the horizon the Regional Leaders asked to have “some input” into possible quotas or rumored restructuring. The impetus for reconfiguration did NOT come from the Regional Leaders, but from the administration and the Overseas Leadership Team. The Overseas Leadership Team had planned and proposed a similar restructuring in 2001 (Hadaway wrote the “Rejoicing together paper for that meeting), but was overruled by the President. During the discussion at the August 2003 RL Summit it became apparent that the Associate Vice-President for Strategy Coordination and the statistics office were leading the process down the reconfiguration road. During the ensuing discussion some Regional Leaders disagreed with the quota system and with a reduction in regions. However, when it became apparent that the reconfiguration would happen in the future it was understood that the Regional Leaders should support the OLT and administrations direction. However, it was not the RL’s idea.
Possible Solution
• Trustees represent the will of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. Do Southern Baptists want approximately 1,200 missionaries each in China and India, and 50 each in Brazil, Mexico, Kenya, South Africa, and Russia? How would it be possible for the long-term influence of the IMB to continue in sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America with this kind of emphasis? Trustees need to create a “Global Strategy Committee” to jointly decide IMB strategy to make sure IMB strategy conforms to the will of all Southern Baptists rather than staff.
• It is impossible for the IMB to send people exactly where everyone feels called to go. IMB leadership is responsible to Southern Baptists to develop a world-wide strategy deployment. However, a balance needs to be struck between the “call of God” and the “strategy of the IMB.” Many who feel called to go to some parts of the world are being denied that opportunity. At one SBC seminary there is a young qualified couple (with a baby due) graduating in May who felt called all their lives to Latin America. There were no openings in some regions in Latin America (due to the quota system) until 2005 and in some regions longer. This couple had to choose another part of the world despite their long term calling to work with a Latin American people group less than 2% evangelical. They could not understand why an unreached people group in Latin America of more than 500,000 and less than 2 % evangelical was less important than an unreached people group in another part of the world. Unfortunately, many couples like this would decide to go to the mission field independently. Such couples would be supported by Southern Baptist churches, in turn causing a negative impact on the Cooperative Program.
Issue Five: Finally, why is there such a de-emphasis on theological education for long-term missionary appointment? Is not the lack of theological depth worsening the problems faced on the field as well meaning missionaries are inevitably dealing with complex choices regarding the interface between culture and the claims and expectations of Christ?
Observations
• As noted in Eitel’s “Vision Assessment” paper, there is a historic trend in the SBC, especially since WWII, to see the influence of Neo-Orthodoxy. The pernicious effect of this influence is a gradual, perhaps even unconscious prioritization of religious experience over objective doctrinal truth. As we partner with GCC’s (Great Commission Christians) on the field, they are usually from backgrounds that affirm an interdenominational or non-denominational priority, and often hold varying degrees of neo-charismatic convictions. So within evangelicalism itself, there’s a downplay of doctrinal truths for the greater practice of unified partnering. So the religious existentialism of Neo-Orthodoxy flows over into evangelicalism and is known as neo-evangelicalism. We find ourselves in the middle of this pool of thought. Now more than ever there’s a need for missionaries to be keenly aware of theological trends and to know how to articulate a biblical position on any given doctrine along with an understanding of historic Baptist convictions regarding doctrine. This all means theological education must be required and emphasized for career appointment of missionaries.
• Neo-orthodoxy has infected the IMB at times through the missionary training system. When Robin and Kathy Hadaway (former RL Eastern South America) were in missionary orientation in January & February of 1984, Alan Neely of SEBTS taught Universalism and Liberation Theology as truth. The Hadaway’s complained to the program (Parks’ presidency era) director of the Missionary Orientation Center (MOC) and were told by him, “every class complains about him and I’ve asked him to ‘tone it down.’” However, we later learned that Alan Neely taught these sessions to every MOC (and later MLC) class for 5 years! This Director went on to become an Area Director, an IMB Vice-President, and was a principle defender of Daryl Whiteman (See Eitel’s Vision paper) when he was criticized for his teaching at MLC in the late 90’s. This person retired as an IMB Vice-President two years ago, still in charge of the Missionary Learning Center. Trustee pressure succeeded in removing Daryl Whiteman from teaching at MLC. This underscores the necessity of recruiting leaders for senior IMB leadership positions that will take the concerns of conservatives seriously (see Eitel’s “Vision Assessment” paper).
• Yet, within the past twelve years, there has been a consistently more flexible allowance made for those without significant seminary training. Career consultants have informed students as each policy change has come out. Initially it was an M.Div. degree with 2 years of experience required for appointment to work with church development or church planting assignments. Then the Strategy Coordinator role developed and folk could be appointed with as little as 20 semester hours of seminary. Later it was raised to 30 semester hours. Now a new policy has emerged that eliminates the need for seminary at all since the IMB cannot fund the hours at the seminaries any longer. An additional two weeks will be added to the MLC experience to compensate for seminary training.
• These short cuts are all encouraged in order to expedite or rapidly get missionaries on the field so we can complete the task. So the tyranny of the urgent commands the policy and careful preparation for a qualitatively healthier church-planting outcome is sacrificed for advancing rapidly.
Possible Solution
• Re-examine the policies that govern these types of appointments and minimally require a return to the 30 semester hour policy for all engaged in SC, church planting, or church development assignments (whether the IMB pays for the hours or not—SBC seminary education is intentionally inexpensive compared to other seminaries). Perhaps there is a need to even return to the earlier policy of requiring a professional degree from a seminary &/or enhance development of the 2+2/3 programs. Practical, hands on experience in conjunction with the overall learning structure of a full M. Div. program, only enhances the candidate’s preparation. Hence, continued development of the 2+2/3 programs with each of the seven seminaries (inclusive of Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary) would seem a positive development.
• Prior to the development of the SC program (formerly NRM), everyone had to have an M.Div. (or the professional equivalent such as MRE, M. Music, M.D. or be the spouse of someone with one of these degrees) in order to become a missionary. The only missionaries who were permitted to come to the field with 30 hours were “business managers or treasurer types” who would not be interacting significantly with nationals. Hadaway served as an SC, has supervised and trained SC’s, and has supervised a region as an RL. He believes it would be best to return to the previous requirements for missionary career, associate and apprentice appointment (at least one spouse would possess an M. Div., MRE, professional graduate degree in their field plus 30 seminary hours, or age equivalent church work experience plus 30 seminary hours for older candidates)
CB,
My response to both of those documents is found on the liinks I posted earlier. If you have other observations. It would be helpful iif you could frame them in the context.of what I already wrote there.
CB,
Wow. I mean…wow! Thanks for bringing these issues to light. Now I have a better understanding of the need for the PPL policy.
Les
I’m guessing Tim had no idea how true his title “Living in the Past?” was going to turn out to be.
http://media.sbhla.org.s3.amazonaws.com/7581,11-Jun-1993.pdf
Now it all makes sense.
Stuart,
Your comment #79 is a hoot. LOL.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Sometimes a little levity is a good thing!
Have a great weekend, all, and a blessed Lord’s Day.
David,
I realize you have made your evaluation of the Eitel white papers. So have I. At this point I think these other guys, if they are willing to read them. can make their own evaluations. Once they do, we can all get together and fight about it again like we did in ’06.
But the bottom line for the two of us David, is neither of us is going to change our position.
It is simple my brother. For about the four years, I have been right about 98.5% on all issues we have debated. You have been right 1% of the time. It was a draw .5% of the time. Let’s let these younger guys get into this one.
If all of these guys feel that this issue is too personal to have a good set-to over, let’s just pick teams and fight about ecclesiology again. Or maybe beverage alcohol. That is always a good fight these days. Or maybe we can fight about Lottie Moon and Crawford Howell Toy.
Les,
You are very welcome.
Let me add that it was good to see you again in Orlando along with your dear wife.
Most of the time I feel that serving as an IMB M is a great privilege and joy. Jerry Rankin’s theology has very little to do with that. My only interaction with him in 12 years of service has been to shake his hand a time or two and to sit in a audience with hundreds of other M’s and listen to encouragement or “state of the IMB” type addresses once every 3 or 4 years. Rankin is a good speaker and public relations seems to be his main job. The vice presidents and trustees are much more involved in policy making, supervision, candidate screening, etc.
When you have 5000+ missionaries around the world, almost any story of an individual missionary is an “isolated incidence.” I currently live in a city of over 3 million people and there are 32 IMB missionaries here. If all 32 of us happened to believe some kind of heresy or engaged in some kind of bad missiological practice, that would be a problem. But Eitel’s examples don’t report such stories. His examples involve one missionary in one location and without further evidence tries to make his readers believe that the one incident is representative of many others. But without more data, it is unfair and unfortunate that he characterized these things as “systemic problems running throughout the structure.”
Our IMB leadership puts on an annual meeting for missionaries on the field. We just finished ours. Due to our budget constraints, it was a smaller meeting than usual, to save on travel costs. There were 64 adult missionaries, plus their children and 10 volunteers who paid their way from the US to help conduct this meeting (worship leadership, youth program and childcare). During our time together, we had a “Lottie Moon Auction.” Missionaries brought souvenirs from the countries where they serve, the volunteers from the US brought Dr Pepper, candy bars, and baking goods and we had a great time auctioning them off. There were about 75 adults participating and we raised about $10,000 for Lottie Moon.
So, if some of you folks want to dig up old criticism of IMB leadership, be my guest. My colleagues and I are absolutely invested in the work of reaching the lost, sowing seeds of the gospel and helping our national partners form groups that will lead to new churches.
KF
KF stated:
“His examples involve one missionary in one location and without further evidence tries to make his readers believe that the one incident is representative of many others.”
Eitel’s example represents many others. It is also a well known fact that IMB missionaries are, in general, fearful to speak up about matters such as Eitel’s white paper exposes.
Also, many of them are so committed to their calling and purpose, they say nothing. They ignore such matters for they believe it to be just another struggle to go through as a missionary. Such things become part of the “territory” of which they work.
Lastly, if you believe Jerry Rankin was merely a “public relations” guy, you have missed a few turns along the way in his journey since 1993. And the fact that he was far more involved than would be a public relations person in the actions of the IMB makes the trustees even more accountable for what has taken place there since he became president.
“Eitel’s example represents many others. It is also a well known fact that IMB missionaries are, in general, fearful to speak up about matters such as Eitel’s white paper exposes.”
“Well known facts” that don’t come along with evidence to substantiate them have another name: hearsay.
It seems odd to me that, during my 15 years of service with the IMB, I was never made aware of this “well known fact.”
And, for the record, as already having resigned from the IMB, I don’t have any motive to be “fearful” one way or the other, concerning this. I only want the truth to be known, and God’s work to move forward.
It seems to me that, at the root, this whole discussion is about two different visions for the SBC, and the IMB. One group of people is driven by a “Baptist Identity” mindset that puts “Baptist distinctives,” as they understand them, at the forefront of all they believe we, as Southern Baptists, should be about. Another group believes it is important to recognize the rest of the Body of Christ, and cooperate together with them in the fulfillment of the Great Commission, at least to the degree that such cooperation doesn’t oblige us to compromise on our biblical convictions.
It is also a “well known fact,” by the way, that Keith Eitel personally commissioned 2+2ers from SEBTS to be on the lookout for cases on the mission field that seemed to confirm his theses, and report them back to him.
David,
You make your position based on what you “have not heard.” Therefore you suggest that all who “have heard” are lying. Why is it that if you, David Rogers has not heard or seen and many others have heard and seen, they are all wrong and you have the right perspective on this situation.
The group that you presently identify as “Baptist Identity” were basically none existent in 1993 through 2006. They were not a group purposely identified as devils until the blog wars started in full force in December, 2005.
Now, if you want to say Jerry Rankins leadership problems were birthed due to weak theology among administrators and trustees of the IMB, I will concur. But in truth, it was far more than that.
CB says “It is also a well known fact that IMB missionaries are, in general, fearful to speak up about matters such as Eitel’s white paper exposes.”
I would be very interested to see some kind of support for this statement. I can’t agree with it nor do I think it’s good description of my colleagues.
I also did not say that Jerry Rankin is merely a public relations guy. He is, obviously, the president of the IMB. But if you could take a look at his calendar, you would see just how much traveling he does and how little time he spends in an office in Richmond.
KF
KF,
OK, I agree you did not use the word “merely.”
You did say, “….public relations seems to be his main job.” That does not change the truth of my response to you in the least which was:
“….if you believe Jerry Rankin was merely a “public relations” guy, you have missed a few turns along the way in his journey since 1993. And the fact that he was far more involved than would be a public relations person in the actions of the IMB makes the trustees even more accountable for what has taken place there since he became president.”
KF, Jerry Rankin spending little time in a Richmond office does not change the truth of what I said in any way. His actions and involvement are based on his position, not upon his location while executing his actions or being involved in the actions of others.
Lastly, you will find little “colleagues” because they are “your colleagues” and you are not their confidant. Your statement only gives evidence to the fact of their fearfulness not to the absence of it.
KF,
That should have been:
“Lastly, you will find little support for my statement from your “colleagues” because they are “your colleagues” and you are not their confidant. Your statement only gives evidence to the fact of their fearfulness not to the absence of it.
Sorry fore the confusion.
In comment 89 I wrote:
“CB says “It is also a well known fact that IMB missionaries are, in general, fearful to speak up about matters such as Eitel’s white paper exposes.” I would be very interested to see some kind of support for this statement. I can’t agree with it nor do I think it’s good description of my colleagues.”
CB Scott replied:
“Lastly, you will find little support for my statement from your “colleagues” because they are “your colleagues” and you are not their confidant. Your statement only gives evidence to the fact of their fearfulness not to the absence of it.
CB, maybe you misunderstood. I was challenging you to provide evidence to support your statement with some empirical data, since now both you and Eitel have drawn your own conclusions from some anecdotal evidence.
Like David Rogers above, I must disagree with your “well-known fact” since I myself am not fearful to speak up, nor have I observed my colleagues to be. Most of us have invested too much of ourselves and given up too much of a “normal life” to be content to sit by quietly to see our organization be fouled up. That’s also probably why I couldn’t let your earlier statements in this thread pass without voicing some objection.
IMB missionaries are drawn together by bonds that few vocational ministers in the US experience (IMO, having now done both). In my 12 years of service, I’ve worked with quite a few IMB missionaries, many of whom are close friends. You are mistaken to think that there is little confidence shared among missionaries who serve together.
Your statement gives evidence to your lack of understanding of IMB culture and the issues (both good and bad) that missionaries face.
KF
KF,
I don’t really consider human beings as anecdotal evidence.
As for this statement of yours:
“IMB missionaries are drawn together by bonds that few vocational ministers in the US experience (IMO, having now done both).”
You have no earthly idea how utterly ignorant that statement is in reference to a person like me. I wish you were not such a coward as to hide behind being a missionary and not give you name. You and I both know you have not been in a dangerous life-threatening situation in a long time if ever.
But if you ever do get into a situation or a “vocation” wherein your life really does depend on the “bonds” you have with other men, give me a call and we will talk about it.
Again, Eitel’s white paper is correct and has never been refuted. It can’t be because it is true.
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2009/09/25/honor-to-whom-honor-is-due/
The comment stream on this post is an interesting read with regard to our present discussion.
Just read it David.
Keith Eitel’s white paper is still true.
CB,
Having served both as a missionary and in the US military, I feel confident in my views. I’ve never read your resume, but I’m pretty sure you have never served as a missionary. Otherwise your statements here, and your point of view might be different concerning Eitel’s white paper and Jerry Rankin’s qualifications for IMB president.
May your Lord’s day be a grace-filled one.
KF