You can listen to the podcast using the player below, or you can subscribe in iTunes by clicking on the image in this post or on the link in the sidebar. Share in the comments here your suggestions for how we can improve the podcast, and take a moment to give us a rating or a review on our iTunes page. Thanks as always for listening, and we’ll be back for more podcasting fun next week.

We are seeing The Camel Method debated on SBC Impact where two of our contributors have tried to engage the theological side of the debate.  However, as I read the recent New York Times Op-Ed a new understanding has been presented as to the reason The Camel Method is a deceiving agent that makes it a bad “bridge”.  The author of the most recent NY Times article,  Robert Wright, (who covers culture, politics, and world affairs) points to the fact that The Camel Method’s deceitful tactics are enraging Muslims.  Mr. Wright points to the Christians that use this method as saying they are trying to get the “camel’s nose” under the Muslim tent.  Notice how he describes the deceit behind this terminology.

But a more apt etymology would involve the “camel’s nose under the tent.” The “overture” — the missionary’s initial bonding with Muslims via discussion of the Koran — is precision-engineered to undermine their allegiance to Islam.

Mr. Wright goes on to describe the problems with this kind of “wiliness”.

In some cases even the “camel’s nose” image doesn’t do justice to missionary wiliness. “Trojan Camel” might be better; some Christian missionaries call themselves Muslims — or at least muslims — because, after all, “muslim” literally means one who surrenders to God. A few have gone way undercover, growing beards and abstaining from pork.

You will notice that in the Camel Method tract it references being a “Pakka Muslim”.  This is exactly what Mr. Wright calls the “Trojan Camel”.  The Muslim community is beginning to respond to these deceiving tactics.

In Malaysia there are laws being drafted that will not allow Christians to refer to “Allah” as the God of the Christian Scriptures.  In Nigeria Christians are losing their lives because Muslims were many years in the majority but now are in the minority. In an interview with a Nigerian born cab driver, Mr. Wright found that one problem was, “American missionaries going abroad and trying to leverage the Koran against itself”.  The Op-Ed author reveals his liberal bias as he then proceeds to observe that aggressive evangelism techniques are part of this problem as well.  I am not against Christians being aggressive in their evangelism I believe we need more aggressiveness.  However, the common denominator that elicits the Muslims ire is the deceitful tactics used to win their family members.  To make one believe that he/she can still worship in the Mosque, abide within secrecy in their household, and feel they are still Muslim but now they are  Pakka Muslim, is deceitfulness plain and simple.

It seems that if we are going to present the Gospel we need to remove all appearances of deceit.  So that I can be plain.  There is nothing wrong with using the term “Allah” when one is speaking Arabic to refer to the Creator God as our Father. There is nothing wrong with using, for illustrative purposes, something from a person’s culture to point them to Jesus.  However, when one builds an entire presentation combining false documents that the Muslim culture holds as sacred with Holy Writ, that is not contextualization that is syncretism.

It seems that Dr. Caner and we here at SBC Today have found a voice of agreement in one of the last places we would suspect–the liberal media. As I heard one Brother say; ” What an ironic day we live in when liberals and Muslims are more likely to agree with us than our own IMB.” I will leave you with Mr. Wright’s closing paragraphs.  It reveals the liberal bias of the author and the heart of our differences with the Camel Method.

I’d like to be able to report that the “critics” in this headline are Christians who worry about heightening tensions and so refrain from offensive proselytizing. Alas, they’re Christians who favor assertive proselytizing but are offended by any suggestion that Muslims and Christians might worship the same god. One of them, Ergun Caner, president of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, in Lynchburg, Va., said in a recent podcast, “There’s nothing that the two gods — the god of the Koran and the god of scripture — have in common. Nothing.”

Well, to look at the bright side: Maybe that’s a basis for interfaith rapport; Caner can sit around with Malaysian Muslims and agree that they worship different gods.

Still, I like to think that their gods would beg to differ.

We have had a Great Commission Resurgence Task Force chosen and meeting together since last August.  They have presented a progress report and have now issued a statement concerning the report.  I believe the quote that should raise everyone’s eyebrows is;

Additionally, our final report and recommendations are a commitment towards a future vision. While a future vision will contain matters that are occurring presently, there is no need for a future vision if all we do is replicate our present.

It seems that the report was merely a shot across the SBC Zion bow in order to see how much turn the convention could take.  It seems that the convention has seen a response that the GCR Task Force did not anticipate.  Thus, the purpose behind the issuing of a statement that the report was not a final word.

We have seen an unprecedented move by a task force to present items to the convention concerning changes at entities without even consulting the entities that were being recommended for change.  Of course some have asked about seminaries and with two seminary presidents sitting on the task force, it would have been very difficult to merge seminaries. Though there is rumor that was something discussed.  There seems to be a burning question as to the purpose of NAMB being the only entity that is recommended for change.  Does one believe that the IMB is operating at is best potential? As we move forward we see another unprecedented action has emerged.

Never have I seen presidents of entities openly and publicly shooting at each other.  Certainly we had the President of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary place a charge against the President of the International Mission Board.  However, two things I need to remind our readers.  First, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary is not a Southern Baptist Seminary.  While the Thomas Road Baptist Church is part of the Southern Baptist Convention, the seminary is not supported and funded by the SBC Cooperative Program.  Second, Dr. Caner issued both a public and private apology to Dr. Rankin concerning his comments.

The situation we now find ourselves is an open squabble between the President of the IMB and the President of the Executive Committee.  We have seen differences between entity Presidents before.  As recently as 2003 we witnessed Dr. Chuck Kelley and Dr. Morris Chapman disagree over sole membership.  However, neither of the good Drs. publicly issued an appeal to the SBC constituency that  the other was being dishonest in their reporting.  And neither of the two ever questioned the others commitment to winning the lost.  But, we have that now.

Dr. Rankin has charged Dr. Chapman with being more concerned about cooperation than he is with the Great Commission.  This is like saying that Dr. Chapman will accept any and everything as long as we cooperate.  Of course this charge comes after Dr. Rankin publicly charged that leaders were living in denial and then calls into question the 45,000 churches with the 16 million members.  The churches that support the IMB, the lions share of the CP, as being disengenious in their reporting.  This comes from the head of the IMB, an entity that reported 500,000 baptisms, without any direct correspondence with Missionaries that planted these churches.  But, I digress.

What we have seen now is a response from Dr. Chapman, he said; “”I am saddened that Jerry so blatantly misrepresented my comments.”  Dr. Chapman calls it a ‘blatant misrepresentation’.  That brings to mind a question.  What exactly is Dr. Chapman accusing Dr. Rankin of?  I do not know, but Dr. Chapman goes on in his statement to summarize his comments with the following:

It grieves me that Jerry used this open forum to question my allegiance to my Lord and the mandate He has given me, to us as Southern Baptists, and to all who call on His Name. I pray he will retract his unjustified remarks. They do not befit a man of his position and stature.

Conclusion

It seems we are living in a time that we need to be united going into this years convention and vote.  We saw last year’s convention produce a 95% vote to form the GCRTF.  They have issued a report, that could be changed completely by May 3, 2010.  However, we have been told that when that report is presented it will be the final report.  For us to be united we need our leaders united.  It seems that if the council of presidents have this type of bickering going on between them publicly then there will be no Great Commission Resurgence.  One cannot call into question the motives of another, especially in public and expect the SBC constituency to be united.

I have a suggestion.  If our leaders do not resolve their differences by the time the convention begins in June, then I suggest a recommendation for the very first order of business.  I recommend that we authorize the Teller Committee to locate a room and direct the Committee on the Order of Business to corral the Council of Presidents into the located room.  I further recommend that these two committees be authorized to guard the doors and not allow anyone to leave that room until everyone in that room can work out their differences to the point that each one passes a polygraph that each would entrust their child’s spiritual development to anyone in that room.  No one would leave until all could pass such a test.

If the Southern Baptist Convention ever sees a Great Commission Resurgence, then the leaders are going to have to sit down and work through their differences.  People follow the leadership of those God has entrusted to those positions.  Leaders, we need you to lead!

***UPDATE***

Dr. Rankin has issued a public statement regarding this issue.  Praise God that he has seen his need in doing this.  He is as firmly committed to his position as before, but he no longer calls Dr. Chapman’s personal motives into question.

As I understand it, the Camel Method is part of a larger missiological movement known as “Common Ground.” As it relates to evangelism among Muslims, I suppose the name speaks for itself. Today I came across a guest post on the blog Biblical Missiology. It was written by a Christian from a Muslim background, and I was fascinated by his perspective on this “Common Ground” movement. Particularly intriguing to me were the questions he asked regarding the so-called “converts” that result from this approach. Here is his paragraph containing those questions:

And so following some years in closeness with Common Ground movement, still there were a lot of unresolved questions within myself!  Should CMBs (Christians from a Muslim Background) continue to attend mosques and would that be helpful for them? If that is the situation what happens after the Islamic congregation understands there are some different Muslims in their congregation? Will they tolerate, expel or persecute them? Where will they get their true spiritual nourishment? Perhaps they will meet in home groups in addition to attending mosque, but for how long that situation will last? What about church planting since they are supposed to stay within the Islamic culture and religion, will it be established at some point the Christian community or such a thing is not necessary? What about their identity, is it like Christian with Christians and Muslims with Muslims? Who are going to be their true brothers and sisters, Muslims or Christians or both of them? Is there any compromise in all of that? These were some questions I faced and am quite sure most of these believers do go through.

The entire post can be accessed by clicking here, and I encourage readers to take the time to read about the experiences of this former Muslim who believes that this deceptive approach is doing more harm than good.

Listen to the podcast using the player below, or visit our iTunes page to subscribe. A click on the link in the sidebar (or on the image in this post) will take you there, and while you’re at it, write us a review or give us a rating. And as always, we welcome your comments here on issues we discuss or on how we can improve the podcast. Thanks for listening.

Links to items discussed:

• Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary
• The Camel Method – Endorsements
• Great Commission Resurgence Task Force
• The Sacred Desk

Listen by using the player embedded below, or subscribe in iTunes to have the podcast delivered to you fresh from the oven. Comment here with your suggestions for how we can improve our podcast, and while you’re at our iTunes page, click some stars to give us a rating, or better yet, write a quick review of the podcast on that page. And as always, thanks for listening.

Here’s a link to the post that got the discussion rolling:

• Praisegod Barebones: A Proposed Improvement to the Cooperative Program

Listen to the podcast using the player below, or click the logo or sidebar icon to be taken to our iTunes page. After you subscribe to the podcast, do us the favor of writing a short review on iTunes, or just give us a star rating. These will help us greatly, and we appreciate it. Comment here with suggestions for how we can improve the podcast. And, as always, thanks for listening. We continue to add new listeners each week, and we’re grateful that you take the time.

Here are some links that came up during this week’s conversation:

• IMB leader Jerry Rankin announces retirement
• Morris H. Chapman announces Executive Committee retirement
• Blog debate on baptism
• The Acts 1:11 Conference

February 1 of 2008 I published a post concerning what was then the inevitability of Dr. Rankin’s retirement and the future search for a replacement at the IMB. It brought some heated discussion. Essentially all I wanted to do was to open the discussion for a proven stateside pastor to be given the possibility of consideration as the next president of the International Mission Board (IMB).

While strategy on the field is important and we need a man who can bring people together as a team to help missionaries with the challenges we face, I still feel the greatest need for the IMB is to reconnect with the local churches who support her. Through this reconnection, shortfalls in funds could be overcome as local church members become better acquainted with the missionary sending endeavors of the SBC. I again reissue this post with some changes to make it current and more articulate of my position.

Dr. Rankin has announced his retirement as President from the IMB. Before I go any further, I want to make a statement concerning Dr. Rankin’s leadership of the International Mission Board (IMB). I appreciate his service and from all accounts that I have heard, he has performed with integrity. I also have had areas of disagreement with some of the directions of the IMB. One particular area has been the much-discussed Camel Method that has been promoted for use among missionaries in Muslim-dominated areas. Even with this, I support Dr. Rankin and wish him many more years of continued service to God’s Kingdom as he concludes his presidency. But Dr. Rankin is not the focus of this post, nor is the Camel Method.

The Foreign Mission Board (FMB), the predecessor of the IMB, was started in 1845 with two missionaries. At that time, James Barnett Taylor was appointed to lead the newly-formed FMB, and did so for twenty-six years until 1871. The executive secretary was appointed to lead the new agency according to the dictates of the Southern Baptist churches that supported it. Below is a list of past executive secretaries/presidents for the FMB/IMB until today.

· James Barnett Taylor 1845-1871

· Henry Allen Tupper, 1872-1893

· Robert Josiah Willingham, 1893-191

· James Franklin Love, 1915-1928

· T. Bronson Ray, 1929-1932

· Charles E. Maddry, 1933-1944

· M. Theron Rankin, 1945-1953

· Baker James Cauthen, 1954-1979

· R. Keith Parks, 1980-1992

· Jerry A. Rankin, 1993-Present

One thing that is interesting about Bro. Taylor is that he was a pastor and not a missionary. It could be argued that since this organization was newly formed, there was no readily available leader with missionary experience. However, the next man, Henry Allen Tupper, was also a pastor. In fact for the first one hundred years, the man at the helm of the FMB was a pastor. All this changed with the appointment of M. Theron Rankin in 1945, who was a missionary. William R. Estep in his book, Whole Gospel Whole World: The Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1845-1995, notes this, “M. Theron Rankin was the first foreign missionary to become an executive secretary of the Foreign Mission Board” (252). Since that time, the only men who have held the top spot in Richmond have been missionaries.

So, what is the point of listing all this historical data? Since the president is to lead the IMB according to the desire of the churches of the Southern Baptist convention, I contend that it may be questionable as to whether a missionary, who has been out on the field for twenty to thirty years, may serve as the best representative of what the churches in the Convention believe and practice. Pastors are the heart beat to leading their church in missions giving. Wouldn’t it be more prudent to find a pastor who knows how to incorporate the local church in mission giving both monetarily and voluntarily to help during this time of funding shortfalls? Now, one could also argue that a pastor who has been stateside does not understand the challenges that missionaries face on the field and that he would be a poor choice for president. But, during the first one hundred years of the agency, missions flourished and grew from only two missionaries under the leadership of former pastors. Might I also add that they led for 80 years without a Cooperative Program to help fund the FMB. The conditions were, needless to say, present with many obstacles. A leader is not expected to be an expert in all matters, but he is expected to find experts and bring them together as a team to implement mission, strategy, and goals according to (for our situation) the desires of the churches of the SBC. A great leader is one who is able to surround himself with people who are better or more knowledgeable than he is and hone their areas of expertise into one strategical force. He is not necessarily one who has been on the field for a certain number of years.

One possible dilemma from having a continued string of presidents who are former missionaries (note that I said “possible”) is that rather than speaking for the convention a former missionary functioning as president could be focused on speaking for the missionaries to the SBC, rather than providing effective oversight of the IMB on behalf of the churches of the SBC. Now, a president should be able to speak for the missionaries in addressing needs on the field, but even a former pastor can visit with missionaries on the field and and work with his strategic team(which should include former missionaries) to help address issues to the SBC, so that the convention can provide the best in training and support to those doing the Lord’s work far from home. However, let it be clearly affirmed that the duty of the president is to the churches that support him as well as to the missionaries that serve on the field. A president serves the churches of the convention that sends missionaries to the IMB for service abroad.

This leads to two questions: “Could a string of former missionaries appointed to the presidency of the IMB lead to an in-bred system that no longer recognizes the authority, beliefs, and practices of those churches who support those missionaries?” and “Could this string of former missionaries oppointed to the presidency of the IMB have so distanced the IMB from the local church that the organizations doesn’t know how to connect with the churches that support her resulting in lost mission offering funds?” Let me caution those who are offended by what I have just asked. The moment we cease to ask and answer the hard, but necessary questions, is the moment we begin to die.

Remember the argument against Dr. Mohler being President of the SBC back in 2008? Some say that he couldn’t serve because he was (and still is) an entity head. The belief was that it caused a conflict of interest because he would speak for the entity of which he is president rather than the churches of the convention. While the questions were hard to consider, looking back, I believe they were necessary.
Investigating the history of entity presidents serving the convention as president proved the fears of some as unfounded. An entity head as president of the SBC could not create such a system that would only speak for the entity he serves because of the shortness of his tenure and the limited powers of the SBC President. Looking at the past history of entity heads in the IMB, the influence of those leaders lasted for decades. The possibility that a system could be created that causes the focus to be more on the missionaries than the concerns of the convention is much greater for an IMB president, than it is a short two-year term from an entity head as a SBC president.

Dr. Rankin has announced his retirement. What I would hope is that the convention allows for the possibility that a pastor may serve as President of the IMB. This pastor should be one who has led his church to support Southern Baptist missions through the cooperative program as well as encouraging members to go on mission trips in cooperation with the IMB. He should be one fully affirming the BF&M and the policies of the IMB. A plus would be a pastor who may have served briefly on the international mission field himself. This president would understand that he serves the SBC in leading missionaries to win the world for Christ. Being a former pastor who has been stateside for many years and having a network of pastors in other churches, he would have an advantage as well as a natural wisdom for working with the trustees who represent the churches of the SBC. He would also understand the needs of the local church in supporting the sending and funding of missionaries.

So why not consider and possibly elect a pastor as the next president of the International Mission Board? Could he not better know the desires and needs of the churches stateside so they can be mobilized for the missionary endeavor? As for understanding the needs of the missionaries, he will have gained that from previous experiences and will gain more through intensive discussions with the field missionaries and their regional directors. A pastor’s leadership might also reveal some flaws of in-breeding that may have occurred in the IMB since 1945. With the positive possibilities of having a pastor at the helm of the IMB, I believe it would be a great benefit to the trustees to consider some qualified pastors to lead the mission-enabling organization of Southern Baptists. It would ultimately help mobilize churches in the effort to win the world for Christ in their giving and sending of missionaries.

While this post is only meant to represent possibilities, ultimately it is God’s choice the search committee and trustees must seek and choose. May we all pray for them as they seek God’s man to help Southern Baptists fulfill reaching the farthest parts of the world.

To the International Mission Board:  We apologize for our rush to place something before the SBC that was openly discussed in your trustee meeting.  We should have waited until the trustees found out more information and had your staff make the necessary calls to verify the information being presented.

To the SBC Executive Committee:  We apologize for not making a phone call to you before we placed this story before the public.  According to Clark Logan, Vice-President for Business & Finance, the information is available if we ask and we will pursue that avenue in the future.

To the Baptist General Convention of Texas:  We apologize for placing your convention in a negative light concerning Lottie Moon Christmas Offering.  While we were presenting to the public what the IMB was telling their trustees, we will not be so quick in the future to place a negative light on the fine people in the BGCT or any other state convention.  We assure you that we believe your hearts beat for missions as ours and we pray that the computer glitch is now fixed.

To all of our readers:  We do apologize that we went against the advice received from some of you.  We were told to take this down and even among ourselves we could not agree.  The majority of our team was not resolute that this article remain after the facts from BGCT became public.  This article remained in place at the insistence of Wes Kenney and Tim Rogers.  We take the responsibility, but in a joint blog adventure, these decisions reflect on everyone.  Therefore from the heart of those of us who operate SBC Today, we offer our sincere apologies and ask your forgiveness.