News: List of missionaries fired by IMB revealed

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Sherrie, May 14, 2003.

  1. Sherrie

    Sherrie
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    10,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    List of missionaries
    fired by IMB revealed

    By Lindsay Bergstrom

    FRAMINGHAM, Mass. (ABP) -- Thirteen Southern Baptist Convention missionaries, who collectively have served on the foreign mission field more than 150 years, were fired May 7 because they refused to sign an affirmation of the 2000 "Baptist Faith and Message."

    A story released last week in Associated Baptist Press reported the decision to terminate the missionaries by trustees of the SBC's International Mission Board at their meeting in Framingham, Mass., but the names were not made available by the IMB.

    Seven were given the option to sign an affirmation of the document but declined. Their names and places and terms of service are:

    - Ted and Frances York, Ghana, 1974-2003, serving 29 years

    - Larry and Sarah Ballew, Macao, 1985-1987 as journeymen and 1996-2003 as career missionaries, serving a total of 10 years

    - David and Susie Dixon, Spain, 1988-2003, serving 15 years

    - Mary Katherine Campbell, Togo, 1968-2003, serving 35 years

    Six were terminated without the option to sign the document:

    - Rick and Nancy Dill, Germany, serving 20-plus years*

    - Leon and Kathy Johnson, Mozambique, serving 20-plus years*

    - Ron Hankins and Lydia Barrow-Hankins, Japan, 1975-77 as journeymen and 1981-2003 as career missionaries, serving a total of 24 years

    Another 30 veteran missionaries resigned or took early retirement in recent days rather than sign the affirmation. They join 34 missionaries who resigned in protest last year.

    Not counted among the 13 IMB missionaries terminated May 7 were Chris and Karen Harbin. The Harbins were fired last year for allegedly not teaching in accordance with the "Baptist Faith and Message." They served two years as journeymen, 1992-94, and as career missionaries 1996-2002, for a total of nine years.

    The firings climaxed a series of events that began in February 2002 when IMB President Jerry Rankin, in response to suspicions he said anonymous sources had raised about IMB missionaries' doctrinal integrity, asked missionaries to endorse the doctrinal statement. They later were given a May 5 deadline to decide.

    - Robert O'Brien and Mark Wingfield contributed to this story

    * Precise dates of service for the Dills and the Johnsons were not available by press time.
    -30-

    [ May 29, 2003, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Squire Robertsson ]
     
  2. USN2Pulpit

    USN2Pulpit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    0
    Look, right now I work for Company-X. If I don't stand for the ideals and goals of Company-X, they have reason to release me. Why should they continue to pay a person who's not fully "on the team?"\

    Same thing with these folks. Where does their pay and support come from? You can lay the issues as to why they didn't want to sign aside. The fact is if they don't reflect the ideals and goals of the body that sends them, they can be released.

    It is a shame though, that they have to leave their place of ministry.
     
  3. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Stupid IMB!
     
  4. Sherrie

    Sherrie
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    10,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am sorry, but I agree...stupid...stupid...stupid!

    Sherrie
     
  5. j_barner2000

    j_barner2000
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    888
    Likes Received:
    0
    As a member of a SBC I support them through the IMB. I am glad that the IMB is there to assess their teaching and adherance to doctrinal standards.
     
  6. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess now it's stupid to make sure the missionaries we pay are biblical in their teachings. Oh, no, let them be missionaries, who cares what they teach. If they don't want to sign to stay biblical in their teachings we don't need to be paying them. If they don't agree with what SB churchs believe, why are they working for them and taking their money? Why are they memebers of churchs they don't beleive what is being taught? If they oppose accountability then let them go it alone work and support themselves. Paul did it.
     
  7. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    I'm in an SBC church and I didn't see or hear anything that stated they where teaching contrary to the bible. Contrary to the BF&M 2000 perhaps. (Therein lies the problem) But not all SBC churches agree with the BF&M 2000 so why should our missionaires be forced to accept something that ALL of our churches don't.

    I repeat...stupid IMB
     
  8. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's called accountability.
    And no one fussed about it till they added no women preachers and husband is the head of the house.
    I see a problem with that.
     
  9. Sherrie

    Sherrie
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    10,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    go2church...I agree. Exactly!!!!!!!!! Those people gave there all. Its a shame it came to this.

    Kate you don't even know what you are talking about. It has nothing to do with accountablity.


    Sherrie
     
  10. mark

    mark
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/mark.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2000
    Messages:
    1,906
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what is wrong with the Baptist Faith and Message? I am afraid I big time disagree with go2 and Sherrie on this. If you want to be a SBC missionary then you do things their way. There is no rule saying they can't stay there as indepednent missionaries. Thousands of Southern Baptists give to the cooperative fund to support missionaries that believe what they believe. That is what the BF&M is about. If they refuse, then they shouldn't take the money either. BTW I am not SBC because there is no SBC here, but I am a fan of the SBC, or SBC's BF&M and was saved because of the ministry the SBC. I also was a SBC Summer Missionary 22 years ago.
     
  11. Sherrie

    Sherrie
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    10,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I just wonder how many 2000 mission faith statements the apostles signed?

    Sherrie
     
  12. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,145
    Likes Received:
    25
    I'm not SBC, and I don't like their missionary conglomeration. So I've always figured that anybody that doesn't like how the system works is free to go somewhere else.
     
  13. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    And why doesn't it? You don't think missionaries should be acocuntable to those paying them? After all it's my money supporting them. Is it yours?
     
  14. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wonder if there are so many different versions of christianity it is neccessary now. They all have a choice, sign or not, their choice.
     
  15. Sherrie

    Sherrie
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    10,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is only 1 Gospel, and 1 Jesus Christ.

    Sherrie
     
  16. USN2Pulpit

    USN2Pulpit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    0
    Katie, Sherri,

    I'm sure you are in agreement over "one gospel, one Christ."

    It is true that the BF&M has been out for years, and there wasn't a problem agreeing with it until the gender comments were put back in. These comments, regardless of a persons feelings about them, are scriptural.

    I'm sorry to say that I believe it was stubbornness on the part of the missionaries in this case that caused this. Did they really believe that an accountability document such as the BF&M was meant to be a priority document over the Word of God? That's what they contend, but at the bottom of it all, I think that's just the excuse they gave for not signing.
     
  17. USN2Pulpit

    USN2Pulpit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    0
    The missionaries are reflections of the church in general. In reality, there are several who, in their heart, don't hold to scripture in matters of the roles of men and women in the church.
     
  18. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with USN2's comments. Likewise, let's get something straight, no one was required to "sign" the BF&M 2000. What they were required to sign was a statement saying that they would teach in agreement with and not contrary to the current BF&M. The IMB was willing for the various missionaries to hold their personal beliefs. All they had to do was agree not to teach contrary to the statements of faith found in the BF&M.
     
  19. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I BELIEVE the breakdown of those who refused and were let go was slightly more than 50% women. All in all, it was mostly couples. I wonder who wears the pants in 'those' families. We expect a deacon and pastor to be in control of their homes and should expect the same of a missionary.

    Diane
     
  20. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are using flawed logic here. All SBC Churches are autonomous and thus free to accept or reject whatever statement of faith they wish. However, all the other SBC Churches are equally free to determine whether or not to remain in association/cooperation/fellowship with churches they believe to be in doctrinal error. Likewise, the pastors and staff of churches that do not affirm the current BF&M are not employees of the SBC, IMB, or NAMB, etc. and do not receive their salaries from the SBC etc. Therefore, other SBC member churches (who agree with the current BF&M) can not demand that they teach according to the current BF&M.

    Likewise, the majority of SBC Churches who sent messengers to the 2000 Convention affirmed and ratified the BF&M 2000. Additionally, the majority of SBC Churches affirm the BF&M 2000 and provide the majority of the funding for IMB missionaries. Therefore, they have the right to expect the SBC/IMB missionaries not to teach contrary to the current BF&M.
     

Share This Page

Loading...