SBC IMB and 2000 BF&M

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Ed Edwards, Apr 26, 2003.

  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this fair?
    Is this smart?
    Does this show the IMB leaning conservative?
    Does this show the IMB leaning liberal?

    [​IMG] :confused:

    RICHMOND, Va. (BP) --
    International Mission Board (IMB) President Jerry Rankin
    has asked missionaries who have not yet affirmed the
    2000 Baptist Faith and Message (2000 BF&M) to
    make their decisions by May 5, 2003.

    He is appealing to the workers to
    either promise to work in harmony
    with the faith statement or tender
    their resignations by that date.
    Rankin said he will ask IMB trustees
    to terminate the service of those
    who continue to refuse accountability
    to the beliefs of Southern Baptist churches.

    In a letter sent April 11 to 18 missionary
    units (31 people), Rankin noted that he
    asked Southern Baptist field personnel to
    affirm the revised faith statement more
    than a year ago. Since then, 98.7 percent
    of the board's 5,500 overseas workers
    have affirmed the document.
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    An organization has the right to set its rules as to whom it will support.
     
  3. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are employees of the SBC and if they can't follow the guidelines, then they need to go someplace else.
     
  4. Thankful

    Thankful
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/BettyE.gif>

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. I like the way the system works. I can't give enough money to support a missionary, but if I give to the cooperative program, then my money is pooled to fund missionaries and WOW 5500 of them overseas. How many do we have here at home?
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree, thay are employees. If they do not agree with thier employer then go somewhere else to work.
     
  7. Jonathan

    Jonathan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    0
    www.namb.net/root/beonmission/missionaries/serving.asp

    Over 5,000 per the above link.
    </font>[/QUOTE]
     
  8. Jonathan

    Jonathan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    0
    www.namb.net/root/beonmission/missionaries/serving.asp

    Over 5,000 per the above link.
    </font>[/QUOTE]To be clear on this, the NAMB doesn't fully fund all of the missionaries listed at this link. "North American" missionaries are funded via a combination of national SBC support (via an annual offering), state and local associations, and local church assistance. "International" missionaries are fully funded by the SBC (via the annual international mission offerings).
     
  9. SaggyWoman

    SaggyWoman
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Messages:
    17,933
    Likes Received:
    8
    I would be interested in seeing numbers that the NAMB fully funds. I know that most are funded through partnerships with state and associational groups.
     
  10. Jette

    Jette
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    59
     
  11. Charlesga

    Charlesga
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll have to throw in my 2 cents for those missionaries refusing to sign a document that they have a problem with. I disagree with the IMB's decision to force missionaries to sign agreement to the 2000 BF&M. Southern Baptists have never been a creedal organization. As Southern Baptists, we have had the freedom to interpret scriptures as we believe God is leading us. Slowly, that freedom we have in Christ and sould competency that we have in Him is being removed. We don't answer to a document, and neither should the missionaries. We only answer to God. The great thing about the cooperative program and our missionaries is that we can disagree on some issues yet still work together as believers to share the love of our Lord Jesus Christ to the world. Sadly, that has changed, and some people are no longer worthy of being a part of this organization because they believe in the Priesthood for all belivers and that God could possibly call a woman to preach.
     
  12. KPBAP

    KPBAP
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Preach on, Charlesga!!
     
  13. Karen

    Karen
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2000
    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see what you all are saying, but yet I do not think they should be forced to sign or resign.
    To me, the issue is that the employer keeps changing the rules. If you have been a missionary for 30 years, for example, and you hold to what you and the foreign mission board agreed to when you signed on, then you should not be continually on shifting sand.

    Karen
     
  14. Thankful

    Thankful
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/BettyE.gif>

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Karen, I usually agree with you, but I respectfully disagree this time.

    You stated:
    Other employers do keep changing the rules. Sometimes, it is because of laws, sometimes, they just change them and it doesn't matter how long a person has worked for that employer, the new rules must be followed.

    You will note that a very few have not signed the agreement.


    Charlesga said:

    This is true for individuals and individual churches, but we are talking about missionaries that are supported by the IMB/SBC. They are employees. We are not.
     
  15. Karen

    Karen
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2000
    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Thankful,
    I guess I can handle it! :D
    I see what you are saying, but I do disagree.
    The nature of this new statement(the BF&M 2000) is that it is not even binding on churches.
    My church is conservative SBC, and as far as I know has never affirmed the new BF&M. Nor does it have to. Nor has it been asked to. However, as a whole, the church is in agreement with 2000.

    The differences between 1963 and 2000 are lesser issues, and many SBC churches do not agree with the differences. Sometimes the disagreement is not in the overt wording but in the historical implications of what some of the writers intended in their word choices.

    It is my understanding that requiring missionaries to sign acceptance goes beyond "I will be supportive and not talk derogatively" to "I personally absolutely agree with everything in the new statement."
    Since the SBC is not a creedal denomination, I do not think the latter should be required, especially of missionaries already on the field.

    I do think that a lot of what fuels the pressure to sign is a political conflict in the denomination among personalities.

    In my own SBC church, there is a broad tent of amill, pre-mill, and others.
    What if next year, the amills banded together nationwide and achieved a 51% vote of the Convention amending the BF&M 2000 to explicitly affirm amillennialism?
    Would we then make the premillennial missionaries leave, because they are employees and after all, the rules change in any company?

    Karen
     
  16. Thankful

    Thankful
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/BettyE.gif>

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good Point, Karen [​IMG]
     
  17. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Your freedom is not gone and neither is anyone else's. However, if you desire to be a part of an organization, have the integrity to agree to its theology and position.

    2. Do you? How do you know anything specific about God except through his word? You don't. That is why Scripture is revelation.

    3. God can't call a woman to preach. It would violate his own word and thus make him a liar. These people will not sign because the BFM2000 requires belief in inerrancy and pastors who are only male. If it is just a disagreement, they can sign it and move on, recognizing that believers do take such a position. They can't though. The smokescreen is "priesthood of all believers". Name one SBC personality that does not believe each person has direct access to God.
     
  18. Charlesga

    Charlesga
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thankful said:

    Yes, this is true. But, I can't help wondering how many signed because they did not want to lose their assignment. Imagine that you've worked with the same people for a number of years...it would be hard for me to leave them over this issue.

    Of course, I have no evidence to back any of this up...just a thought I have, which isn't worth much!

    Thanks for the discussion Thankful and Karen!

    Charlesga
     
  19. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Karen, remember that many "missionaries" joined in because the SBC was liberal enough for them.
     
  20. Charlesga

    Charlesga
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    0
    DanielDavid,

    Please recognize that good and Godly Christians disagree on these issues. Even though they disagree with you (which, in our convention, we have "agreed to disagree") they are still capable of spreading God's message of love and grace to the world.

    I agree, but I also believe that we interpret scripture through the Living Word, God incarnate, Jesus Christ.

    Again, good, Godly Christian people disagree on this issue. Regardless of what I believe, I respect the rights of other Christian's thoughts....consider some of their arguments....I Corinthians 11:5, Paul talks about men prophesying with heads uncovered, women with heads covered...the word literally means to preach. (of course, we would never expect a woman to cover her head today). Romans 16:2...church members are commanded to "assist" Phobe (a woman) in whatever business she needs their assistance in. Is this authority for women over men?

    A Billy Graham quote: "Women preach all over the world. It doesn't bother me at all from my study of the Scriptures. And there were many women preachers in the Bible."

    I also understand the arguements from the opposite viewpoint, (I Timothy 2:12 for example) and respect that as well.

    This is just to try to make a point that people do disagree and can be in harmony with one another desptie the fact that they do. I would never want to break fellowship with someone over these issues.

    I'm sure everyone has heard these arguements before, but I must respect their beliefs.
     

Share This Page

Loading...