News: Missionaries who refused are fired

Given that she refused Crawford Toy's proposal of marriage (on 3 separate ocassions) due to the view of Scripture that he picked up while studying in Europe (a view, btw, that is currently prevelant among those CBF types who are no longer in charge of the SBC and those who seem to be most outraged by the IMB's stance), I would suggest that Miss Moon would agree that missionaries must be held accountable to the specific doctrinal boundary established by those who fund the mission work. </font>[/QUOTE]What is all of the European stuff that so called CBFers have made so prevalent ... do you even have a clue?

Would Lottie Moon have signed statement?

It is an outrage that Baptist missionaries with decades of demonstrated devotion and competence are the victims of intimidation. I salute those who refuse to sign a perverse man-created statement of faith as a condition of continued employment. Would Lottie Moon have signed it? Would Rogers Williams?

Despite great numbers of conversions in a Billy Graham revival service, salvation and "the call" to Christian service are personal, individual, soul experiences with Jesus.

Any other employer behaving in such a fashion would be considered in breach of contract, having unilaterally altered the condition and qualifications for employment, and could end up on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

I must ask: is it proper, scriptural or tolerable for us to persist in paying the Southern Baptist Convention for the privilege of being abused? Does it make sense to continue being in a relationship where we're constantly being reminded of our spiritual inferiority?

Are we not "unequally yoked together"?

I am not at a loss to other ministries I can trust and happily support.

 

What I'd like to know is--whose idea was it that all IMB missionaries affirm/sign/whatever BFM2K whenever some of these missionaries had already affirmed/signed/whatevered an earlier edition of BFM

 

The final numbers of those terminated will be less than 1% of the entire Foreign Missionary Force of the SBC. These terminations represent those who did not follow their consciences earlier when many left the SBC to join the CBF as Missionaries.

If you're going to be a SBC Missionary and take Cooperative Program Dollars then you must be willing to work and minister within the parameters of the SBC's Doctrinal Stance.

It doesn't matter whether local churches have affirmed the BFM2K or not - Bottom line is that SBC Missionaries are responsible to the Convention.

 

No. You can leave at anytime and join together and work with another organization that is more to your liking.

 

I think POPE Paige Patterson may have had something to do with it. I think he had a hand in writing the new version of it. So everyone had to bow down to his greatness and approve what he had to say. Narcicistic...I don't know...you decided.

Joseph Botwinick

 

There is an interesting article at www.jpbc.org/writings/br-stand_with_christ.html concerning a book entitled Stand with Christ: Why Missionaries Can't Sign the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.

 

Given that she refused Crawford Toy's proposal of marriage (on 3 separate ocassions) due to the view of Scripture that he picked up while studying in Europe (a view, btw, that is currently prevelant among those CBF types who are no longer in charge of the SBC and those who seem to be most outraged by the IMB's stance), I would suggest that Miss Moon would agree that missionaries must be held accountable to the specific doctrinal boundary established by those who fund the mission work. </font>[/QUOTE]What is all of the European stuff that so called CBFers have made so prevalent ... do you even have a clue?

Would Lottie Moon have signed statement?

It is an outrage that Baptist missionaries with decades of demonstrated devotion and competence are the victims of intimidation. I salute those who refuse to sign a perverse man-created statement of faith as a condition of continued employment. Would Lottie Moon have signed it? Would Rogers Williams?

Despite great numbers of conversions in a Billy Graham revival service, salvation and "the call" to Christian service are personal, individual, soul experiences with Jesus.

Any other employer behaving in such a fashion would be considered in breach of contract, having unilaterally altered the condition and qualifications for employment, and could end up on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

I must ask: is it proper, scriptural or tolerable for us to persist in paying the Southern Baptist Convention for the privilege of being abused? Does it make sense to continue being in a relationship where we're constantly being reminded of our spiritual inferiority?

Are we not "unequally yoked together"?

I am not at a loss to other ministries I can trust and happily support. </font>[/QUOTE]Who is Roger Williams?

 

I think POPE Paige Patterson may have had something to do with it. I think he had a hand in writing the new version of it. So everyone had to bow down to his greatness and approve what he had to say. Narcicistic...I don't know...you decided.

I get sick and tired of people makeing such rude comments about Dr. Patterson. Name calling like little children. I ran into Dr. Patterson yesterday morning, he greeted me with a smile, and ask me how I was doing. He is a very nice man. He is always greeting people with a smile and a kind word. You obviously have a grudge about a man you do not know. James 3:5 says, "So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things. Behold, how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire!"

Everything written in the 2000 BF&M is backed up by Scriptural support.

Oh, and for your information, Dr. Paige Patterson was not one of the people who submitted the report to change the family section in the BF&M. Mrs. Patterson was though. She also has a doctorate.
link to full family proposal in the 2,000 BF&M
All of the Scriptural backing for the BF&M addressing of the family supplied here. Please read it.

 

I'm sure if your individual church sent out a missionary you would want to know they beleived what your church teaches, if they did not you wouldn't send them out and pay to support them. Or wuld you pay someoen to represent your church who did not beleive like your church does. There are rules for wmployment just about anywhere you can work, my son has to wear a hair net on his haed andkeep his facial hair trimmed back, the other one can not wear jewlery at work. If they decided they were going to do what they wanted to do no matte their employeers said, no matter the company policy they would be fired. I just happen to believe when you pay someone to work for you, they do the job as set forth t them, not make up they want to do, rules, ,, we have them everywhere in live. When your church hired your pastor was he quesioned about what he beleived, what he was going to be teaching? Or was he just hired no matter what he believed and taught?

Ok guys no need for name calling, thats not befitting of a christian.

edited for typos, hope I got them all.

 

I, in my opinion and only my opinion, do not think it is cold hearted to insist that those whom we support/ employ abide by and agree with our Statement of Faith. I think it might be tough but I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) they also had almost 3 years warning.

Again, it was just a few couples and single women out of 5,500 missionaries who either refused to sign or were let go. That is less than 1% and over half of them were women.

I would not sit under a pastor who did not affirm the Baptist Faith and Message or remain in a church that did not teach what I feel is scriptural. I would quickly leave a church that elected a woman deacon.

These people work for the IMB and must either agree to their 'contract' or find employment elsewhere. I'm sure there are many young couples waiting for a chance to serve the Lord!

PLEASE, take this in the manner it was meant. This is only MY opinion based on MY interpretation of scripture. Everyone has the right to their own interpretation.

Diane

 

Before 2000 you had probably sat under a Pastor that had not signed the BAptist Faith and Message 2000? Were you sitting under false doctrine prior to 2000?

 

Katie I agree with you. Missionaries that are sent out by my church have the same standards that our church does. LIkewise the missionaries that we support who are not sent by our church, Such as B.I.M.I. and other missionary boards I believe adhere to Baptist destinctives or we wouldn't be supporting them. I'm not sure how it would have been handled had a missionary been asked to quit (or fired) should a difference in doctrinal belief arisen. I would hope with decernment and respect.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you mentioned name calling.

In Christ,
Laurenda

 

atestring, In MY humble opinion, the Baptist Faith and Message had to be edited to include references to scripture and sound Biblical teachings that have been shoved under the rug by a more 'politically correct movement'.

I refuse to argue this with anyone. My belief is that scripture teaches against women as preachers or deacons and that the wife is to submit to her husband. It would be very sinful of me to back down from my belief or water down my belief just to make other board members happy.

Again, that is only MY opinion. I have to answer to God for myself and only myself. If I'm wrong, God will deal with me in HIS time.

I mean this in a loving and respectful way and hope this did not sound rude!

Diane

 

As we've reached the 3 page limit this thread will close sometime before or after church in the morning, but no sooner than 2 am. est.
Gina

 

You are definitely not rude and i respect your opinion and any conviction you have but I am scracthing my head trying to figure out why missionaries who are precious to Jesus and to the Body of christ are forced to sign such statements or be fired.
The 1963 Baptist Faith And Message is not a politically correct agenda and if a missionary lives and preaches in light of the 1963 Baptist Faith And message they would not be doing anything contrary to the Word of God. NOr are they necessarily feminist.
I know of a particular SBC congrecation that will not sign the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 because as an autonomous church they believe that they should have a church that is governed by Elders rather than governed by the congregation.
This should be a local autonomous church decision.

I personally see this political move as a smoke screen used by a few to control their form of political correctness and feed their ego's.

 

atestring,
if your church sent out their own missionaries would you want to them to ebleive what your church teaches? What if they did not? What fi your church beleived in salvation by grace and the believed in wroks? What if your church beleived in rapture/tribulation and your missionaries did not? Or your church taught there should not be women preachers adn deacons, and they of course beleived women could eb whatever they wanted too? Would you still send them out to represent your church and then pay then to teach what your church did not believe?
Or would you send out missionaries who beleived the teachings of your church, also beleiveing that the teachings of your church were biblical?
Who would you give your money to?
Thats called accountability.
They can continue to eb missionaries if they want, no one iss aying they can't, but the SBC isn't going to pay them to work for them anymore. Anytime you hire someone to work for you you have the right to fire them. And as I seem to remember no onee in the bible got paid for being a missionary.

 

Katie, you are making a great point. All of these churches that do not agree with the 2000 BF&M would not even consider hiring a pastor who strongly agreed with it and taught those beliefs from the pulpit. How long do you think a pastor would last in a more liberal church if he stood up and preached submission of wives and that homosexuality is a sin?

There seem to be some here who stand behind those missionaries who do not want to sign the 2000 BF&M. That is your choice. Your church can support them, mine chooses not to.

 

Katie,
Has your church publically repented and cried out to God for merdcy for supporting missionaries between 1963 and 2000. Were there Thirty seven years of heresy? I think sackcloth and ashes may be in order.
I wonder if Southern Baptist Missioaries should explain to all that were born again through SBC ministry that they weren't really saved since the Southern Baptist did not get their doctrine right until the year 2000. What about those that died between 1963 and 2000?
Did God call them around His throne & say, "Oops, you should not be here but if you will sign a statement you can stay."

 

atestring, hahaha, that is just great, you can not give an educated responce to katie's post so you resort to sarcasm. Why don't you answer her questions?

We were not the ones who apponted those missionaries, so we do not have to ask for forgiveness for the mistake. We just have to correct it. God can use even the unbeliever to reveal Himself to the lost, but that does not mean i will send a unbeliever on the mission field.

James 3:1 states that a teacher will be judged by what they taught. If the missionaries that have been fired, quit or even those still supported by the IMB teach wrong doctrine, and deceive those they are instructing, then God will hold them responcible for that. Those leading the SBC and IMB would be held responcible if they allowed wrong doctrine to be taught, that is why they are doing what they have to make sure correct doctrine is being taught.