IMB Trustee Meeting

I went to Wade B's blog. I went to Marty Duren's site. It just seems like this is not right to me. Especially Mr. Burleson's. He is presenting his point of view with meetings he has had with other trustees. I understand this is america and he is free to blog. But somehow it seems like this is no more than spreading gossip and rumor via the internet. The other trustees that oppose his views are not out blogging in response.
Obviously if his view was the majority view he wouldn't be having to try and by pass the Executive committee by blogging his views without the others fairly stated.
He compares his stance to that of Luther standing up to Rome. Please, give me a break. When he got to that point I began to think a little ego was poking up at that point. I think maybe his integrity should be questioned. Running out and blogging every little thing that goes on as being a trustee is a little bit childish. If this man would do this as a trustee I sure wouldn't want to go to him for counseling. He might blog it.
I do disagree with the landmark position however.
But speaking in tongues would have to go plain and simple.
Also, Wade sounds like the moderates who used to be apart of the association I was in as a pastor in NC. Those guys all speak the same lingo. "The baptist tent is a big tent". "We can set aside non essentials for the cause of evangelism". That is bologna. I've found out that what conservative SBCers and moderate SBCers consider "nonessentials" is a whole lot different. I would say speaking in tongues private or public is a big difference It is not a BAPTIST practice now is it? So why should we allow missionarys who do that into the IMB? Do we want pentecostalism to spread overtime in our churches that are planted overseas?
So what if some churches are pulling out over this. Good let them go join the Word of Faith movement. They can start healing and having women as co pastors in their churches. Just like the crowd that left to go join the CBF. Good bye and good ridence. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

Shannon's views unfortunately reflect the attitudes of many within the SBC today. She doesn't even respond to Wade's real concerns, which have less to do with "prayer language" and baptism specifically and more to do with constantly re-defining "conservative" by narrower and narrower extra-biblical criteria.

The one trustee I spoke with supported the new policies because "tongues have never been normative for Southern Baptists." So that is the new definition of sound theology....whatever SBs deem "normative." God help us.

Sadly, whatever action took place in yesterday's executive session was a pre-planned pre-set agenda by a faction on the board. (At this time I'd rather not divulge how I know that.) A clear violation of board policy. An egregious violation of Scripture. And yet, the status quo in the SBC these days.

 

I HAVE GOT TO CHANGE MY NAME ON THIS BOARD.
It is my real name. However, I'm a man.
Did any of you read my whole post or just glance at it and then respond? If you did you would have found out that I'm a MALE. My fault though.

 

Look, I know what some of you are saying is true.
There is alot of "good ole boy ism" in the convention. It is true they probably do need some new young blood on the committee.
Still, I just think Wade might have dug his own hole by running out and blogging. If he felt that stongly about it maybe he should have been a little more stealth in his approach? Time and patience might have been more to his advantage.
RandR, where in scripture is a private prayer language found? Show me where in baptist history this practice has ever been considered "baptistic"?

 

Jimmy C,

You've got to be kidding with your jab at 5 pointers right?

Don't you know Burleson is a Calvinist?

Don't you know that this "agenda" of control within the SBC is really aimed at Calvinism which is the whipping boy of the SBC?

The next group to be denied missionary status will be Calvinists if this trend continues. Mark My words.

 

According to your position you would deny Missionary Status to the Apostle Paul.

Remember when he said, "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all."

You're right about it never being considered "Baptistic". But we've never before said it was essential that Missionary Candidates never have done it.

It's also ironic that the President of the International Mission Board has admitted that he spoke in tongues early in his life and the "Good Old Boys" of the SBC still "anointed" and "appointed" him to the Position.

This whole mess is a veiled assault on the Leadership of Dr. Rankin and an attempt to force his resignation.

 

Jimmy C,

The rumors you have heard are right.

If a handful of trustees get this weird over nonessentials at IMB, think of how they would salivate over the blood of Calvinists.

 

Jimmy??? Would you care to create a list of names for us---just start at the top and work your way down! Then I will take your list and go "one by one" and tell you what role that particular person had in turning the SBC away from the liberal crowd that now names themselves mostly with the CBF!

 

Apparently the Apostle Paul would not qualify as an IMB missionary since he used a private prayer language. I Cor. 14:18.

 

Jimmy C,

I posted prematurely. I did a little more reading and research. He was upfront about what he was doing as far as telling other trustees that he was blogging.
I still disagree with the tongues issue. Just because Paul said he spoke in tongues more than anybody else doesn't mean he was referring to speaking privately in tongues. He also said that he would rather speak in his own tongue with understanding in order to edify others. Paul puts alot of weight on "Interpretation" of the tongues.
It all comes back to whether or not you believe the that tongues is referring to "human languages" or just goobly goo. Can Dr. Rankin or anyone else for that matter. Can they tell you what the interpretation of their private tongues means? If not how edifying can it be other than on an emotional level?

 

The fight now is over control.

 

Shannon,

Forgive the tardy reply. I never said I could show where "private prayer language" is biblical. I've never tried, and frankly, I don't have a dog in the "continuationist" vs. "cessationist" fight. (Personally, I take greater exception to the new baptism policy.) My comment on tongues was simply that if the litmus test of sound theology is "has it ever been normative for Southern Baptists?" then we're in real trouble.

I suppose that since you've actually now read Wade's posts, perhaps you see that his main concerns have to do with straining at gnats in order to centralize control and narrow the circle of fellowship.