Where Are All the Young Leaders in the SBC?

"Burleson" is the correct spelling

 

Allan,

Of course you're right if a double standard doesn't mean anything to you when it comes to Doctrine.

I think Southern Baptist Institutions, especially our Mission Boards, should be above reproach. Speaking in Tongues has never been a characteristic mainstream Southern Baptist position and a person who speaks in tongues should not be President of one of our agencies.

 

Speaking in tongues is not something that determines if a person is qualified to serve as president of the IMB or of the SBC. It is a tertiary matter and is regarding doctrine. If you define a baptist as one who does not speak in tongues you need to go back and review what constitutes a baptist. Though it does not specifically state a baptist is one who does not speak in tongues, it was and is a matter which necessarly seperated us from the Charismatics though not a primary one. Is tongues an issue? Yes, but it isn't in the primary or secondary sense. Does it need to be addressed some more so as to flesh out better where SBC as whole stands on the issue? Yes. But to superimpose your personal view does make for a double standard. What was set as policy is for those who 'will be' sent into the mission field. Contrary to your personal opinion it isn't a double standard on doctrine, since it is not a doctrine fleshed out fully by the SBC. This is simply in keeping with the commonly held view of the SBC relating to new churches that are comming up.

I agree this is or at least should be a time where the SBC needs to address again certain issues coming into the association, define certain aspects and views without making a noose for ourselves, to allow for 'cooporation' with those who are like minded in faith and practice without dividing the unity of Christ in His believers. (thus the C/A thing should not be a divider since many of the early founders did not think it so - but they had a better understanding of each others views then than most do today).

 

Now we return to our regularly schedule thread.

Coupla questions, please.

Who are these supposedly missing young leaders? Who decided that they were leaders (outside their chiurches, of course)? Did they just one day say, "I'm going to be a leader?"

How did they become leaders? How about, "Oh, he has a blog, he says some provocative things, he's articulate, obviously intellectually gifted, and oh by the way, he really can bash Paige Patterson."

And if they're missing from our family get-togethers, missing from the family arguments, missing from SBC work, sniping from outside, then how than they be called our leaders?

Well, that's more than a couple of questions. Now, this is not to say what the bloggers are writing is not true. But anybody can start a blog. That doesn't necessarily make them a leader.

 

Neither does badmouthing godly men to the secular press as does the owner of the blog in the op.

 

Proof?

Didn't think so!

The IMB does not choose for you where you will go and you just follow along, but where you feel called by God to go that is the area to which they will begin training you.

However many are not called to their homeland to do missionary work and that is true. That is one reason they try to use only natives in Pastoring and planting churches through the cordination and or cooporation of the missionaries.

You REALLY need to get your facts straight. Your attempts to mislead and misrepresent are not only unbecoming of a Christian (which is what the world sees) but is shameful regarding a Child of God (what believers see).

 

Filing ungodly lawsiuts to gain control of the church. They need to be ousted to be sure.

 

All of it is ungodly. And a reproach on the Church.

 

This is just wierd. Who is doing something? Who do you think should be doing something? Peter cutting off a man's ear? What?

 

To put the issue to rest I contacted the IMB and asked them to validate your assumptional cliams as true or false. When I receive the e-mail back I will post it.

 

I've heard of SBC missionaries ministering in their home country.

 

The international mission board of the SBC is a perfect institution. There are no problems. Everything is fine.

Case closed - no more discussion and debate necessary.

:laugh:

 

If it is organized and run by people....there will always be problems.

If it is organized and run like a political party...eventually people will leave it.

 

Who are these young leaders and where have they gone? What young leaders have spoken about this, and what have they said? And do they themselves consider themselves 'leaders', aren't we all to be servants.

 

I guess I'd fall into the category of a young minister in the SBC (I am in my mid-20s and a minister is the SBC.)

I have no desire to be part of the denominational leadership. Honestly, I'm too busy doing the mission of God amongst the people where I live, work, and play to be worried about some bloated and obsolete denominational superstructure.

The SBC is a great denom that is passionate about reaching the unchurched (we would disagree on terms I guess) and I love that about my home denom. Yet we have become too mired in theological conquest and rebombing the same captured territory. I'll be a Southern Baptist till I go home to see Jesus...but I don't care about the leadership. It is anathema to what I am doing in my local church.

I pray and hope the best, but can't get hampered in my daily ministry.