# IMB to allow tongue speaking among missionaries



## Bill The Baptist

It seems that Piper-Grudemism is continuing to infiltrate the SBC. International Mission Board Drops Ban on Speaking... | Christianity Today


----------



## KMK

How does the IMB know whether someone speaks in tongues or not?


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> How does the IMB know whether someone speaks in tongues or not?




They ask.


----------



## Captain Picard

The SBC has long been split into factions. Most of the factions are not reformed even by a minimal definition of the word. Nothing that happens there surprises me anymore.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Yes, but interestingly enough, this push toward charismatic theology is being led by the so-called "new Calvinists. "


----------



## Captain Picard

Bill The Baptist said:


> Yes, but interestingly enough, this push toward charismatic theology is being led by the so-called "new Calvinists. "



That's debatable. One, Grudem and Piper are not new Calvinists in the sense of strong commitment to the types of contemporary worship pushed in settings like the Acts 29 network, nor are they particularly Kuyperian in worldview or eschatology, so I'm not sure the term "new Calvinists" it quite what we're looking at here. 

Two, Grudem and Pipers continuationism is more along the lines of "open but cautious" on the issue of "personal prayer languages". Their perception of the continuation of the gifts is markedly more moderate than most.

Three, Grudem teaches at Phoenix Seminary, which is multidenominational, and Piper is a pastor serving the Baptist General Conference, not the SBC. I'm not sure you can say they are "spearheading" a groundswell of charismaticism in the IMB specifically.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I wasn't referring to Piper and Grudem specifically, but rather the generation of pastors they have influenced such as David Platt and Matt Chandler. It is men like this who are the driving force behind the SBC 's move toward more charismatic theology.


----------



## Pergamum

I don't think it is about tongues. The policy changes are about widening the funnel to get more missionaries fielded. The tongues issue was a new policy change that recently took place and the policy change wasn't merely undoing that one specific policy but was simplifying, in general, the pathway to field more missionaries. Overall, it is a good policy change.

p.s. the issue was never about tongues in worship, but was regarding a private prayer language (private). We shouldn't act is if Platt and others are turning the IMB Charismatic.


----------



## Pergamum

David Platt: Urgency for the Gospel Led to Policy Changes | Christianity Today



> The driving force behind all these changes is to unify all Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) churches under the umbrella of the Baptist Faith and Message in order to send limitless missionary teams to unreached people and places for the glory of God, and I don’t want that to be misunderstood.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Pergamum said:


> I don't think it is about tongues. The policy changes are about widening the funnel to get more missionaries fielded. The tongues issue was a new policy change that recently took place and the policy change wasn't merely undoing that one specific policy but was simplifying, in general, the pathway to field more missionaries. Overall, it is a good policy change.
> 
> p.s. the issue was never about tongues in worship, but was regarding a private prayer language (private). We shouldn't act is if Platt and others are turning the IMB Charismatic.



I don't believe the SBC is going to become full blown Pentecostal any time soon, but they are heading down a dangerous road. What would possibly be the point of a private prayer language? Do we suppose that God cannot understand our normal language?


----------



## Pergamum

The changes represent removing those rules beyond the BF&M which automatically disqualified some folks. Like in the past there was a blanket ban on divorce. Removing that blanket ban does not mean that they no longer value marriage,only that such things ought not to automatically disqualify one but that such areas of doctrine would be better dealt with in the interview phase of the application rather than just by automatic exclusion.


----------



## Pergamum

Bill,

How narrow do we make the funnel to send folks to the Muslim world? I remember not being accepted by a baptist mission org because I could not affirm the Pre-Trib rapture view. Obviously, it is much better to see Pre-Tribbers or Postmillers inhabit the Middle East than Muslims. Mission orgs that are baptist and whose sending church feel comfortable with sending out their members as missionaries to hard, unreached areas should not be impeded by needlessly strict restrictions. An automatic ban on 100% of divorced folks, or folks that use a private prayer language (note...private) were seen by many as too restrictive.


----------



## Captain Picard

Pergamum said:


> Bill,
> 
> How narrow do we make the funnel to send folks to the Muslim world? I remember not being accepted by a baptist mission org because I could not affirm the Pre-Trib rapture view. Obviously, it is much better to see Pre-Tribbers or Postmillers inhabit the Middle East than Muslims. Mission orgs that are baptist and whose sending church feel comfortable with sending out their members as missionaries to hard, unreached areas should not be impeded by needlessly strict restrictions. An automatic ban on 100% of divorced folks, or folks that use a private prayer language (note...private) were seen by many as too restrictive.



It's not so much the PPL (although I find it ridiculous and heterodox) as it is a concern that it will be taught to potential converts from pulpits as either A) necessary for salvation B) a sign that you are in a "special category" of christian. Look at the rampant pentecostal wackiness in Africa.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Captain Picard said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> How narrow do we make the funnel to send folks to the Muslim world? I remember not being accepted by a baptist mission org because I could not affirm the Pre-Trib rapture view. Obviously, it is much better to see Pre-Tribbers or Postmillers inhabit the Middle East than Muslims. Mission orgs that are baptist and whose sending church feel comfortable with sending out their members as missionaries to hard, unreached areas should not be impeded by needlessly strict restrictions. An automatic ban on 100% of divorced folks, or folks that use a private prayer language (note...private) were seen by many as too restrictive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so much the PPL (although I find it ridiculous and heterodox) as it is a concern that it will be taught to potential converts from pulpits as either A) necessary for salvation B) a sign that you are in a "special category" of christian. Look at the rampant pentecostal wackiness in Africa.
Click to expand...


This is precisely why the prohibition was enacted in the first place. It is also not true that the SBC needs more missionary candidates. I know many people who meet all the existing requirements but are on hold because there are no available slots due to budget constraints.


----------



## Pergamum

It is very true that greater workers need mobilized. 

It sounds like Platt is working towards facilitating other avenues of permissible funding as well (sounds like he's going to get local churches more involved and enable folks to do more tentmaking stuff). This will all hopefully allow greater workers to be funded. It is not as if the SBC doesn't "need" more missionary candidates (the words of Jesus in the Gospels about the laborers being few are still true today), but that the present structure is too unwieldy to mobilize, send and fund more missionaries. 

With streamlining and simplification, the number of missionaries that can be fielded and funded will increase. And a formerly divorced person who is now a solid Christian or someone who uses tongues as a private prayer language but does not teach it as normative for others may not be top-tier as far as desired missionary candidates go, but there are a billion Muslims in need of the Gospel and some of these issues are not sufficient reasons to disqualify an otherwise solid candidate.

Teaching PPL as normative for others is already prohibited and had always been with or without the ban. 



> “If someone said they did pray in tongues, they were automatically disqualified, essentially for being honest,” said Wade Burleson, an Enid, Okla., pastor who opposed the ban.
> 
> The policy changes approved this week during an IMB trustee meeting in Louisville, Ky., will leave the question of tongues in the application.
> 
> And the IMB said it will still end employment for any missionary who places “persistent emphasis on any specific gift of the Spirit as normative for all or to the extent such emphasis becomes disruptive,” an FAQ on the IMB website explained.
> 
> Other policy changes this week would allow divorced missionaries to serve in more positions, including long-term missions assignments.
> 
> And the IMB will recognize baptisms performed by other Christian denominations so long as they involved full-body immersion. Previously, a Southern Baptist minister must have baptized missionary candidates who transferred from another denomination.



Southern Baptists to open their ranks to missionaries who speak in tongues - Religion News Service



and here:



> One issue that has particularly drawn attention is the practice of speaking in tongues and the use of a private prayer language. Up until this point, if a person had spoken in tongues or practiced a private prayer language, they were immediately disqualified from appointment as an IMB missionary. IMB trustees voted this week to remove that automatic disqualification.
> 
> Yet this was a vote that addressed issues of qualification for potential IMB missionaries in the church, not the practical work of actual IMB missionaries on the field.
> 
> That is a critical distinction, for over the course of appointing, training, and supervising missionaries, IMB addresses many significant theological, missiological, ecclesiological and practical issues, including the use of tongues or a private prayer language. Though these issues may not affect our base qualifications, they do affect our everyday work.
> 
> IMB’s long-held position remains that these practices cannot be normative in teaching or disruptive in practice. Through careful appointment, training and supervisory processes, IMB ensures that every missionary remains resolutely focused on making disciples and multiplying churches in ways that faithfully represent Southern Baptist theology, missiology, ecclesiology and practice.



David Platt: Urgency for the Gospel Led to Policy Changes | Christianity Today


----------



## KMK

puritanpilgrim said:


> How does the IMB know whether someone speaks in tongues or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ask.
Click to expand...


I am curious as to what other questions they ask in the interview. Does anyone have access to the questionnaire?

I assume they have, until recently, asked whether a man was ever divorced. Do they ask whether a man is a teetotaler?


----------



## Pergamum

Sadly, teetotaller-ism is still a facet of the IMB. Maybe Platt will change that, too. I will look for a questionnaire.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

Pergamum said:


> Sadly, teetotaller-ism is still a facet of the IMB. Maybe Platt will change that, too. I will look for a questionnaire.



Sorry to interrupt what is teetotaller mean?


----------



## Edward

God'sElectSaint said:


> Sorry to interrupt what is teetotaller mean?



Someone who doesn't imbibe.

(Those who abstain for al-kee-hol)


----------



## Pergamum

p.s. The IMB also has a weight standard and they check an applicant's BMI.... lots of great preachers would thus be too fat to serve according to the IMB. Dropping some of these automatic rules that disqualify otherwise solid candidates is a good idea.


----------



## Pergamum

KMK said:


> puritanpilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does the IMB know whether someone speaks in tongues or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am curious as to what other questions they ask in the interview. Does anyone have access to the questionnaire?
> 
> I assume they have, until recently, asked whether a man was ever divorced. Do they ask whether a man is a teetotaler?
Click to expand...


I found the questionnaire!

484- Missionary Questionnaire
















--

--

--
Ok, just kidding.....


----------



## Captain Picard

That KJV-only anti-calvinist baptist website do....the questionnaire, if it was a joke (sadly given some of the stuff on that website I'm only about 95% sure...) was funny though.


----------



## Leslie

Maybe the IMB is just taking the Bible seriously. Paul writes not to forbid to speak in tongues. The church forbids. The scriptures commend dance in the context of workship; the church forbids. The scriptures state that God hates divorce; the church (at least here in Ethiopia) demands divorce of second and subsequent wives. What ever happened to sola scriptura?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Leslie said:


> Maybe the IMB is just taking the Bible seriously. Paul writes not to forbid to speak in tongues. The church forbids. The scriptures commend dance in the context of workship; the church forbids. The scriptures state that God hates divorce; the church (at least here in Ethiopia) demands divorce of second and subsequent wives. What ever happened to sola scriptura?



Tongues in the Bible are actual languages. The tongues that most people claim to speak today are just unintelligible gibberish. This is the problem.


----------



## Pilgrim

"PPL" among Southern Baptists isn't anything new. The longtime head of the IMB, Jerry Rankin, had a "PPL". A lot of anti-Calvinist types are basically "Bapticostals" so it isn't just a "New Calvinist" thing. (That is not to be confused with Neo-Calvinism as a previous commenter has done.) 

The most controversial thing that was also (rightly) overturned was a quasi Landmark rule on baptism. According to the rule adopted ca. 2005, if a man had been immersed by a church that also practiced non-immersion or did not teach eternal security (among other things), he was not eligible to serve until he had been baptized to their satisfaction. This meant that someone immersed after a profession of faith by a Presbyterian minister ("Alien Immersion") or a Free Will Baptist was ineligible even though those baptisms would have been acceptable to the vast majority of churches.


----------



## Pergamum

A quick summary of the situation can be seen as follows:
1). A large organization grows larger
2). It seeks to send out people as missionaries with a set and fixed way of funding,
3). As large as it is, many applicants apply and funding is thus limited due to this set and fixed way of funding.
4). A beaurocracy grows up and rules are added to narrow the pool of applicants
5). Many otherwise solid applicants are eliminated due to these automatic rules....

6). David Platt steps in and wants to eliminate some of the beaurocracy, streamline the process and increase the number of missionaries mobilized.
7). He makes changes to the way missionaries can be funded (more local church involvement) to increase missionary numbers.
7). He eliminates some of the automatic rules that eliminates possible solid candidiates.

8). *BAM!!!.*.....people accuse the IMB of going charismatic!


----------



## Nicholas Perella

Pergamum said:


> 7). He eliminates some of the automatic rules that eliminates possible solid candidiates.



1. If PPL is 'talking in tongues' then I rather think that makes the candidate(s) not solid. That is what all the uproar is about.
2. If the missionary can not actual do the PPL in his gospel work, then what is the point of allowing missionaries that do PPL?
3. Laborers will always be few (as you mentioned earlier), so, letting false teachings as an outreach only complicates what the laborers, who are few to begin with, will have to deal with now.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Nicholas Perella said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7). He eliminates some of the automatic rules that eliminates possible solid candidiates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If PPL is 'talking in tongues' then I rather think that makes the candidate(s) not solid. That is what all the uproar is about.
> 2. If the missionary can not actual do the PPL in his gospel work, then what is the point of allowing missionaries that do PPL?
> 3. Laborers will always be few (as you mentioned earlier), so, letting false teachings as an outreach only complicates what the laborers, who are few to begin with, will have to deal with now.
Click to expand...


 Plus, what exactly is this "new" way of funding missionaries? Are the local churches suddenly going to start giving more to the Cooperative Program? Seems unlikely since contributions have been declining for years.


----------



## Pergamum

One billion Muslims.

I'd rather have someone use tongues in private prayer than having them chant Allahu Akbar out loud. If there are otherwise solid candidates who want to go to a hard, unreached place but do this practice, then I would love to see them go.

Those that use a private prayer language (again, note that word "private') are not allowed to teach tongues publicly as theology. 

Your logic of "laborers will always be few...." is flawed. A small difference in practice does not equate to publicly spreading false teaching. 

"Laborers will always be few..so let's only send out those that 100% agree with every single one of our minor points of doctrine..." is a sure recipe for sending out no one. Imagine trying to send out only Truly Reformed elder-qualified psalter-only/EP, KJV-using missionaries who believe in the headcovering, are postmill, homeschoolers, and adhere to the original WCF and not the later American Revisions. Your pool of missionaries would then be needlessly limited and narrow when, in fact, there are many true Christians desiring to take the Gospel into the world.


----------



## Pergamum

Bill The Baptist said:


> Nicholas Perella said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7). He eliminates some of the automatic rules that eliminates possible solid candidiates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If PPL is 'talking in tongues' then I rather think that makes the candidate(s) not solid. That is what all the uproar is about.
> 2. If the missionary can not actual do the PPL in his gospel work, then what is the point of allowing missionaries that do PPL?
> 3. Laborers will always be few (as you mentioned earlier), so, letting false teachings as an outreach only complicates what the laborers, who are few to begin with, will have to deal with now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plus, what exactly is this "new" way of funding missionaries? Are the local churches suddenly going to start giving more to the Cooperative Program? Seems unlikely since contributions have been declining for years.
Click to expand...


Greater local church involvement is the answer:



> Under the pilot, based on the model established in 1977 by the Southern Baptist Convention’s Mission Service Corps, more than 50 percent of short-term missionaries’ financial support will continue to be provided by Southern Baptists through the Cooperative Program and Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. The remainder, set at $15,000 per person per year for the pilot, will be raised by the missionaries themselves.”



IMB Changes Funding Protocols: Is This the Future?


Local churches want more involvement and churches give to people they know, not a faceless entity. As the Cooperative Program decreases in popularity, direct-giving to missionaries that local churches know and love is a better way to fund short-term missions (and all missions), instead of a yearly plea to give to a pool (The Lottie Moon offering).

Essentially all of Platt's policies have been to pull in local churches and get them more involved in missions.

This is a good thing.


----------



## Pergamum

p.s. I suppose also that some might bemoan the fact that fat missionary candidates and divorced candidates are no longer automatically disqualified (the standards are falling!)....but again, I'd rather send a fattie than to see Arab Muslims not hear the Gospel.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Interesting that the Bible never offers up lowering standards as a solution to the shortage of workers.


----------



## Pergamum

The Bible doesn't seem to place unbiblical standards on folks either, such as BMI height-weight requirements, automatic disqualification due to any past divorce, or possessing teenaged kids. Platt did away with all of those automatic disqualifications so that these applicants could be interviewed on a case-by-case basis. He repealed all of these automatic disqualifications in an effort to allow greater numbers of candidates to be interviewed and further screened, but the private prayer language issue is the only thing people are focusing on.

Also, again, the private prayer language is private. Private. There is no allowance for teaching charismatic doctrine, only a repeal of a recent policy from less than a decade ago.

As far as lowering standards to allow otherwise solid and willing folks to serve...how many elders on this board are grossly obese and unfit in the category of gluttony/discipline. "Interesting that the Bible never offers up lowering standards as a solution to the shortage of workers."


----------



## Pergamum

IMB to align missionary requirements with BF&M



> "We want it to be simple and clear that what's driving us doctrinally is what all these churches [of the Southern Baptist Convention] have agreed on in the Baptist Faith and Message," Platt said during an hour-long telephone press conference. "... We're tethering ourselves to the Baptist Faith and Message, and we tethered ourselves to it in such a way that if the Southern Baptist Convention were to edit or adjust the Baptist Faith and Message a year from now or two years from now or whenever, then that would adjust the way we work."



Here are Platt's own words:



> "Under [the newly adopted] 200-1, a divorce is not an automatic disqualifier for long-term service with the IMB as it was under the old policy," Platt said.
> 
> The marital history of all missionary candidates still will be examined. However, the circumstances of a divorce will now be considered along with the view of the prospective missionary's host culture regarding divorce and the candidate's potential role on a missionary team, Platt said. Requirements regarding divorce may need to differ for lead church planters and support personnel, he said.
> 
> Previously, divorced persons were disqualified from service as career and apprentice missionaries.
> 
> -- The only baptism requirements under the new policy are that a missionary be "a baptized member of a Southern Baptist church" and possess a "conviction of truth as expressed in the current Baptist Faith and Message statement of the Southern Baptist Convention."
> 
> The BF&M, Article VII, defines baptism as "the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus." Article VII adds that baptism is "prerequisite" to church membership and the Lord's Supper.
> 
> IMB missionaries, Platt said, "are going to believe and function and practice and live in accordance with" the BF&M.
> 
> Previously, IMB policy 200-16 stated: "Baptism must take place under the authority of a local church that practices believer's baptism by immersion alone, embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer's salvation and does not view baptism as sacramental, regenerative or essential to salvation." The policy applied to all missionaries at all levels of service.
> 
> -- The previous policy on tongues and private prayer languages "went beyond some of the language in the Baptist Faith and Message," Platt said. The BF&M makes no mention of either issue.
> 
> Policy 200-1 also does not mention speaking in tongues or using a private prayer language, but Platt said the IMB Field Personnel Manual allows a missionary to be terminated for disruptive emphasis on any specific spiritual gift as normative for all Christians. He stressed his opposition to excesses of the charismatic movement.
> 
> "I have seen and confronted the dangers of the charismatic movement and the error that has in so many ways undercut the authority of God's Word," Platt said. "... I want to make sure that we are faithfully representing Southern Baptist churches and convictions at every point."
> 
> Previously, IMB policy defined the gift of tongues, or glossolalia in Greek, as speaking "a legitimate language" and disqualified from service all missionary candidates who used an unintelligible language in worship or practiced glossolalia in worship without following the New Testament guidelines. Using an "ecstatic utterance as a prayer language" disqualified a candidate from service.
> 
> -- Families with teenage children are eligible to serve under policy 200-1 and will be evaluated on a case by case basis, Platt said, noting some mission fields are suitable for families with teenagers while others are not.
> 
> A previous policy stated that couples with children 12 and older would be eligible for service only after specific criteria were met, including psychological or psychiatric evaluations of the children.
> 
> Asked about policies governing alcohol use, Platt said trustee-approved policy did not previously and does not currently disqualify from service candidates who drink alcohol. Yet the Field Personnel Manual requires all missionaries to abstain from alcohol following their appointment. Platt cited policies on alcohol as a model for how other debated issues might be handled in the future.
> 
> "The only way to address some of these issues is not a policy that's a disqualifier on the front end," Platt said. "People know. It's not like we're hiding any of what we believe about these issues. But we are saying, 'OK, they're not automatically disqualifiers on the front end, but it's clear, as an IMB missionary, that we abstain from alcohol.'"
> 
> Making adherence to the BF&M the baseline requirement for missionary service represents an attempt to ease initial restrictions on qualified Southern Baptists who feel a call to take the Gospel to the nations.
> 
> Trustees "see that there are some issues we must address as the IMB," Platt said. "Our pipeline has been small and tough to get through in different ways that we could open up and free [up]."
> 
> Regarding prospective missionaries who were prevented from serving under the old policies, Platt said, "The door is open for them to explore serving with the IMB."


----------



## Pergamum

Istoria Ministries Blog: Body Mass Measurement and Culture


----------



## Pergamum

> A few comments and clarifications regarding what this policy does and does not mean are extremely important.
> 
> First, this policy means that when it comes to specific IMB pathways for service like career, apprentice, Journeyman, International Service Corps, or Masters, IMB no longer has official policies detailing additional qualifications for each of these pathways. Nevertheless, this policy does not mean that just anyone can now serve through any of these pathways created by IMB. We will still have clear expectations and qualifications, which accompany every pathway created by IMB (whether the ones mentioned above or new pathways we create in the days ahead). This policy simply allows IMB leadership the opportunity to evaluate and revise the expectations and qualifications for those pathways in order to continually strengthen them in the days ahead.
> 
> Second, this policy does not mean that current principles governing the selection of missionaries may not apply to particular pathways in the future. For example, we have had a policy prohibiting missionaries with teenage children from being selected for certain pathways. This policy was established for good reason in light of challenges for children (and their families) moving overseas at certain ages. As a result, there may be some pathways through which IMB continues to not appoint missionaries with teenage children. At the same time, this new policy does leave open the possibility for IMB pathways to exist in which missionaries with teenage children might serve through IMB. Certainly we will approach a family with older teenage children who is considering moving their lives permanently to a remote area in sub-Saharan Africa differently than a family with younger teenage children who is considering moving their lives for a one-year assignment in London.
> 
> Third, this policy does not signal a change in practice regarding how the IMB works in relation to Southern Baptist doctrine and practice. The purpose of this policy is actually to ensure that every potential IMB missionary is a meaningful member of a Southern Baptist Church and believes and works according to the current Baptist Faith and Message. This policy asserts that this statement of faith, which unites over 40,000 churches in the Southern Baptist Convention, is sufficient for us. Moreover, this policy states that the Baptist Faith and Message is significant for us in the sense that we will hold missionaries to it, not only in what they believe but in how they live and work as IMB missionaries. In sum, this policy states that every meaningful member of a Southern Baptist church who has been baptized (by immersion) as a follower of Christ, whose belief and practice both align with the Baptist Faith and Message, and who meet all of the spiritual qualifications mentioned above may potentially serve as an IMB missionary.
> 
> Fourth, simply because we replace other policies addressing more specific doctrinal distinctives beyond the Baptist Faith and Message does not mean that such distinctives are now unimportant to IMB. For example, replacing the policy that addresses tongues and private prayer language does not mean that the issue of tongues is unimportant to IMB work around the world. We will continue to train and work as missionaries in ways that faithfully represent Southern Baptist churches and conviction, and we will continue to have as part of our “Manual for Field Personnel” allowance for termination of employment for any missionary who places “persistent emphasis on any specific gift of the Spirit as normative for all or to the extent such emphasis becomes disruptive” to Southern Baptist missions work. In a similar way, replacing the policy that addresses believer’s baptism does not in any way mean that IMB will in any sense dilute the way we select, train and work as missionaries in complete accord with the statement on baptism in the Baptist Faith and Message.
> 
> Fifth, this policy does not mean we are lowering the standards for missionaries. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. Some may see the replacement of policies dealing with divorce or tongues, for example, as efforts to “lower the bar” regarding expectations of missionaries. One might imagine a man or woman with multiple divorces who is also engaged in harmful charismatic practices and wonder if this policy revision now opens the possibility for that person to serve as an IMB missionary. But this is most definitely not what this policy means. As you see in the new policy, the baseline qualification for missionaries includes men and women who “bear fruit of an intimate, growing relationship with Christ” and are “meaningfully involved in a [Southern Baptist] church in which they participate in leading people to faith in Christ, seeing new believers baptized in the church and showing believers how to obey Christ, all with a view toward reaching nations with the gospel.” Further, prospective missionaries must evidence a missionary call that is both “discerned within their local church and affirmed by that local church alongside IMB leadership.” Finally, they must be “devoted to the vision, mission, values, and beliefs of the IMB.” We hope that if all of these characteristics are evident in a member of a Southern Baptist church, and that church affirms with us God’s call for that member to work as a missionary, then pathways for service as an IMB missionary may be a possibility (whether as a church planter or support worker who receives full financial support from the IMB, as a business professional who receives no financial support from the IMB or anywhere in between).
> 
> In conclusion, what this policy means is that IMB wants to open wide the door for Southern Baptist churches to send thousands upon thousands of biblically qualified members in the days ahead to serve as IMB missionary team members who are making disciples and multiplying churches among the unreached. These members will serve in many different positions with many different responsibilities, ranging from lead church planters to vital support roles, from business professionals to college students to active retirees. From a variety of different backgrounds with a variety of different skills and a variety of different qualifications, they will join together to spread the gospel to people who have never heard it. The ultimate aim of this policy revision is to enable limitless God-exalting, Christ-following, Spirit-led, biblically-faithful, people-loving, high-quality Southern Baptist missionaries to serve with IMB through a multiplicity of pathways in the days ahead.




imbConnecting :: Partnering with churches to empower limitless missionary teams


----------



## Captain Picard

Pilgrim said:


> "PPL" among Southern Baptists isn't anything new. The longtime head of the IMB, Jerry Rankin, had a "PPL". A lot of anti-Calvinist types are basically "Bapticostals" so it isn't just a "New Calvinist" thing. (That is not to be confused with Neo-Calvinism as a previous commenter has done.)
> 
> The most controversial thing that was also (rightly) overturned was a quasi Landmark rule on baptism. According to the rule adopted ca. 2005, if a man had been immersed by a church that also practiced non-immersion or did not teach eternal security (among other things), he was not eligible to serve until he had been baptized to their satisfaction. This meant that someone immersed after a profession of faith by a Presbyterian minister ("Alien Immersion") or a Free Will Baptist was ineligible even though those baptisms would have been acceptable to the vast majority of churches.



I didn't mean that "new calvinists" were identical with neo-calvinists, only that in my experience there has been some overlap.


----------



## Captain Picard

For what it's worth. Welcome to the Machine: The Economics of Accepting Charismania and Promoting Racial Reconciliation | Pulpit & Pen


----------



## Jeri Tanner

My concern about the tongues relaxation is that the topic will inevitably come up, perhaps as a question from a new believer, and among people who claim the gift of speaking in tongues and do so privately (or those who are "cautious but open" about it) there is a lot of misunderstanding about what the Scriptures teach. I've heard anecdotal stories for instance about missionaries sharing the gospel and suddenly there being no need for a translator. Many people are under the impression that at Pentecost, when they were speaking in tongues, they were preaching the gospel, but that's not so. Likewise, 1 Corinthians 14 only gives three things that speaking in tongues can turn out to be: prayer, praising God (apparently what was heard at Pentecost), or giving thanks. In my charismatic days I heard many messages in tongues interpreted as future-telling, "words of knowledge," and the like. It would be great if there could be more study and firm teaching from pastors and leaders, even cessationist ones, on the topic of tongues and prophecy, since so very many now claim the gifts or are open to their practice. A lot of the back-lash against it has not been well thought out.


----------



## Captain Picard

The Holy Spirit surely reserves miracle working power, including in the use of language, but that is different from the idea that people can exercise miracles like 'unknown tongues' at will.


----------



## RamistThomist

Captain Picard said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> How narrow do we make the funnel to send folks to the Muslim world? I remember not being accepted by a baptist mission org because I could not affirm the Pre-Trib rapture view. Obviously, it is much better to see Pre-Tribbers or Postmillers inhabit the Middle East than Muslims. Mission orgs that are baptist and whose sending church feel comfortable with sending out their members as missionaries to hard, unreached areas should not be impeded by needlessly strict restrictions. An automatic ban on 100% of divorced folks, or folks that use a private prayer language (note...private) were seen by many as too restrictive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not so much the PPL (although I find it ridiculous and heterodox)
Click to expand...


Paul:

if anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

I'm not advocating speaking in tongues (open but cautious), but I would be hesitant calling it heterodox when Paul says the opposite.


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the IMB is just taking the Bible seriously. Paul writes not to forbid to speak in tongues. The church forbids. The scriptures commend dance in the context of workship; the church forbids. The scriptures state that God hates divorce; the church (at least here in Ethiopia) demands divorce of second and subsequent wives. What ever happened to sola scriptura?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tongues in the Bible are actual languages. The tongues that most people claim to speak today are just unintelligible gibberish. This is the problem.
Click to expand...


I wonder about that. If tongues are actual languages, the rules for tongue-speaking/interpreting that Paul gives for a church don't make a lot of sense. Let's say that everyone in First Baptist Ephesus spoke either Greek or Aramaic. It wouldn't make much sense for God to inspire someone to speak in German for it to be interpreted. 



> If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.



And Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the norm that norms lesser norms, not that it is the only source for religious knowledge (unless someone is a Clarkian, then it does mean that).


----------



## SolamVeritatem

Enjoying the conversation...


----------



## Bill The Baptist

ReformedReidian said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the IMB is just taking the Bible seriously. Paul writes not to forbid to speak in tongues. The church forbids. The scriptures commend dance in the context of workship; the church forbids. The scriptures state that God hates divorce; the church (at least here in Ethiopia) demands divorce of second and subsequent wives. What ever happened to sola scriptura?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tongues in the Bible are actual languages. The tongues that most people claim to speak today are just unintelligible gibberish. This is the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder about that. If tongues are actual languages, the rules for tongue-speaking/interpreting that Paul gives for a church don't make a lot of sense. Let's say that everyone in First Baptist Ephesus spoke either Greek or Aramaic. It wouldn't make much sense for God to inspire someone to speak in German for it to be interpreted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the norm that norms lesser norms, not that it is the only source for religious knowledge (unless someone is a Clarkian, then it does mean that).
Click to expand...


Surely you wouldn't argue that the tongues in Acts 2 were not actual languages? As far as the Corinthians, how would you interpret 1 Corinthians 14:21?


----------



## Pergamum

Just a reminder: The IMB has not declared tongues to be biblical. They have just refused to automatically disqualify otherwise solid missionary candidates who use tongues in a private prayer language. There still remains restrictions about teaching tongues as a SBC position, etc. This view does not mean compromise or that the IMB is going soft..it merely means that they want to see more Christians sent to serve overseas as missionaries.


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the IMB is just taking the Bible seriously. Paul writes not to forbid to speak in tongues. The church forbids. The scriptures commend dance in the context of workship; the church forbids. The scriptures state that God hates divorce; the church (at least here in Ethiopia) demands divorce of second and subsequent wives. What ever happened to sola scriptura?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tongues in the Bible are actual languages. The tongues that most people claim to speak today are just unintelligible gibberish. This is the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder about that. If tongues are actual languages, the rules for tongue-speaking/interpreting that Paul gives for a church don't make a lot of sense. Let's say that everyone in First Baptist Ephesus spoke either Greek or Aramaic. It wouldn't make much sense for God to inspire someone to speak in German for it to be interpreted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the norm that norms lesser norms, not that it is the only source for religious knowledge (unless someone is a Clarkian, then it does mean that).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely you wouldn't argue that the tongues in Acts 2 were not actual languages? As far as the Corinthians, how would you interpret 1 Corinthians 14:21?
Click to expand...


Acts 2 were languages. It doesn't seem to be the case in 1 Cor. 14. As for the verse in question, it does seem to be actual languages, but the rest of the chapter, including some of Paul's own comments do not lend to that view.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

ReformedReidian said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the IMB is just taking the Bible seriously. Paul writes not to forbid to speak in tongues. The church forbids. The scriptures commend dance in the context of workship; the church forbids. The scriptures state that God hates divorce; the church (at least here in Ethiopia) demands divorce of second and subsequent wives. What ever happened to sola scriptura?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tongues in the Bible are actual languages. The tongues that most people claim to speak today are just unintelligible gibberish. This is the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder about that. If tongues are actual languages, the rules for tongue-speaking/interpreting that Paul gives for a church don't make a lot of sense. Let's say that everyone in First Baptist Ephesus spoke either Greek or Aramaic. It wouldn't make much sense for God to inspire someone to speak in German for it to be interpreted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the norm that norms lesser norms, not that it is the only source for religious knowledge (unless someone is a Clarkian, then it does mean that).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely you wouldn't argue that the tongues in Acts 2 were not actual languages? As far as the Corinthians, how would you interpret 1 Corinthians 14:21?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acts 2 were languages. It doesn't seem to be the case in 1 Cor. 14. As for the verse in question, it does seem to be actual languages, but the rest of the chapter, including some of Paul's own comments do not lend to that view.
Click to expand...


Why should we suppose that the tongues in Corinthians were any different from the ones in Acts? Simply because we fail to understand what Paul is expressing in 1 Corinthians 14? Verse 21 is where Paul explains what he means by quoting from the Old Testament and arguing that what was happening in Corinth was the fulfillment of that prophecy. If verse 21 is alluding to actual languages, and yet chapter 14 is not about actual languages, then in what sense is the prophecy being fulfilled?


----------



## RamistThomist

Bill The Baptist said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the IMB is just taking the Bible seriously. Paul writes not to forbid to speak in tongues. The church forbids. The scriptures commend dance in the context of workship; the church forbids. The scriptures state that God hates divorce; the church (at least here in Ethiopia) demands divorce of second and subsequent wives. What ever happened to sola scriptura?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tongues in the Bible are actual languages. The tongues that most people claim to speak today are just unintelligible gibberish. This is the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder about that. If tongues are actual languages, the rules for tongue-speaking/interpreting that Paul gives for a church don't make a lot of sense. Let's say that everyone in First Baptist Ephesus spoke either Greek or Aramaic. It wouldn't make much sense for God to inspire someone to speak in German for it to be interpreted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the norm that norms lesser norms, not that it is the only source for religious knowledge (unless someone is a Clarkian, then it does mean that).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely you wouldn't argue that the tongues in Acts 2 were not actual languages? As far as the Corinthians, how would you interpret 1 Corinthians 14:21?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acts 2 were languages. It doesn't seem to be the case in 1 Cor. 14. As for the verse in question, it does seem to be actual languages, but the rest of the chapter, including some of Paul's own comments do not lend to that view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should we suppose that the tongues in Corinthians were any different from the ones in Acts? Simply because we fail to understand what Paul is expressing in 1 Corinthians 14? Verse 21 is where Paul explains what he means by quoting from the Old Testament and arguing that what was happening in Corinth was the fulfillment of that prophecy. If verse 21 is alluding to actual languages, and yet chapter 14 is not about actual languages, then in what sense is the prophecy being fulfilled?
Click to expand...


Not ruling out that possibility, but I don't think it is an open and shut case. Furthermore, prophetic fulfillment isn't always a clear 1:1 case (cf Hosea 11:1). I've given reasons why I think actual languages in this instance doesn't work. Since I'm not a tongue-talker myself, I won't go any further into it (not having a vested interest).


----------



## KMK

This thread has really gone off course. Please start a different thread in a different forum if you want to discuss the meaning of tongues.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

KMK said:


> This thread has really gone off course. Please start a different thread in a different forum if you want to discuss the meaning of tongues.



Indeed. I apologize for throwing the train off the track


----------

