Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
It seems that Piper-Grudemism is continuing to infiltrate the SBC. International Mission Board Drops Ban on Speaking... | Christianity Today
IMB to allow tongue speaking among missionaries
- Thread starter Bill The Baptist
- Start date
- Status
puritanpilgrim
Puritan Board Junior
They ask.
Captain Picard
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Puritan Board Graduate
Yes, but interestingly enough, this push toward charismatic theology is being led by the so-called "new Calvinists. "
Captain Picard
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
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.
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.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
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?
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
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.
Southern Baptists to open their ranks to missionaries who speak in tongues - Religion News Service
and here:
David Platt: Urgency for the Gospel Led to Policy Changes | Christianity Today
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.
Southern Baptists to open their ranks to missionaries who speak in tongues - Religion News Service
and here:
David Platt: Urgency for the Gospel Led to Policy Changes | Christianity Today
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?
God'sElectSaint
Puritan Board Freshman
Sorry to interrupt what is teetotaller mean?
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Captain Picard
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
"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.
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.
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!
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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.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.
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.
Greater local church involvement is the answer:
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked