Should Jerry Rankin resign from IMB?

I understand what you are saying, but doesn't this requirement infringe on church autonomy? </font>[/QUOTE]Of course it doesn't...as the Church doesn't have to participate.

Joseph Botwinick

 

No it doesn't. The local Church is the one who agrees to be affiliated with the SBC...not the other way around. Our churches are not owned by the SBC.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Ok. I am open to learning more. Can you name a specific instance where a Baptist Church tried to leave the SBC and were sued by the Convention? Please give me a source so I can learn more about this.

Thanks,

Joseph Botwinick

 

You are right but some SBC folks in the congregation are so gullible to believe most anything told to them by SBC leadership undermining the local pastor. Some are so SBC that they trust whatever the SBC says.</font>[/QUOTE]Talk about an elitist snob attitude. I think you assume way too much in your elitist bitterness. Perhaps, it is the SBC which agrees with the people, and not the other way around.

A number of state workers have never been to seminary. Some have never even pastored. It is they who are telling the churches what to do. It is comical and sad at the same time.[/QUOTE]

More arrogant elitism. Are you trying to say that only seminary trained pastors are qualified to have an opinion about what the Church should believe and do? What happened to freedom of the believers you "moderates" (liberals) used to harp about?

When I moved to California form the south I heard the same exact same things I heard in the south on how to grow a large church. The problem was that evry one of the SBC churches where I was living had been on the decline for years. Yet the folks in the south had all the answers for the people on the west coast. Apparently Rick Warren disagreed with the folks in the south. Yet there are numerous SBC churches in that same which have not grown for years. A few years ago I challenged one of the SBC leaders to come to the west coast and show us how it is done. He came and preached in a large city and the response I heard from a friend of mine was not very positive. He never stayed any longer that to preach on a Sunday. [/QUOTE]

If by declining, you mean numerically, I would state that you are probably correct in that. Then again, I also believe that when Churches are Biblical, they will not attract many of the lost. We do not hold to the wisdom of this world....but to the Foolishness of the Gospel. If any of the totally depraved lost come to God, it will be because of the work of God and not the work of man. There is nothing any Church can do of itself to attract the lost. We are to preach the Word and leave the drawing up to God. I think the Churches in the South are more Biblical than what I have seen from the West Coast Churches, and are, therefore, stronger than they are, even if their rural numbers don't reflect as much.

The west coast is still waiting for some of those SBC leaders/experts in the south to come and show them how to grow a large church.[/QUOTE]

It is too bad they don't just follow the Bible. Then they wouldn't need a Church Growth "expert" who utilizes the wisdom of the world instead of the truth of God. BTW, the Church Growth "Expert" you guys are so proud of in California learned how to grow a Church from a Southern Baptist Pastor from the South:

W.A. Criswell wrote the above quote on page 11 of the foreward to Rick Warren's book, The Purpose Driven Church

Whatever disagreements I may have with Warren, at least it doesn't seem as if he is as arrogant as you seem to be.

I had two experiences in two different churches where the SBC would preach to the state volunteer workers before it would ever get to me as a pastor. I would hear about the meetings from the them before it was ever discussed with any other pastors. Some of those things were in an effort to reach the pastors with the information they wanted. One time a state volunteer came back from one of those meetings and told me how I should be growing the church based upon another church as the model. The church I was pastoring had doubled in about 18 months. But the church they talked about was pastored by a pastor who sat next to me in some classes in seminary. So I decided to give him a call. What he told me basically that the story was stretched to sound better than it really was. What it turned out to be was an underlying promotion of the BFA. My friend told me he would never borrow any money from the BFA again. He felt it was misrepresented and just as costly as a bank. [/QUOTE]

Did the State worker tell you that you had to do this? I am not sure I understand your point here. Not that my opinion will matter for much to you since I did not graduate from Seminary, but I sense a lot of bitterness in your heart due to the SBC takeover. You really need to let it go man. This is not good for you and not good as a pastor for you to hold these feelings. I, further, sense a lot of pride, arrogance, and elitism in the way you seem to describe those who don't agree with you as stupid, uneducated fools without a brain. One does not need a seminary education, to be a pastor, or live in California to read the Bible and to be led by the Spirit to a correct understanding of God, his word, and God's will for our lives. That is what we call the priesthood of the believers. Just because one disagrees with you does not make them wrong.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I do not speak in tongues in a private or public way but I would be unable to ever forbid someone else from speaking in tongues privately, because of this instruction from the Paul of Tarsus:

1 Cor 14:39-40
39 Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.

40 But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

NASU

 

The first Christian was not a Baptist. The first Baptist did not come from a Baptist Church and was not baptized in a Baptist Church. </font>[/QUOTE]So? Your response here says nothing about historically baptistic distinctives.

 

No it doesn't. The local Church is the one who agrees to be affiliated with the SBC...not the other way around. Our churches are not owned by the SBC.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]My view is it is just as much an infringement if the local church voluntarily abdicates its local authority. Then the local church is GIVING UP its local authority and allowing another entity to infringe on their authority. It all works out the same in the end. Remember, I only stated this because it was asked.

 

The only problem with your argument is that the local church never abdicates its local authority. They can choose the way they wish to go at any point in time. They are in charge of their local church, not the convention. The Convention works for them, not the other way around. At any time they don't like what the Convention is doing or cannot agree with their doctrine, they are welcome to disassociate with them.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I'm kinda new to Baptist things, and I didn't mean for my response about autonomy to generate so much (but I do thank you for the info). My original question still is, why would IMB/SBC disqualify a person who has been called to the mission field if they weren't baptized in a church that believes in eternal security? There is a broad spectrum of church positions about eternal security throughout the SBC, and it seems to me that they are ever slowly trying to shape the local church to what the national board wants it to be.

 

I don't think there is a debate about believer's baptism but about whether the IMB recogizes believer's baptism from say a Arminian denomination such as the Assemblies of God.

Let's say the person was believer's baptized at age 14 by an Assemblies of God Church. It is no secret that the Assemblies of God believe it is possible for a Christian to lose faith in Christ and thus be lost. Let us also say this person at the age of 20 while in college comes to Baptist convictions and affirms every doctrine in the BF@M 1963 and 2000. They join a Baptist Church on Statement. The person attends Seminary, graduates and feels called to the Mission field. His local church endorses him BUT the IMB finds out he was baptized at age 14 in an Assemblies of God Church.

He is told he must be baptized again or not be approved. This seems to be legalistic and implies a sort of Landmark baptist theology.

 

I think that it is shocking that the SBC wants to discredit the beliver's baptism by immersion of someone who was baptized outside the SBC churches.

This is truly sad and is a complete denial of the Word of God they claim to love and uphold.

This exclusivism is eventually going to destroy the conservative resurgence and drive biblically thinking SB away from the fundamentalists witin the SBC.

What is the IBM thinking?

 

Paul,

Do you think Rankin should resign?

Joseph Botwinick

 

No.

I think trustees that distort the truth of the Bible should resign

Denying the validity of baptism in the example cited at the start of this thread is outrageous.

 

It is just this type of decision that makes the conservative resurgence look political, extreme, and vindictive.

 

Part of it was political, extreme, and vindictive.

Joseph Botwinick

 

The IMB is not saying that people called to the mission field cannot go if they hold this view...they are only saying they cannot go through them.

The selection process for the IMB is very competitive and well less than 50% of the applicants will ever be appointed by them. Not because they don't think they are worthy or called, but because of lack of funds and other issues.

All this policy does is further filters those applicants that the IMB would approve. The IMB appoints missionaries after a thorough screening process that includes not only theology, but moral/lifestyle issues, financial, physical health, mental/emotional health, family relationships, practical ministry experience.

So, it's not like there's a huge line of people being withheld from the mission field because they practice a "private prayer language". It is only one item in a long list of things that helps screen applicants.

And, NO!, Rankin should not resign.