News: deadline for missionaries to sign - Texas Baptists aiding missionaries........

I am glad this has worked for your church, Ernie. I have been in some larger churches wher this has been the case. The small churches I have been involved in with the SBC would not have been able to help missionaries to any degree if we did not pool with other churches to do this. I really believe that each church needs to determine what is the Lord's will for them. I used to believe the IFB model was the best. Now I see where banding together into a unit can mutiiply the results of effort. I can also see that there can be some down sides to membership in a convention. By the same token there are downsides to being "too" independant. That is what I really like about you Ernie. you try to be calm and reasonable.

 

How much time do these missionaries spend on deputation trips trying to gather support?

Does this not take time that could otherwise have been spent on the Mission Field?

 

Sherrie, part of the problem is that the so-called "missionaries" do not hold to the same theology as those who are paying their way. In fact, the SBC2000 allows alot of room on alot of issues. Scripture is not an option though. If these people cannot agree to inerrancy, they don't need to be missionaries at all. They need to put it up and get a real job if they aren't going to teach Scriptural doctrine and truth.

Besides, most of these people are glorified social workers. The definition of a missionary is quite restrictive in the N.T. sense. So really, these people hurt themselves.

 

I have had a problem with the missionary spending time on deputation. However I am beginning to see this as a time of preparation for the missionary. It is a time for building faith which is essential to the success of any missionary. A missionary that hasn't learned to trust the Lord completely is going to fail an the field.


Even though the missionary receives financial support from the States, they must trust the Lord for many other essentials.

The missionaries we support must be church planting missionaries, thus they must know how to trust the Lord for everything to acco,plish this. It is neccessary that they look to the Lord's leadership as to where to go, who to go to, and then the wisdom to train national pastors to pastor the churches they start.

The period they are on deputation is a time of testing and some will fail prior to going to the field instead of while on the mission field.

 

I have to agree with Jonathan and Hardsheller on the Hobbs discussion. Hobbs' original intentions seem to be pure regarding the 63 statement. However as can often be the case, his attempt to allow some diversity was taken advantage of and used for an intent never originally intended.

I would also add to the discussion that the BF&M2K was adopted by the people of the SBC as their statement of beliefs. The SBC is structured in a particular way for a particular purpose. The BF&M2K was adopted within this framework. As a result, the SBC has the right to ask their missionaries/representatives to affirm their statement of beliefs. Whether one agrees with the 2K statement or not (and I do) is not the issue. The issue is whether the SBC has the right to demand its missionaries teach in accordance with and not contrary to their adopted statement of beliefs. And the answer to that question is YES.

Even those who vehemently oppose the BF&M revision believe in the necessity of parameters (see the recent CBF controversies over homosexuality). The problem for them is that they do not agree with where the parameters have been set.

Just my opinion.

 

My church is an SBC church, but I strongly disagree with missionaries being forced to sign a document that they have a legitamate problem with. Historically, Baptists believe in the Priesthood of Believer, which allows one to have different Biblical interpretations. Most will agree that there are certain issues we must believe: virgin birth, Christs' death and resurrection, Christ as God incarnate, forgiveness of sins, second coming.....etc.....

The "conservative" SBC leadership may THINK they have figured God out and somehow have a perfect interpretation of scripture.....what a dangerous think to think.

 

jcd welcome to our forum.
I am studying through the (southern baptist) seminary extension program. And I am training as a (voulenteer) intern at a SBC church. One thing, the pastor and senior pastor asked me if I understood and agreed with this document. I believe that if you are a member (or employee... someone on the payroll) of an organization, then you should agree with their official statement of beliefs. I have found nothing objectionable, or unBiblical in the statement, so I affirmed it.
If I am going to be licensed to preach or ordained in a denomination, I had better agree with it's statement. If I do not agree, then I need to search out a denomination that I do agree with.

 

Obviously Ernie's church doesn't practice sending missionaries to the field in the same way that the SBC does. By that, I mean that they support the missionaries directly, not through a board.

However, if a missionary came to Ernie's church and was trying to gain support but didn't hold to the same beliefs as his church, so they refused support, would this be such a big issue? Or is it simply because its the SBC?

 

I agree with you, j_barner2000. How long is it going to take for these missionaries and professors to sign or not sign?

It seems SBC has been very lenient in allowing this to go on this long. If these people can't sign, then they need to seek other employment and let the SBC send other missionaries.

When I worked for the state, I had to sign a pledge of loyalty to our country and state. I had to support my agency. They were my employer.

I better get off my soap box.

 

Two things:
1) They are not being forced. They can choose to withdraw from the SBC if they so desire.

2) Do you agree that it is fair for the missionaries to be asked to work in accordance with and not contrary to the statement of beliefs adopted by the convention as a whole?

This is not about different biblical interpretations. It is about allowing people to represent the SBC who disagree with its basic statement of beliefs. The missionaries have been given the opportunity to explain their differences of belief.

Again it is evident in your words that parameters are necessary. You simply disagree with where they have been set, which is not how the SBC functions.

And you may think that this is what they think, but you are mistaken.

It is evident you need to revisit how the SBC functions.

 

A few thoughts:

1. You seem to suggest that there are certain doctrines that missionaries should be in agreement with. How do you suggest that the SBC state these doctrines? In a "statement of faith". It appears that your problem, then, is not that missionaries are being held to a standard but, rather, that they are being held to a standard that you disagree with. Am I close?

2. Historically, Baptists have not believed in a "priesthood of the believer". Rather, the historic, and biblical belief is in a "priesthood of ALL believers". The former phrase suggests a non-biblical egalitarianism (that is largely responsible for the leftward movement of the SBC through much of the 20th century). That latter phrase includes the understanding that we have a responsibility to each other. Accountability in doctrine would be included.

 

But J, you're not ordained or licensed in a denomination - you are ordained by a local church. Those churches cooperate to pool money through the SBC, but the SBC does not determine their doctrine.

I do agree that the SBC has the right to set parameters on the missionaries it sends. This issue is more complex, though, because many missionaries are serving in a very different SBC than the one that hired them.

In addition, churches (and even state conventions) are not unanimous in their support of the BF&M 2000. It would need to be a much broader document to represent the beliefs of all of those who still send money to the SBC.

Joshua

 

Good Point as always, Joshua. Some were hired (or sent to serve) under the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message.