News: List of missionaries fired by IMB revealed

Look, right now I work for Company-X. If I don't stand for the ideals and goals of Company-X, they have reason to release me. Why should they continue to pay a person who's not fully "on the team?"\

Same thing with these folks. Where does their pay and support come from? You can lay the issues as to why they didn't want to sign aside. The fact is if they don't reflect the ideals and goals of the body that sends them, they can be released.

It is a shame though, that they have to leave their place of ministry.

 

Stupid IMB!

 

As a member of a SBC I support them through the IMB. I am glad that the IMB is there to assess their teaching and adherance to doctrinal standards.

 

I guess now it's stupid to make sure the missionaries we pay are biblical in their teachings. Oh, no, let them be missionaries, who cares what they teach. If they don't want to sign to stay biblical in their teachings we don't need to be paying them. If they don't agree with what SB churchs believe, why are they working for them and taking their money? Why are they memebers of churchs they don't beleive what is being taught? If they oppose accountability then let them go it alone work and support themselves. Paul did it.

 

I'm in an SBC church and I didn't see or hear anything that stated they where teaching contrary to the bible. Contrary to the BF&M 2000 perhaps. (Therein lies the problem) But not all SBC churches agree with the BF&M 2000 so why should our missionaires be forced to accept something that ALL of our churches don't.

I repeat...stupid IMB

 

It's called accountability.
And no one fussed about it till they added no women preachers and husband is the head of the house.
I see a problem with that.

 

So what is wrong with the Baptist Faith and Message? I am afraid I big time disagree with go2 and Sherrie on this. If you want to be a SBC missionary then you do things their way. There is no rule saying they can't stay there as indepednent missionaries. Thousands of Southern Baptists give to the cooperative fund to support missionaries that believe what they believe. That is what the BF&M is about. If they refuse, then they shouldn't take the money either. BTW I am not SBC because there is no SBC here, but I am a fan of the SBC, or SBC's BF&M and was saved because of the ministry the SBC. I also was a SBC Summer Missionary 22 years ago.

 

I'm not SBC, and I don't like their missionary conglomeration. So I've always figured that anybody that doesn't like how the system works is free to go somewhere else.

 

And why doesn't it? You don't think missionaries should be acocuntable to those paying them? After all it's my money supporting them. Is it yours?

 

I wonder if there are so many different versions of christianity it is neccessary now. They all have a choice, sign or not, their choice.

 

Katie, Sherri,

I'm sure you are in agreement over "one gospel, one Christ."

It is true that the BF&M has been out for years, and there wasn't a problem agreeing with it until the gender comments were put back in. These comments, regardless of a persons feelings about them, are scriptural.

I'm sorry to say that I believe it was stubbornness on the part of the missionaries in this case that caused this. Did they really believe that an accountability document such as the BF&M was meant to be a priority document over the Word of God? That's what they contend, but at the bottom of it all, I think that's just the excuse they gave for not signing.

 

The missionaries are reflections of the church in general. In reality, there are several who, in their heart, don't hold to scripture in matters of the roles of men and women in the church.

 

I agree with USN2's comments. Likewise, let's get something straight, no one was required to "sign" the BF&M 2000. What they were required to sign was a statement saying that they would teach in agreement with and not contrary to the current BF&M. The IMB was willing for the various missionaries to hold their personal beliefs. All they had to do was agree not to teach contrary to the statements of faith found in the BF&M.

 

I BELIEVE the breakdown of those who refused and were let go was slightly more than 50% women. All in all, it was mostly couples. I wonder who wears the pants in 'those' families. We expect a deacon and pastor to be in control of their homes and should expect the same of a missionary.

Diane

 

You are using flawed logic here. All SBC Churches are autonomous and thus free to accept or reject whatever statement of faith they wish. However, all the other SBC Churches are equally free to determine whether or not to remain in association/cooperation/fellowship with churches they believe to be in doctrinal error. Likewise, the pastors and staff of churches that do not affirm the current BF&M are not employees of the SBC, IMB, or NAMB, etc. and do not receive their salaries from the SBC etc. Therefore, other SBC member churches (who agree with the current BF&M) can not demand that they teach according to the current BF&M.

Likewise, the majority of SBC Churches who sent messengers to the 2000 Convention affirmed and ratified the BF&M 2000. Additionally, the majority of SBC Churches affirm the BF&M 2000 and provide the majority of the funding for IMB missionaries. Therefore, they have the right to expect the SBC/IMB missionaries not to teach contrary to the current BF&M.