News: Missionary couple challenges IMB's grounds for termination

Thank you, rsr and edifier. That was the point I was trying to make.

 

I have been recipient of SBC phariseeism before, like it appears this couple is. Here is my reply:

=================================================

DOCTRINE AND UNITY

Some who serve the Lord, in dealing with doctrinal differences, remember that they must, as the saying goes, Keep the main thing the main thing. They know that too many times, God's work has gone undone simply because those who truly are His children refuse to accept and work with others who are equally His children through Christ. They are able to not hold as pre-eminent their non-essential points of doctrine for the sake of the weightier matters of the gospel. These know that they can have a united front on the many tenants which are unanimous among them. They do not fruitlessly quarrel over non-essentials—especially in the watching eyes of a dying world.

These also know that hoards of people are dying daily and falling into an eternal damnation that is utterly horrible beyond full description, but that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world to die on the cross, and wills rather to save them. These faithfully tell and send others to tell of Him and relate with their brethren in such a way as not to add to the number being daily damned.

Others (who may or may not belong to the Lord), rather than serving the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, serve the god of the Doctrine of their Denomination—a religion that the Scribes and Pharisees, if they were here today, would be well pleased with. And that is just the problem. They are here today, only in a different time, under different names, worshiping sometimes different doctrines.

The Scribes and Pharisees sacrificed the work of the kingdom of God—namely, to bring the Name of God to all the Gentiles—to their god of Doctrinal Correctness. They erected as pre-eminent the non-essentials in lieu of the weightier matters of the law. Truly, in their thinking, if they could just believe every point of doctrine right, they would themselves be right. And it was into this heretical religion that the Son of God pronounced his most scathing rebukes.

Tragically, as a result of their continued impenitence, they were cut off and tragically disinherited from being the agency of God's Name upon the earth. Jesus warned them this would happen: "I tell you, the kingdom of God will be torn from you and given to a nation bearing the fruit thereof."

Today, the situation is often little different. Present day Scribes and Pharisees sacrifice the work of the kingdom of God—namely to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all the nations—to their own god of Doctrinal Correctness. They erect as pre-eminent the non-essentials in lieu of the weightier matters of the gospel. In their thinking, too, if they can just believe every point of doctrine right, they will themselves be right. If Christ were here today, I fear that He would be similarly mirroring many of His scathing rebukes toward them. It is terrifying to think how these, like the Scribes and Pharisees of old, will likewise be cut off and tragically disinherited from being the agency of Christ's Name on the earth. Indeed, if these continue in their impenitence, God will be forced to raise up others to keep New Testament Christianity alive on the earth. Jesus similarly warns them, as those of old, "Say not, 'We are children of Abraham;' for I tell you, God is able even from these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

Let’s be of the former group. The Lord and the world await our united response.

-----------------------------------------------

ANTRHO HOLDS COPYRIGHT

 

It seems to me that most of you have missed the point. The SBC has the right to fund or not to fund anyone they wish. It has nothing to do with whether someone is called or not. If you wish to remain in their organization, follow their rules and guidelines. If you don't want to follow their rules and guidelines, get out and quit complaining. How simple is that? This is not an argument about whether you believe the same way that they do or not. It is simply, Believe the same way we do or get your funding from someone else.

 

I missed your excellent exposition of Scripture regarding single women missionaries?

KPBAP, can you point out where the Scripture indicates that people receive the mystical "call" before they know what to do in life?

 

Anthro, unity is based on revealed truth. I realize it is a difficult truth for libs to swallow, but it is nonetheless true.

Consider Eph. 4. Paul gives several reasons why they need to PRESERVE unity. He did not say to create unity.

 

Since we have reached page 3, the closing time bell is now ringing. This thread will be closed by one of the Moderators no earlier than 1:00 a.m. ET, so feel free to post your closing comments.

(I intend to be at that hour, though.)

SheEagle9/11
Moderator

 

Obviously, but Scripture is quite clear in, for example, Philippians, and in Corinthians where Paul "delivers what is of first importance," over the fact the there can be diversity among the unity of the Spirit. The point is that we DO NOT preserve it, but bust it up over non-essentials, often quite tirvial ones at that--the greater sin, without question, and the point of my piece. And we can go about re-building in practical affairs what we wrongly broke up.

 

You are saying that, just because someone holds the power of the purse, they can do whatever the heck they want to pretty much. Moreover, you are arguing that the SBC and IMB have the right to be Pharisaical. That is plain horifying as this post will show.

The point is that that can be whimsical and based upon might (via purse strings) and not right. The point is that termination can be for things that are not called for. Unity cannot really exist apart from some diversity. Unity does not mean clean uniformity.

This SBC action is extremely sad, though not in the slightest surprising to me. It takes on the air of a trial before the Diet of Worms, frankly.

http://www.luther.de/bilder/lu_worms.jpg

****edited for excessive graphic size (BB rules)**** (SheEagle9/11)****

Removal for bona-fide heresy, as that is Biblically defined (which pertains foremost to Christology) is one thing, but removal for a position on women's leadership, when strong Scriptural cases can be made for it in some women's cases, smacks of Pharisaism to the core. As best I can tell, the Apostle who fought the strongest against heretical notions of Chrsitology in the early Church, John, also addressed a whole book to a woman leader in 2 John, which, btw, addressed matters of Christology to her, so she would not allow true heretics to address her spiritual children under her (with her being under John) in her house church.

But again, none of this is in the slightest surprising to me. I was once recipient of SBC Pharisaism over the fact that I was following sound, sound missiology to evangelize in missions contextually, instead of doing thumping confrontive evangelism with 4-point booklets that was moving people AWAY, FAR, FAR away from the gospel.

I had a rigged trial I went to at the hands of the SBC Pharisees where everything was all done and decided before I even went in.

Honestly, it was an extremely sad thing, and some of the best and soundest missiologists in the world backed up my position. But only myself, and five SBC oligarchical Pharisees who had connived for weeks together in private beforehand, could speak at my trial, of course.

As the history of Southern Baptists are REPLETE with (e.g. with slavery), they later changed some over the very thing they once fought for on supposed Biblical grounds with me in the trial! I will spare you the rehash of SBC history along these lines that indicates this to be a long, sad, sad thread of continuity among them.

Sad we do not seem to ever learn like we should. Then again, when SBC and IMB polity is oligarchic, as it is, little else can be expected. An oligarchical polity inevitably breeds Pharisaicalism by its very nature.

My prayer is that this couple will say something along these lines at their own trial:

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."

My prayer is the the IMB and SBC will see that they are, in fact, similar in spirit and deed to the popes and councils that Luther faced, and repent before they continue to go the way of their pharisaical predecessors, thus repeating their predecessors' history and meeting their same spiritually tragic end. "For," as Paul forewarned the Church at Rome,

[ April 25, 2003, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: SheEagle9/11 ]