Baptism, Praying in Tongues & SBC

For those of you following the new International Mission Board policies about speaking in tongues as a prayer language and baptism, please notice the 'open letter' to the SBC from Wade Burleson over at Missional Baptist Blog.  This could turn out to be a big deal.

Wade is an IMB trustee and a pastor in Oklahoma. 

Comments

[David Wright]

Loved the picture.

[Scot McKnight]

You are the bomb!

[Marcguyver]

Holy smokes Steve, this has blown my mind!
So the SBC has already had on the books that you can't speak in tongues? I thought that was bad enough and now they're taking it to the level of removing your ability to even be a missionary?? Absurd just isn't a strong enough word to me.
Now, you're affiliated with the SBC right? Does your church have it's own doctrines, by-laws, mission statement etc?? Are you bound by these new rulings or even the old ones?

I think it's an understatement to reiterate what you said, "This could turn out to be a big deal."

[Trevin Wax]

Thanks Steve for keeping us informed on this issue. I was disappointed in both decisions, especially the Baptism issue. When I told a friend in our Baptist History class yesterday, he said, "Isn't that the Landmark position?"

[TJL]

WOW...i remember church planting with the SBC in 1997 (upstate NY) and we had some people come over from the AOG denom. and our sponsoring church (SBC) refused to recognize them as "members". the DOM was pretty adamant about re-baptizing them, etc. i refused to re-baptize them, they fired me 9 months into the church plant because i wouldn't sign a "cooperative agreement" that stated that i would only use SBC material, re-baptize non-SBC people, etc. it was crazy then...it's crazy now!!!

[Marty Duren]

Great pic, Steve.

[Jason]

This is what is stated on the IMB website:

The guideline establishes that candidates must have been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church of another denomination that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone.

Also, the baptism must not be viewed as sacramental or regenerative, and the church must embrace the doctrine of the security of the believer.

The guideline says the candidate is responsible to meet this doctrinal commitment. While the IMB candidate consultant should have a working knowledge of other denominational groups, the document says he is not expected to investigate every church.

[myles]

amazing. i heard about this and thought, "this is one more step towards the end." when you start excluding spiritual practices which the church has enjoyed for a thousand years, you're treading shallow water. and you know what happens with baptisms in shallow water.

ummm...they don't get baptized all the way and you have to reach down a long way...or something like that.

[justin]

Wow, I'm surprised too... I know so many "high-ranking" folks on the field who don't advocate these policy changes in their work at all.
The statement Jason just quoted is the one that I signed on under in '02. Sounds different from the "updated" version, though.

[Adam L. Feldman]

nice pic! lol.

[myles]

oh, and the SBC position on baptism follows the same line of reasoning as the classical schismatics of history: Novatians, Landmarkists, Marcionites, etc. to say that one's baptism hinges upon the qualification of the baptizer is to say that God is unable to move through an imperfect vessel. ridiculous.

[Ashlee]

Wow.. that's all I can say.

[iMonk]

I have delinked Steve from my site for not using the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Sorry.

[Steve McCoy]

That's just cruel. :)

[Benji Ramsaur]

I thought this statement from the First London Confession of Faith is good in the light of this recent development.

XLI

THE person designed by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scripture holds forth to be a disciple; it being no where tied to a particular church officer, or person extraordinarily sent the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.

Could someone please educate me on just how much freedom these men in the IMB have to impose things beyond the BF&M?

This development is very disturbing.

[Benji Ramsaur]

This move on the IMB's part is also interesting in the light of the recent book published on the Cooperative program. It is written by a professor at Southern and a professor at Southwestern and it calls for SBC'rs to "cooperate". But this move by the IMB seems to only make dissension worse in the SBC.

It would be one thing for Southern Baptists as a whole to adopt in our confession something in relation what the IMB has stated on tongues and Baptism. But to have this kind of decision made in the hands of a few seems very top down.

Again, very disturbed.

[Hershael W York]

I have posted a defense of the baptism policy. You might be interested in it. Tell others to read and comment. I don't mind disagreement at all, but I am curious to hear what it actually is. I haven't really read much that deals honestly with the historical Baptist issues.

[Steve McCoy]

For all interested, Hershael's post is here, and I have a post/conversation on this at Missional Baptist Blog.