Thanks, Micah. I am glad to see new voices joining the call for change on this issue. I’ll definitely sign!

Alan-

Like yourself, this has been the key issue that has driven me the past few years on a national level. I’m glad to see it has not been forgotten.

Now let’s pray that it makes a difference.

I signed it too.

Les

I’m curious as to how you would see this should be addressed: I don’t imagine cocaine is a major problem among Southern Baptist missionaries, but could a Southern Baptist missionary be a cocaine user? Obviously, if he were in the U.S., there are laws against such things, and the BF&M Article XVII about submitting to civil authorities could be invoked. But (and I don’t know anything about international laws, but for the sake of argument) if he were serving in a country where there were no such law, and since the BF&M does not directly address the use of cocaine, can/should the IMB just shrug its shoulders and say there is nothing they can do?

Dennis-

I’m not sure how that comes into play in this discussion. The IMB currently addresses that probably sufficiently.

Isn’t the issue that the IMB is trying to impose restrictions that go beyond the BF&M? So my admittedly offbeat example is asking, since the BF&M doesn’t address cocaine use, can the IMB not address that issue more directly? And if they can address that issue more directly, can they not then establish a similar policy forbidding beverage alcohol use?

Whoops, clicked Submit too soon. Add this to my previous comment.

Or “charismatic”-like worship practices? Or anything, really, that might be seen as a potential problem for reflecting Christ and the SBC both in the mission field and to all observers?

Dennis-

No that is technically incorrect. The issue is that the IMB is imposing restrictions that the BF&M does not deal with, but more importantly, which many of us feel are untenable as biblical interpretations. The major issue for me, for instance, is the baptism interpretation. The IMB guidelines require more, in regards to baptism, than scripture seems to require. This was brought home, all the more, when we had to rebaptize our Youth Pastor at my last church because the IMB found his baptism unacceptable. He was a Midwestern grad who was a member in good standing at an SBC church and also a paid staff member and yet the IMB found him unnacceptable because the evangelical denomination where his baptism was performed believed in loss of salvation.

As to the PPL question, the IMB is imposing restrictions that the BF&M doesn’t deal with and which are often debated in some SBC circles. As it is an area of unknown, the private prayer life of the candidate should not be a topic of discussion, in our opinion.

This really isn’t a BF&M issue, per se, although that plays a part in the discussion.

PS: I’m off to staff meeting now so it may be a while before I can continue the discussion.

I’m trying to understand the distinction….

So this statement is indicating a disagreement with the IMB over these two specific restrictions, and not with the IMB’s ability to set up restrictions that may be outside of the topics addressed by the BF&M. Would that be more correct?

This baptism issue is interesting. Do you (does anyone) know what prompted it to be put forward in the first place?

Dennis-

This statement is primarily stating disagreement over these two policy changes, yes. That’s not to say that those involved wouldn’t like the board to be more selective in regards to policies that go beyond the BF&M because that would also be correct. This statement, however, deals specifically with these two policies.

The board currently has a number of policies that deal with issues not covered by the BF&M. The prohibition against tobacco use, alcohol use, a body-fat percentage requirement, etc. I’ve heard no complaints about those issues. These issues, however, deal specifically with issues that both fall outside the BF&M and are also highly debated within SBC life.

Now to answer your final question, I really don’t know. That’s the confusing issue here. We were told that there were problems with people performing some sort of inappropriate baptisms, as I remember it. The problem for me is that both in my time as an IMB missionary as well as my conversations with IMB missionaries I have yet to find anyone who knows of any widespread problems. The PPL issue is another confusing one. The IMB already had policies in place regarding the charismatic gifts and according to the testimony of every missionary I know or have talked to, there were no significant examples of charismatic practices being promoted on the field. If that is true, and the previous IMB policies were sufficiently dealing with aberrant doctrine, then why the need to restrict otherwise capable and qualified people from serving? It doesn’t make sense.

That’s very strange. Without addressing a real problem, or trying to avoid a real potential problem, it sounds very arbitrary. And since the results have been disharmonious, it doesn’t seem like a very good decision. I guess my concern is that the reaction doesn’t prevent (directly or indirectly) SBC organizations from being able to make any decisions that don’t happen to be covered by the rather limited topics of the BF&M.

Thanks, Micah.

Micah,
Thanks for signing on. Do you think any current trustees will sign on? What about current missionaries?

Camel-

I think the answer to your question is twofold. First, as to sitting trustees the answer is undoubtedly no. If you will remember they passed a policy a little while back making it against Board policy to publicly criticize a decision made by the Board. They have effectively limited any sitting trustee from publicly affiliating with this statement.

As to current missionaries, David Rogers has already signed on. Now, to be fair, he’s not been quiet in the past about his opposition to the policies and so he is not a surprise. Other than David, I would be surprised if many do simply out of fear of reprisal. It’s sad but that’s the state we’re in right now.