The experts say that he probably was! I agree and you can vote as well. See the poll listed in my sidebar. To hear about from the experts, take a look at the video below. 

In a welcome turn of events, Don Hinkle is reporting that as he understands it, the Missouri Baptist Convention is going to work to continue funding at least one of the Acts 29 churches that it had appeared to have cut ties with. He states that MBC ExComm members, and Dr. David Tolliver both want to fulfill their previously made commitments. That is welcome and good news! Don Hinkle is one of my favorite people in MBC life. I have never, in fact, had a conversation with him that I did not thoroughly enjoy. I disagree with him at times, but I have found him to be an extremely thoughtful, well spoken individual who I very much enjoy knowing. Having said that, I do have a few questions about the rest of the post.

Don continues his post by saying that one of the churches - Karis Community, I believe - may or may not continue to receive funding. If this is true, I think it is appropriate to ask why one will continue to receive funding and the other will potentially not?

Finally, Hinkle makes a comment that I find interesting. Hinkle says,

I also believe the convention is not that far from peace. Now that the Acts 29 issue has been settled I think the prospect for a peace — leading to much-needed unity — is within our reach. I heard many board members say Dec. 10 that they feel healing has begun. There will no doubt be attempts by people who hate us to disrupt that process. We are theological conservatives and while we may not agree on every theological issue, we agree on the essentials and the need for us to continue to work together and support one of the greatest missions-giving operations ever created — the Cooperative Program.

I think there are a couple problems with that statement.

First, in my mind the Acts 29 issue is far from settled. While I love my MBC brethren, and I am hopeful that we can find a better resolution in the future, I also believe that if those who made this decision are of the opinion that we who disagree will simply fade into the background now, because their decision is finalized, they are sadly mistaken. This decision is a blow to biblical faithfulness, in my opinion, and as such cannot be left alone. My commitment to the sufficiency of God’s word and my commitment to living under its authority alone, will not allow me to simply sit idly by. To believe that this issue is settled appears to be naive, it seems to me.

Secondly, to claim that “we are theological conservatives and while we may not agree on every theological issue, we agree on the essentials and the need for us to continue to work together and support one of the greatest missions-giving operations ever created — the Cooperative Program.” after having just watched us cut ties with a faithful church planting organization and commit to pulling Cooperate Program funds from effective Southern Baptist churches, seems to be a strange statement. I agree with Don that the CP is the greatest funding mechanism in existence, but I am of the opinion that this recent decision stands in stark contrast to everything he has claimed in that statement. Rather than theological conservatives rallying around essentials, we are pulling apart over non-essentials. We will need further clarification for this “healing” to occur. Healing, in my opinion, cannot occur until there is a coming together by both parties. In this instance, it appears that one side is pulling away and then asking that we come over to them so that healing may occur. I’m sorry, but I am not as confident that we will see that happen.

So today has brought good news and then some questions as well. We will have to wait and see what continues to happen.

These kind of quizzes really have no lasting value, but they are a fun little exercise to participate in. I find it a bit disconcerting that Augustine finished so far down the totem pole, if you will, but I take great satisfaction that Charles Finney is also far down the list. Thank goodness for that!

You scored as Karl Barth, The daddy of 20th Century theology. You perceive liberal theology to be a disaster and so you insist that the revelation of Christ, not human experience, should be the starting point for all theology. Karl Barth 93% Anselm 93% John Calvin 80% Martin Luther 80% Jonathan Edwards 80% Friedrich Schleiermacher 53% Charles Finney 40% Jürgen Moltmann 33% Augustine 20% Paul Tillich 7% Which theologian are you? created with QuizFarm.com

HT: Les Puryear

…but here’s what the move by the IMB Trustees sounds like to me.

“We don’t want to admit we made a mistake - and in our mind we haven’t made a mistake - but those doggone bloggers have stirred things up and forced a response, so instead of policies we’ll just call these “guidelines” and everything will essentially remain the same and maybe those who are causing “trouble” in the convention will be quiet now.”

I sincerely hope that I’m wrong and that this move will allow us to become more “flexible”, as the IMB’s legal counsel termed it, in regards to those who have been biblically baptized but who have previously been found unacceptable to the IMB, but again, I am not hopeful. This really sounds like an attempt to keep everything the same while trying to also appease the “troublemakers” who keep stirring the waters.

For a complete copy of the official policy approved by the IMB Board of Trustees, see below.

Report of the Mission Personnel Ad Hoc Committee
May 2007

In March of 2006 an ad hoc committee of Mission Personnel Committee received the charge to revisit the approved board policy on tongues and prayer language and the approved board guideline on baptism, both adopted in November 2005. The ad hoc committee has met over the past year during board meetings as well as a two-day special meeting to consider the vast amount of material gathered from leaders, scholars, and pastors across our denomination. The committee solicited this material in an attempt to be faithful to its task. The committee has also spent considerable time praying, fasting, and seeking God’s heart on these issues. The committee has no desire to create further controversy. Rather, our desire is to bring this study to completion and allow the board to maintain its focus upon our world mission task.

The ad hoc committee has concluded that even though field related data and consultation with regional leaders has not indicated a systemic problem with charismatic practices among field personnel, the rapid spread of neo-pentecostalism and its pressure exacted on the new churches in various regions of the world warrants a concern for the clear Baptist identity of our missionary candidates. Furthermore, the diversity of denominational backgrounds among missionary candidates requires a clear baptism guideline to guide the work of our candidate consultants as they consider the qualifications of candidates.

Therefore, we recommend that the full board adopt the following two guidelines to replace Policy 200-15 and Guideline 200-3a. The Mission Personnel Committee approved this recommendation on March 20, 2007 by a three-fourths majority.

Guideline on Tongues and Prayer Language

GLOSSOLALIA

1. The New Testament speaks of a gift of glossolalia that generally is considered to be a legitimate language.
2. The New Testament expression of glossolalia as a gift had specific uses and conditions for its exercise in public worship.
3. In terms of worship practices, if glossolalia is a public part of the candidate’s current practice and it does not fall within the definitions of Parts 1 & 2 above, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.

PRAYER LANGUAGE

1. Any spiritual experience must be tested by Scriptures.
2. New Testament teaching is that prayer is to be made with understanding.
3. The board is not persuaded that ecstatic utterance as a prayer language is a valid expression of the New Testament teaching on prayer.
4. Therefore, if an “ecstatic utterances as a prayer language” is a part of the candidate’s current practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.

APPLICATION

1. This guideline is not retroactive.
2. Any exceptions to the above guideline must be reviewed by the staff and the Mission Personnel Committee.

Proposed Guideline on Baptism

THAT each candidate’s baptismal experience be examined, during the application process, in light of the Baptist Faith and Message statement and the points listed below:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper. 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VII

POINTS TO BE COVERED DURING THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS

1. The individual

a. Believer’s baptism by immersion.
Baptism by immersion follows salvation.
b. Baptism is symbolic, picturing the experience of the believer’s death to sin and resurrection to a new life in Christ.
Baptism does not regenerate.

2. The Church

a. Baptism is a church ordinance.

Baptism must take place under the authority of a local church that practices believer’s baptism alone, embraces the doctrine of the security of a believer’s salvation and does not view baptism as sacramental, regenerative or essential to salvation.

b. A candidate who has not been baptized under the authority of a local church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his or her Southern Bapist church.

3. The Candidate

The candidate is responsible for requesting their home church to assist them in meeting this doctrinal commitment to the above points.

4. The Consultant

While the candidate consultant should have a working knowledge of many denominational groups, he or she is not expected to investigate every church.

APPLICATION

1. The guideline is not retroactive.
Any exception to the above guideline must be reviewed by staff and the Mission Personnel Committee.

The IMB will be meeting for their next scheduled trustee board meeting during the week of May 6th. This is important to me for a couple of reasons. First, the meeting is being held about 30 minutes from my home which means I will be able to attend at least a portion of the meetings as well as take my church to the Wednesday evening commissioning service. The commissioning service is being held at Pleasant Valley Baptist Church whose pastor, Vernon Armitage, is serving in a mentoring role for me right now. One of our church’s most faithful families is in process with the IMB, and is in fact in Richmond this week taking part in interviews, medical reviews, etc. and as such our church has become keenly aware of the work of the IMB an!
d so we’re really looking forward to attending the commissioning service. Beyond that, however, I am looking forward with anticipation to hearing the report of the trustee’s in response to the motion made at last year’s Annual Meeting that was referred back to the trustees. They have not dealt with this as of yet and as they must give a report at the annual meeting in June and as this is the last trustee meeting prior to the annual meeting, I am operating under the assumption that they will determine some course of action at this meeting. [For background see articles here, here, here & here]

I have heard a series of ideas about what will come out of this meeting in regards to the IMB’s current policies about Private Prayer Language and Baptism. From one source who is fairly close to the situation I was told that they have determined that the theological underpinning of said policies is weak and as such will be abolishing the policies at the meeting. I heard this and was excited. More recently, however, I was told that the more probable course of action would be to develop a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, at least in regards to the PPL policy and in both cases the policies will stay on the books, but will essentially be neutered by new wording. I don’t know if either of these is true, or if neither of them is true, but it has caused me to think a little.

Let’s assume that the BoT chooses to leave the policies as they are. There will be no changes, for the sake of this discussion. What will that do to our churches who have opposed them as unbiblical? Our church set an interesting precedent last year when we took our Cooperative Program giving and split it in half and sent half through the normal channels and took the other half and sent it directly to the Executive Committee to be dispersed through the CP in that manner. We did so in response to what we believe is an exorbitant amount of CP dollars withheld by state conventions as a whole, but particularly by our state convention. The beauty of that action was that it was our effort, as an autonomous Southern Baptist congregation, to rectify an inequity in the amount of SBC dollars going on the mission field as opposed to being overlapped with other SBC dollars (i.e. NAMB, local association, our church & state convention) to do the work her!
e in our “backyard”. In other words, we exercised our independence to follow what we believed to be the best course of action.

In the case of the IMB and their more stringent policies, what will you do if the policies remain? I’ve thought about this much lately. I have been holding out hope that the policies would change and that has driven me. However, in all honesty, I have a feeling that our church will continue to support, albeit with reservation, the efforts of the IMB regardless of the trustee’s decision. We would do this for a number of reasons. First, we would do so because we sincerely believe (and this has been confirmed to me by multiple persons from within the IMB) that there is a huge difference between an IMB personnel member, and a trustee. In other words, much of the IMB staff simply do not share a kinship with the trustees when it comes to these two issues. Secondly, the task of world evangelization is simply too large. We will not stop supporting the most significant missionary force in the history of humanity over these issues. As much as these issues are grievous to me, and as un!
fortunately unbiblical as we believe that they are, we believe that the value of those who are dying apart from Christ to be more significant than this disagreement.

As with our church’s decision in regards to the division of CP funds, the trump card that will drive our decision making will ultimately be the spread of the Kingdom of God through the proclamation of the gospel. That single, ultimate purpose is superior to all other issues in my opinion. That said, that certainly does not mean that we will simply support quietly. We will continue to raise tremendous questions about the validity of these, and any other, policies that we view to be grossly unbiblical. We will not allow decisions like this to be made without accountability. We will, however, choose partnership for the pursuit of the gospel over and above any other issue of importance.

That’s my take on our response to this issue. I’m curious to hear yours. Just how far is too far? How will your church respond if the policies remain intact?

…and it’s a very good message. The following quote is taken from his book, “A Hill on Which to Die.” The specific section is found on pages 296-297.

Grave problems still confront Southern Baptists, however. One is the bureaucracy of the convention. I once wondered how local, independent, Bible-believing churches in the first century developed into the Roman Catholic Church. After observing the manner in which the bureaucracy grew in the Southern Baptist Convention in a very short time, I no longer wonder. The main danger of a bureaucracy is that it becomes an end in itself and not a means to effectuate the principles for which it was founded. History shows us that a bureaucracy, whether political, religious, or business, ends up seeking additional perks for itself and additional favors for those in the bureaucracy. It becomes loaded with individuals whose only qualification is that they have been loyal to the system and, therefore, are rewarded by being placed in the bureaucracy when they fail elsewhere.

The “good ol’ boy” system evidently started years ago. Liberals developed under this system, because the liberals were careful not to voice their extreme positions publicly (with a few exceptions) and were careful to pay their dues to the system. Such a system must not be allowed to develop under conservative leadership. We must guard against a reinstallation of a “good ol’ boy” system under which anything could occur as long as it didn’t harm the bureaucracy.

I fear bureaucratic control and domination.

Judge Pressler is absolutely correct. As we prepare for San Antonio there are a plethora of events that will command our attention. Whether it be the issue of Private Prayer languages, the issue(s) with Southwestern Seminary, the IMB policy on baptism, etc. I would encourage you, however, that possibly the greatest problem that we must consider, and quite probably the quickest and most successful method of reform that we can encourage is the abolition of a tight circle of convention power. Our convention has been led by good men for a series of years now, but it’s been good men engaged in a tight circle of leadership. That must go away. Below I’ve dug up some research about the candidates for SBC president and the men who nominated them over the past decade or so. It’s a telling pattern.

Feb. 3, 1998 - James Merritt agrees to nominate Paige Patterson as President of the SBC. Patterson serves two, one year terms.

Feb. 9, 2000 - Jack Graham agrees to nominate James Merritt as President of the SBC. Merritt serves two, one year terms.

Feb. 4, 2002 - Johnny Hunt agrees to nominate Jack Graham as President of the SBC. Graham serves two, one year terms.

Feb. 20, 2004 - Johnny Hunt agrees to nominate Bobby Welch as President of the SBC. Welch serves two, one year terms.

Feb. 7, 2006 - Johnny Hunt is “anointed” as THE conservative candidate for President of the SBC. After much hoopla over his candidacy, he withdraws his name from consideration and Frank Page is elected over two other candidates. Page is up for reelection in San Antonio. [additional link here]

None of these men are bad men, in fact I’m convinced that they’re wonderful men. I also believer, however, that they have been part of an all too tight leadership group [see this article]. Be prepared, while in San Antonio, to continue the pattern begun last summer of requiring the Convention as a whole to reverse this trend.

One further article, that is telling, is this article [click here] that describes the process of nominating Missouri pastor, Gerald Davidson, to the position of 1st Vice President. Notice in particular, Bailey Smith’s choice of words; specifically that he declares that “we have decided” that Davidson will be the next 1st VP of the SBC. That kind of thinking must come to an end for the convention to prosper and flourish.

I have been critical, at times, of The Pathway (our Missouri Baptist Convention state paper) and its coverage of The Journey Church and Roger Moran’s critique of the JC and the Emerging Church movement as a whole. I’ve said that wholesale condemnation of the entire EC movement is difficult to pursue simply because the EC movement is incredibly more broad than most who dislike it seem to grasp. The Pathway, however, in their most recent edition has done a much better job of chronicling the controversy over The JC. I would encourage you to read it. You can find it here.