One more post on Baptism and the IMB (posted primarily so I don't hijack my brother's blog comment stream).

On the issue of Baptism and eternal security, I submit once again that a baptism should not be disqualified because of a lack of belief in the doctrine of eternal security (or because of what they believe about Baptism of the Holy Spirit, or any number of other doctrines). Thomas White, in a White Paper for the Center for Theological Research at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary made the following summary statement on the validity of baptism: “The determining factor is the ordinance itself. Was the ordinance performed with the proper subject, in the proper mode, and with the proper meaning by a true church? If so, then it is valid” (White 2006, 10). In most cases, for a person baptized by immersion in an Arminian church, the answer to all four questions is “YES.”

A person who disagrees with my statement can show me all kinds of beliefs from the AG or any other Arminian denomination that are in error and I would agree with them. I am a Baptist, afterall, because I believe Baptist doctrine. The fact that other doctrines are in error still does not change the fact that their view of water baptism is identical to ours. When I was baptized, I could have readily affirmed the BFM statement on Baptism, as could almost any Arminian who practices believer's baptism. Yet, some want to argue that one's entire doctrine must be correct for baptism to be valid. If you believe that, then it's time for YOU to be re-baptized :)

If baptism is a picture of salvation, then only two doctrines must be correct for their baptism to be valid: (1) They must have a correct view of salvation. Few would suggest that Arminians teach a false gospel (for those who do, I have addressed that issue here). (2) They must have a proper view of baptism. (Note to Baptist Theologue, I have already demonstrated that such is the case, but you seem unwilling to accept their stated view.) Let me be clear. My view on Baptism is no different now than it was when I wrongly denied eternal security. I will not submit to rebaptism nor require anyone else to do so merely because some other pastor, denominational leader, or trustee claims I or my former church did not believe what we in fact DO believe.

Further, while I do not expect all Baptists to agree with me on this, although they should because it is the biblical position :), I DO expect the Convention to support my right and my church’s right to differ on this view and to send missionaries through the mission board that we fund. If the belief that a denial of eternal security negates baptism is one that is important enough to disallow missionary service, it is important enough to put in the BFM, and important enough to disassociate my church.

Some have related the IMB trustees’ response to the differing views on baptism to its response to differing views of divorce. Namely, that the IMB does not allow divorcees to serve as full time missionaries. I do not know enough about the history or rationale of the divorce policy or any possible actions at the Convention level related to it to offer informed commentary on it at this point. However, I could envision a scenerio in which divorced persons are denied service on the pragmatic grounds much like they deny service of persons with high a Body Mass Index or certain medical concerns. If the trustees have based that decision on doctrinal grounds, however, and if the Convention has not spoken to the issue elsewhere, then I suppose I would add the divorce policy to the list of IMB personnel policies that should be reversed. Indeed, the Convention acknowledges there is no consensus on the issue. They also list a number of other doctrinal issues on which Baptists have not taken a stand. I do not think it is proper for the mission board trustees to make policy decisions on any of such issues, regardless of any perceived consensus among Southern Baptists. Doctrinal issues must be decided at the Convention level, not by trustees.

Back to the BFM… I think it is certainly demonstrable, that the BFM has intentionally left out certain tertiary doctrines (on tertiary doctrines see Mohler, “Theological Triage”). The BFM statement on election, for example, is intentionally worded to allow for varying opinions including Calvinism. The statement on end times is intentionally worded to allow for various views on the millennium and tribulation, etc. While Baptist polity allows for the IMB trustees to set their own policies, one should not support the Trustees if they were to set a personnel policy that disallowed Calvinists or Dispensationalists or people who preached from the NIV from serving with the Board? Incidently, the same poll that demonstrated a majority view on Baptism, showed a majority are concerned about the rise of Calvinism. Should Calvinist missionary candidates be worried that they may be the next target of IMB personnel policies? Let’s hope not. The poll shows that one fourth of SBC pastors do not practice the rebaptism of Arminians – a view allowed by the BFM. The IMB should not be making doctrinal policies at all, except those that are consistent with the BFM2000 – the consensus document of our Convention and the basis for Southern Baptist cooperation.

Blessings,

Todd

Upholding the Right of the Minorty View -- The Impact of the Lifeway Study on the IMB Policies

Well, the folks at SBCToday have already started using the new Lifeway study to support the IMB baptism policy. I have posted a response on their blog and am re-posting my thoughts on my own blog as well. In response to Tim Rogers, and anyone else who supports the IMB policy, I would argue three things here in response to the Lifeway study as it relates to the IMB policy:

One, I would argue that the 74% figure (i.e. those who would re-baptize someone previously baptized in a church that did not affirm eternal security) shows that the majority of Baptist pastors have an insufficient view of baptism or a misinformed understanding of Arminian theology or both (see my previous posts on this). On what basis, other than Baptist tradition, do we require rebaptism? If baptism means what we say that it means in the Baptist Faith and Message, then there is no grounds to rebaptize a born-again believer who has been immersed after conversion to Christ.

Two, 26% is a significant enough minority to demonstrate that the IMB personnel guidelines are a excessive. The guidelines go well beyond the BFM2000. Our statement of faith allows for this minority view. To restrict missionary service in this way goes against the practice of 1/4 of our SBC churches. That is no small minority. Thus, the personnel policy concerning baptism should be reversed.

Finally, the fact that a majority hold a particular doctrinal opinion, does not mean that those who hold that position wish to restrict missionary service to only those who agree with them. Lifeway studies have shown that 90% of SBC pastors are not Calvinist and 63% are “concerned” with the rise of Calvinism in the Convention. If one reasons that the Baptism policy is appropriate because it reflects the majority opinion, the IMB should hurry up and add Calvinists to the list of faithful Southern Baptists who cannot serve on the mission field.

Contrary to the folks at SBC Today, the new Lifeway study shows not that the IMB policy should be upheld, but rather that it should be reversed.

Blessings,

Todd

Believer's Baptism by Immersion -- I thought we believed this

I find the new Baptism survey staggering. If I am reading the survey correctly, a full 87 percent of Baptist pastors hold a faulty or deficient view of baptism. What we say that we believe in the BFM2000 is not what we practice in reality.

Some pastors it appears, view Baptism too narrowly. According to the study, 74% of our pastors would re-baptize someone because their church does not believe in eternal security. Among them, a full 16% would rebaptize someone from another Southern Baptist church!

This reflects, in many cases, a misunderstanding and unbiblical view of Baptism. First, Baptism is not biblically related to eternal security.[1] Persons are not baptized because they believe in correct Baptist doctrine or because they have a sound understanding of soteriology. Rather, they are baptized because they have repented of their sins and placed their faith in Jesus Christ. A person who has, after conversion to Christ, been immersed “symbolizing [their] 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”[2] have indeed been scripturally baptized. There is no call to re-baptize someone because they have come to a more biblical understanding of the security of the believer. Granted, some have argued that a person who does not believe in eternal security has a deficient faith and is trusting in a “works” salvation (thus the need to be rebaptized). This view, however, demonstrates a misunderstanding of Arminianism and its rejection of eternal security. I have argued against this misunderstanding elsewhere[3] and am, frankly, disappointed at the willful ignorance of pastors on this issue. I am not surprised, however, because similar false doctrinal assertions are made against our 5-point Calvinist brothers because they misunderstand and distort the Calvinist view (which, incidently, seems evident from the other part of the Lifeway study). In any case, the idea that Baptism is tied to eternal security rather than on conversion shows either a misunderstanding of baptism or a misunderstanding of Arminianism, or both.

Second, Baptism, while an ordinance of the local church, is not confined in its application to the particular local church in which the Baptism was performed. While baptism is indeed a “prerequisite to the privileges of church membership,”[4] baptism is not an ordinance that is to be repeated in each local church. There is no evidence in the New Testament of a Christian being re-baptized at all, let alone for joining a new local assembly.[5] While it was a small percentage, a significant number of SBC pastors would require rebaptism of persons coming from a church of like faith and practice – even another SBC church. This view, again, demonstrates a faulty view of baptism.

While these first two groups have understood baptism too narrowly, it seems another group has understood the ordinance too broadly. The study also reported that 13 percent of Southern Baptist pastors said they would not require baptism of someone baptized in a church that believed in baptismal regeneration, 3 percent of Southern Baptist pastors said they would not require baptism of someone not baptized by immersion, and 1 percent of Southern Baptist pastors said they would not require baptism. Thankfully, these are minority positions. I should not have to argue to my Baptist readers that scriptural baptism is (1) believer’s baptism, (2) by immersion, and (3) symbolic rather than salvific. I thought this was a Baptist distinctive.

Again, I find this a significant problem in our application of Baptist theology. A small percentage seem to be accepting ANY baptism as valid. A larger percentage view only baptism performed by Baptists is valid. Only 26%, it seems, embrace the thoroughly biblical view that baptism is the symbolic immersion of a believer. Some accept a baptism whether or not is was symbolic. Others accept a baptism whether or not it was by immersion. Many reject the baptism of a believer, merely because that believer was not a Baptist. All of these are a distortion of baptism as pictured in the New Testament. Whether understood too broadly or too narrowly, who knew that the denomination that is most readily identified with their view baptism would by and large not fully embrace biblical believer’s baptism.

---

[1] Tom Ascol makes this point in his 2006 blog post.

[2] BFM2000, section VII, “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper”

[3]For an Arminian perspective of this issue see the Assembly of God position paper on eternal security here.

[4] BFM2000, section VII, “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper”

[5] Appeal to the rebaptism of the Ephesian believers in Acts 19 is not an example of the kind of rebaptism we are talking of here. Their initial baptism was not a Christian baptism at all because they had not been “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” Acts 19:5 (NASB). Rather, in terms of Christian baptism, they were being baptized for the first time.

.

More thoughts on the IMB restructuring

In my last post, I focused on the change that is still needed at the IMB. However, I do not want in my dissatisfaction with the personnel policies -- which is a MAJOR issue in my opinion -- to ignore the very positive change this restructuring represents.

This new change at the IMB is positive for two reasons, both of which have been addressed well by other bloggers. I will offer a brief comment, then refer you to these two blog posts.

From a missiological perspective, the new structure simply makes sense. The policy both frees missionaries to use the methods and strategies that most effectively win the people whom they are trying to reach and completes the shift in focus from a regional to a cultural one. For a more detailed response from a missiological perspective, see the recent blog post from missiolgist, David Sills.

From a SBC politics standpoint, the change seems to indicate a willingness to hear from and support the administration at the IMB including its president, Jerry Rankin. Also, the wording of the core values, on its surface, gives a glimmer of hope that the pendulum may be swinging back to a more cooperative conservatism. In my opinion, the sure sign that this change is a reality and not just words will be the reversal of the personnel policies (but you can read my other post for that). The now somewhat infamous Wade Burleson, the point man of the IMB trustee controversy, has posted his positive take on the recent trustee meeting. While I think that Pastor Burleson has not always chosen his words wisely in the past, his current post is well worth reading.

In anycase, my assessment of the recent change is this:

New Mission, Vision, Core Values --> GOOD!!!
New Strategies that stem from them --> GOOD!!!
New attitude of cooperation --> Promising
Reversal of the personnel policies --> still waiting...but hopeful

Blessings,
Todd

Report from the Latest IMB Trustee Meeting -- I love what you're doing, but still have a bad taste in my mouth that won't go away

Dr. Hershael York has provided a report of the happenings at the recent IMB trustee meeting. I am pleased with the result of that meeting in a renewed Vision, Mission, and Core Values that will guide the IMB in the coming years. In my opinion, they are well crafted and are exactly the direction needed. They reflect an emphasis on conservative evangelical/Baptist doctrine, a commitment to inerrancy, the exclusivity of the gospel, contextualization, church planting, and mission partnership.

Likewise, I am pleased with the proposals that proceed from this mission and values. Without going into detail, I believe they reflect a needed refocusing and address many of the issues that have been in discussion among those who are concerned with both biblical fidelity, sound missiology, and cooperation with other evangelicals.

I am not pleased, however, with the trustees continued support of the personnel policies (which I infer by the continued inaction on the part of the trustees to reverse these policies) that have been a center point of controversy in the Convention for over two years. It seems that the trustees have decided to ignore the issue and hope that everyone will just forget about it. Well, I have not forgotten.

Reading over the newly stated Core Values, I am struck by the dissonance between core value #5 and the personnel policies. The value as stated is as follows:

We serve churches to facilitate their involvement in the Great Commission and the sending of missionaries to bring all peoples to faith in Jesus Christ.

If this is really a core value, why then do we deny mission service to called men and women of God who are conservative, Bible-believing, and affirm the 2000 BF&M?!?!? The church to which I have recently been called as pastor was recognized by the IMB for being in the Top 2% of per capita giving to Lottie Moon (I cannot take credit for this). As their new pastor, I will continue to lead the church in sacrificial giving to IMB missions and partnering with IMB missionaries to take the gospel to the nations. Though we are a mission-minded, mission-giving, mission-going church, neither of our two pastors are eligible to serve with the IMB under the current policies. Both of us were baptized as believers, by immersion, in churches which did not affirm eternal security. The policies reflect an errant view of Baptism and what it means to be a New Testament church. Further, they narrow doctrinal parameters in a way that is inconsistent with the spirit of the 2000 BF&M, which I wholeheartedly endorse and for which I cast my ballot in Orlando.

My question is this: How can the trustees claim that they “serve churches to facilitate their involvement” when they deny involvement of those who are faithful Southern Baptists?

Why I have signed the IMB Change Petition

I am appealing to all Southern Baptists with a concern for missions. Many of you are aware of the personnel policies put in place two years ago concerning Baptism and "Private prayer language." Recently, Allan Blume, a North Carolina pastor, and his wife Pam, a former IMB trustee, started an online petition to reverse these policies. At the Convention this week, I had the opportunity to have dinner with the Blumes and hear their heart on this issue. Heidi and I have added our names to this petition and encourage you to do the same. You may do so at http://imbchange.info. Of course, I realize the decision to add your name to such a list should not be taken lightly, however, I ask that you prayerfully consider doing so.

Previously, I have blogged on my reasons for opposing the “eternal security” clause of the baptism policy. This clause is the most personal for me, because it is the point of disqualification for me, were we to be called to international mission service. I was baptized, though by immersion and as a believer, in a church that did not believe in eternal security. I have come to believe that the baptism policy should be reversed in its entirety as well as the policy on private prayer language. Here are my reasons.

On the Baptism policy:

The policy goes beyond the BF&M 2000 and adds restrictions not included in the language of this consensus doctrinal statement.

The proper place for making decisions about baptism is the local church. The policy usurps the authority of the local church in determining whose baptism is valid and whose is not.

The policy makes a blanket restriction which does not allow for a more careful analysis of each situation – the local church is the best place for such a careful analysis and the proper place where such decisions should be made.

The remedy required, requesting (re)baptism by one’s local church is not practical in many cases. Many missionary candidates are pastors who have themselves baptized many members of their church. Others belong to churches who, because of their (correct) doctrinal stand, will not baptize the person again.

There is no biblical warrant for rebaptism of someone who has been baptized by immersion as a believer.

On the Private Prayer Language (PPL) policy:

PPL is a doctrinal issue, not a moral one, and is not addressed in the BF&M 2000 nor any resolution of the SBC. While I believe PPL to be a incorrect understanding of Scripture, I do not believe that a belief and/or practice of PPL should disqualify one from service, especially given the Convention’s silence on the issue up to this point.

PPL is part of a person’s private devotional life. There is no evidence that PPL practice among some Southern Baptists leads to Pentecostal/Charismatic doctrine or practice. Further, PPL is by definition a “private” practice not a public one.

Finally, it is absolutely bad form to pass a personnel policy which the current president of the IMB would himself be disqualified. The passing of this policy gives the appearance (whether or not this is actually the case) of intentionally embarrassing the current president. If there is a legitimate problem with Jerry Rankin, then by all means ask for his resignation. If not, then at the very least wait until Rankin retires to pass such a policy. To pass a policy which disqualifies the president, especially when there is no evidence of a pressing need to do so, is just plain wrong and in poor taste.

_____

Well, for what its worth, these are my reasons. If you are familiar with the issue at all, there is probably nothing here that you have not heard before. Because of these policies, I would be disqualified from service with the IMB. I know several highly qualified persons, fine Christian servants, who also are disqualified from service with the IMB.

If you are concerned about this issue, I encourage you to sign the petition. At this time, I believe this is the best course of action to see these policies reversed.

Blessings,

Todd

***Addendum (June 19, 2008): Let me add that a significant reason these policies should be reversed is that there is no where near a consensus of opinion among Southern Baptists on either PPL or alien immersion. While I do not support imposing a rule on how trustees can govern their entities, I do believe that mission board trustees have a responsibility, on doctrinal matters, to reflect the consensus of Southern Baptist belief.

Revisiting the IMB Baptism Guideline

In this post, I will offer two reasons I believe the eternal security clause of the IMB personnel guidelines is in error and should be changed.

First, I believe that the policy is based on a mistaken view of Arminianism.

Before I was a Baptist, I held erroneous views of what Baptists believed. My Arminian pastors wrongly charged that eternal security or “once saved, always saved” was a false doctrine that taught that you merely had to pray a prayer or respond to an altar call then continue sinning all you want because now that you were saved you were saved forever. While, I suppose, there may be some Baptists who hold this view (I haven’t met any) that certainly is not what Baptists teach or believe. To the extent that Baptists do believe this, my Arminian pastors were right to criticize their doctrine.

Having become a Baptist, now 18 years later, I continue to find that many Baptists hold what I contend are erroneous views of what Arminians believe. To deny eternal security, I am told, is to lack assurance of salvation. Many Baptists think that Arminians believe that you may somehow “lose” your salvation because of sin; that Arminians teach that although you are initially saved by faith, your are kept by works. Arminians live in fear that they may “lose” their salvation if they sin or fail in good works. Like my former belief about Baptists, there are indeed some Arminians who hold this view, but this is not a teaching of classic Arminianism, nor the doctirinal position of the major evangelical Arminian denominations such as the Assemblies of God.

However, such a doctrine is not the belief of all or even the majority of Arminian believers. For example, the Assemblies of God, in an official statement on eternal security, states

“As the believer's salvation is received, not by an act of righteousness but by an act of faith, so the believer's salvation is maintained, not by acts of righteousness but by a life of faith!

Being a Christian then is not a matter of works; it is a matter of faith. This must be emphasized. In no case is the sinner accepted by God on the basis of any good that he has done. He is saved totally and solely by grace through faith . . . . Through the process of "becoming conformed" he is secure; his salvation is sure. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1).

The believer's security, then, is solely through faith, both in the receiving of salvation and in the keeping of salvation. This security is made possible through the mercy of God in imputing the righteousness of His own Son to the fallible and faulty believer as long as he maintains a living faith in Christ. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:21).

I agree that Arminians are in error in their denial of the doctrine of eternal security. This error, however, does not mean that Arminians teach a works salvation, lack biblical assurance, or are not a New Testament Church.

Second, I believe the policy is based on a faulty view of Assurance.

In the argument about eternal security and its relation to Baptism, some Baptists incorrectly equate assurance of salvation with the doctrine of eternal security. The two concepts are related, but not the same.

I do not find that the Scriptures join the two. Wherever the Bible speaks of assurance, it speaks of one’s present experience with Christ. That is, a person has assurance because of the evidence of Christ working in him. Further, the Bible encourages believers to test themselves to see if they are in the faith, and to make their calling and election sure.

In 1 John, assurance comes with our present walk with Christ as we obey his commands (1 John 2:3), love the brethren (3:14), believe in his name (3:23) and the experience the presence of His Spirit (3:24). No where in this letter, written “so that you may know that you have eternal life,” (5:13) does John link assurance with our initial conversion experience.

When a Baptist is not walking with Christ, he may indeed be saved, but he will not have assurance that he is. A person can thus believe in eternal security, but lack assurance. Anecdotally speaking, I am sure of my salvation, not because of my conversion experience 31 years ago coupled with my belief in eternal security. I am sure of my salvation because of the evidence of the Spirit as he works in and through me and because of my faith in the cross of Christ.

Further, true Arminianism does not foster doubt of one’s salvation. As noted above, Arminians believe that salvation is both “received and kept by faith.” If one believes, his eternal destiny is sure. It is only if one abandons the faith “by rejecting Christ” that one “loses” salvation. In reality, assurance is faith, so it is not improper for an Arminian to say that assurance is based on faith. Further, in our experience as believers, both Arminian and Baptistic views of the security of the believer are tied to faith. The difference is that when an Arminian abandons the faith they say that such a person is no longer saved and when a Baptist abandons the faith we say they were never saved in the first place. Either way they’re lost.

The possible danger of Arminianism, when not properly understood, is that one would have false doubt. The possible danger of our Baptist view of eternal security, when not properly understood, is that one would have false faith (I prayed a prayer, so I’m saved forever). All this is to say that assurance and security are related but not inseparable. A Baptist can believe in eternal security and still not be sure of his salvation. Likewise, an Arminian can be assured of his eternal salvation without believing in eternal security.

I agree that Arminian doctrine is in error. I do not believe, however, that Arminian belief is a false faith or deficient gospel nor that an Arminian cannot have assurance of eternal salvation.

Conclusion

I submit that a baptism should not be disqualified because of a lack of belief in the doctrine of eternal security alone. Thomas White, in a White Paper for the Center for Theological Research at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary made the following summary statement on the validity of baptism: “The determining factor is the ordinance itself. Was the ordinance performed with the proper subject, in the proper mode, and with the proper meaning by a true church? If so, then it is valid” (White 2006, 10). In most cases, for a person baptized by immersion in an Arminian church, the answer to all four questions is “YES.”

In the final analysis, I believe the eternal security clause of the IMB personnel guideline should be reversed. I hope that it will be. In the mean time, I urge those who disagree with the guideline to continue their support of the IMB and the Cooperative Program. Further, I hope that Baptist on both sides of the issue will see the importance of preserving our Baptist Identity. In all things, let us continue to work together for the cause of Christ and for His glory!

Blessings,

Todd

_____

Note: Nathan Finn has also blogged on the IMB guidelines today.

Wade Burleson Resigns

For those of you following the IMB trustee story line, a significant event occurred yesterday. Wade Burleson has resigned from the IMB Board of Trustees.

Grace and Truth to You: A Decision I Believe Is Best for the Future of All

I have no comments at this time, but reserve the right to comment in the future. In the mean time, I encourage you to pray for Wade as well as the remaining Trustees. Above all, pray that the work of the IMB will continue to be used of God for his glory.

Toward continued cooperation in missions: Responding to decisions of Baptist decision makers

Even though this blog is about missions, I have until now decided not to post on controversial convention politics affecting missions such as the 2005 IMB baptism policy or the recent MBC executive committee’s decision to defund Acts 29 church plants. However, I have stated that this blog concerns, at least as one of its objectives, cooperation in missions. Therefore, I will offer these thoughts with the goal of furthering cooperation in missions.

1. As I stated in my previous post on critical contextualization, the danger of slipping into theological error and thus compromising the gospel is real and ever present. As we guard against this danger, sometimes bad decisions will be made, decision makers will over-react, or there will simply be disagreements on specific issues. This is nothing new and should not shock us. Let us be thankful that we serve in a denomination whose leaders are concerned about theological truth, even when they sometimes get it wrong.

2. In most cases, those pastors, laypersons, professors, presidents, trustees (and any other Baptists) that harp on theological matters, do so because of their love for the gospel and for the truth and not for self-aggrandizement or a personal agenda. Younger evangelicals must be careful to respect those with whom we disagree. This means we should not assume motives of others. I have met with several men with who I disagree and have found them to be humble godly men who are, like me, striving to be like Jesus Christ. Let us treat our brothers with respect. Personal character attacks of individual decision makers and influential leaders are neither lawful nor profitable.

3. NEVER blog when angry. No further comment necessary here.

4. Remember, we get it wrong too. In our efforts to be contextual, we can do things that are at least controversial and sometimes over the line. We must be open to others’ challenges and questions about OUR decisions, beliefs and practices. We must think critically about our own efforts to contextualize the gospel and consider outside critique of what we do. I, for one, have made some stupid mistakes that I was convinced were right at the time.

5. Not every perceived injustice is worth fighting about. We must use discernment and choose to battle only over those issues that really matter. The fact that I am personally affected by a policy does not make it a first tier issue. Each issue must be weighed and determined as to whether or not it is an issue worth fighting for.

6. Quit threatening to leave. Constant prophecies or threats that younger evangelicals will leave the Convention are unprofitable and border on being a bit juvenile. If you want to leave, leave. Do it quietly and without fanfare. If not, quit threatening to leave. Serve God where you are, join in cordial dialogue with those you disagree, give financially to missions, and go to the Convention and vote.

7. If sometimes bad decisions are made, remember that God is sovereign. God will work bad policies together for good. No errant decision will thwart his will. You may be personally affected by a bad decision or policy or know someone who is. Here is your chance to trust God. If God wants you to serve Him as a missionary or church planter, no policy is going to stop Him. This just gives God the opportunity to be creative and bring more glory to Himself. Trust Him, He knows what He’s doing :-)

An insider take on the new IMB guidelines

I thought you might be interested in these remarks about the new contextualization guidelines by the other blogging IMB trustee, Dr. Hershael York. Two things in the post cause me to commend the article to you. First, Dr. York explains the C1-C5 spectrum, which I did not on my blog post on the topic. Also, he offers the following insight on the thinking of the trustees and the meaning of the new guidelines. He notes,

These principles represent a thoughtful, prayerful, and well-reasoned response to difficult missiological issues. Our missionaries are free and even encouraged to contextualize the gospel, but not to the point where it is unrecognizable. We are not free to misrepresent ourselves and claim to be members of a religion or sect other than Christian. Our missionaries can use the normal words of a receptor language, including their word for "God," so long as they theologically pack that word with the person of God revealed in Scripture. In the same way that I would explain to a Mormon that the God they believe in is different than the God of the Bible, so our missionaries should work toward that goal, even as Paul did on the Areopagus with "theos" in Acts 17.

You can read the full blog post here:
Confessions of a Pastor: The Most Important Business at the Recent IMB Meeting

Blessings!
-- Todd

Postscript: I would like to add, I have come to admire Dr. York not only as a scholar, but as a man of high Christian caliber. While I do not always agree with his positions on particular issues, he is a man of integrity and a real model for young Christian leaders. Thank you Dr. York for your leadership and example.

Thank God for Footnotes:

Three signs that our IMB trustees understand the balance between missiology and theology.

In the recent meeting of IMB trustees, a new statement was adopted outlining guidelines for contextualization. You can read the full report here. While I have been among those who are concerned about the “narrowing of doctrinal parameters” by some of our agencies’ policies, I am pleased with these new guidelines. In fact, these guidelines are, in my opinion, right on the money.

I submit as evidence of a good policy, the three footnotes, each of which give contemporary practical applications to the new policies.

Footnote “a” reads:

“In John Travis’ spectrum of contextualization, C-4 would be the extent of indigenization acceptable for IMB personnel (“The C1 to C6 Spectrum.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34. [4]:407-408).”

Without explaining for the uninitiated exactly what that means, C4 is pretty far along the contextual scale. C5, I believe, is goes too far and blurs the line between Christianity and Islam. This is exactly where I and most of my missiologist colleagues draw the line as well. I am pleased that the trustees are willing to go as far as C4. (Please email me if you would like access to the EMQ article cited above).

Footnote “b” reads:

“For example, the theological construct represented by the term 'Allah' in the Quranic system is deficient and unacceptable. However, the primary issue is not the term. The same name is used by devout Christians and it represents a sound, scriptural view of God. In fact, historically, the Christian use of 'Allah' predates the rise of Islam. The missionary task is to teach who 'Allah' truly is in accord with biblical revelation.”

This footnote reveals that the Trustees understand and are willing to acknowledge the difference between form and meaning. Rather that enforcing a blanket policy banning use of the term, the new contextualization policies empower the missionary to make critical contextualization decisions particular to that context. In other words, when the “forms” are morally neutral, they may be retained and given new meaning. The use of “Allah” is one of the hot-button issues in recent debate and I am pleasantly surprised at the trustee’s stance.

Footnote “c” reads:

“Integrity requires, for example, that we not imply that a false prophet or a body of religious writings other than the Bible are inspired. There is a level of contextualization that crosses the line of integrity. Our board has dismissed personnel who have refused counsel and deliberately positioned themselves beyond that line.”

This policy seeks to recognize the balance between doing whatever it takes to reach the lost and maintaining biblical fidelity and integrity in our witness. To read between the lines here, the policy is referring most immediately to the use of the Koran in witness to Muslims. This footnote appears to affirm the use of the somewhat controversial “CAMEL” method (which begins with the Koran, but in no way affirms it) while rightly criticizing methods which try to “prove” Christianity from the Koran. The footnote is worded in such a way that it applies to all religious texts and persons not just the Koran and Muhammad. This shows that the IMB trustees are willing to try new methods of reaching unreached peoples while at the same time maintaining personal integrity, and upholding the exclusivity of the gospel and the unique authority of the Bible.

**** All this is to say, that there is good news in the new guidelines and the evidence is in the footnotes. IMB trustees are faithfully doing their job and have shown through this report that they are thinking both theologically AND missiologically about missions. Bravo!

Now if they would only reverse the eternal security baptism policy . . . :-)

Is the focus on Unreached People Groups mandated by Scripture?

This week, Wade Burleson has provided his readers with another summary of the IMB trustee meetings. One part was of particular interest to me. Burleson reports concerning Jerry Rankin’s report to the board: “[A particular trustee asked Dr. Jerry Rankin after his address to the trustees], ‘Dr. Rankin, I only ask because I'm curious and have heard this said before. Is your focus on the unreached people groups driven by an eschatalogical motive?’ Dr. Rankin answered by quoting Matthew 24:16 [sic], 'The gospel of the kingdom shall be preached to the whole world, and then the end shall come' and said that eschatology does not compel the IMB's mission (or his), but obedience does. Dr. Rankin said the timing of the coming of the Son is up to the Father and nothing we do will define when He comes. It is up to God. We are simply to obey His commission."

This trustee’s question is pertinent because if a particular policy of the mission board is in place because of theological reasons, and those theological views prove erroneous (or at least questionable), then the board is on shaky ground. Indeed, one of the perennial problems of missions and evangelism methodologies is that the supporters of those policies often attempt to justify their chosen model as mandated by Scripture – often using less that sound hermeneutical principles.

The Unreached People Group (UPG) strategy has been a topic of continued discussion among my missions buddies. Of particular concern has been the theological justification made for such a strategy. There are those who do in fact find theological support if not a mandate for a UPG strategy. For some, an interpretation of Matt 24:14 which suggests that the Lord will not (or can not) return until the Great Commission is fulfilled; i.e., the last people group is reached. This is based also on an understanding of the Greek phrase panta ta ethne in the Great Commission as referring to ethnolinguistic groups. (I personally hold neither of these views, though a number of my colleagues do).

There are good reasons to question this view:

Assuming that Matt 24:14 is speaking of the second coming of Christ (which is not universally accepted, as some scholars believe this is a reference to the destruction of the temple in 70AD -- see Matt 24:2), note the following:

1. Even if the spread of the gospel is a prerequisite to the return of Christ, but this does not mean that we can in any way hasten the return of Christ. God may be waiting for those who have already heard the gospel to respond, for yet unborn future believers, or waiting until his own appointed time and good pleasure. (cf. 2 Pet 3.9)
2. What does it mean that the gospel will be preached in all the world.. to all nations? – every region? Every geo-political entity? Every people group? Every individual? – How will we know when we have completed the task?
3. Jesus told us that it is not for us to be concerned about the timing of the second coming but to be his witnesses throughout the world (Acts 1:6-8).

All this is to say, that in my opinion, (echoing the answer given by Dr. Rankin) it is much more important to obey the command of Christ and be about the business of taking the gospel to all than it is to focus on the timing of the second coming and how we might hurry it along.

As far as panta ta ethne in the Great Commission, despite my respect for men like Donald McGavran and John Piper, I think it is in error to translate this as "people group." I am more inclined to agree with those exegetes who see the phrase as a general reference to the whole world -- i.e. all of humanity. A better case for people group strategy might be made from passages like Rev. 5:9. In any case, it is difficult to make a real case that the UPG strategy is Scripturally mandated.

While I believe the UPG strategy is a good one, I don't believe it is necessarily mandated by Scripture. What IS commanded is that we take the gospel to the world. The real reason to adopt the UPG strategy is on pragmatic grounds. That is, we should focus on UPGs because this strategy is the best way to be obedient to the Great Commission in this period of Christian Missions. This focus is the best way today to bring the gospel to as many people as possible in a way that they can hear, understand, and respond. In this era of missions, a focus on UPGs makes sense. Of course, things may be different in the future. In the wake of globalization and the seemingly constant (if gradual) change in the number and makeup of ethnolinguistic people groups, there may be a need in the future for a change in strategy. For now, I personally believe a focus on UPGs is the best way to be obedient to the Great Commission.

Finally, regardless of how one views the particulars of the UPG strategy or the reasons behind it, it is important for missionaries, practitioners, and their supporters to continually be in dialog about how we can be obedient to God's command to reach the nations.