A New Book by Alan Cross and Dwight McKissic

Alan Cross is the pastor of Gateway Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, and writes a blog called downshoredrift. Alan and Dwight McKissic are talking about possibly writing a book representing a Baptist view on the continuation of the gifts and miraculous work of the Holy Spirit. Alan has noticed many missionaries writing amazing stories on this blog, albeit anonymously, about what God is doing in Africa and most recently in China. Alan believes it is important that someone take up the task of documenting what many Southern Baptists claim that God is doing around the world. He recently wrote me an email as follows:

Wade,

As I have participated in the debate between cessationists/semi-cessationists and continuationists, I have run into the argument that God is not performing miraculous signs and wonders today in the same way that He did in Biblical times. I have heard cessationists ask for proof and have said that if healings are occuring and if the dead are being raised, then why are we not hearing about it? At the same time, I have read several "Anonymous" IMB missionaries write in with stories claiming that they have seen the dead raised in Africa and the mute speak in China, among other stories. I was especially impacted by the missionary in China who recently wrote in describing what was happening there. Could this be documented in some way? What kind of a denomination are we to suppress these wondrous acts of God and hide them away because they do not fit our paradigms? I understand why they are posting anonymously, but I wonder if they would be willing to talk with me or send me their stories? I promise that I would protect their identity, but I really feel that these stories need to get out in some form or fashion. I am wondering if a book or journal article on the continual miraculous work of the Holy Spirit among Southern Baptists in the areas of healings, miracles, divine intervention, guidance, and other Biblical manifestations would not be helpful to the Body of Christ? I have many stories of my own to share, but I am thinking that it would be amazing to collect some of the things that Southern Baptists are experiencing around the world in a way that would begin to open people's eyes to God's activity. We have made many biblical arguments on the blogs to describe the continuationist perspective, but these stories from Southern Baptist pastors and missionaries on the field would be very beneficial to add in as a testimony to the truth of Scripture.

The purpose of this is not to "prove" something to the IMB Board of Trustees. That ship has sailed. Rather, the rest of us need to know what God is doing in people's lives as He continues to work miraculously to bring glory to Himself. If you know who these people are, could you contact them or let them know that I am interested in pursuing such a project? Again, I promise to protect their identities, but I really feel that these stories need to be told. You can contact me at alancross@charter.net .

Grace and Peace,

Alan Cross

David Rogers has a very interesting post that complements much of what Alan is saying from a different angle. If you are interested in helping Alan and Dwight please contact him.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Something I Genuinely Do Not Understand

At the IMB meeting in Kansas City last week I took the opportunity, between meetings, to tour the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum in Independence, Missouri.

During the nineteen minute introductory video of the life of the former President, the narrator said that the Democratic handlers of President Franklin Deleanor Roosevelt chose Missouri Senator Harry Truman as the 1944 Vice-Presidential running mate because he was "a Southern Baptist, friendly with labor, and a well-liked politician."

That phrase stuck with me because I had already made a visit to the First Baptist Church of Independence, Missouri. Even though we arrived unannounced at First Baptist Church, Dr. Kevin Paine gave Ben Cole and I a tour of the historic church buildings. He showed us the old auditorium, and then the new auditorium - built in the 1970's - which has been recently remodeled under Dr. Paine's leadership.

During the tour Dr. Paine explained that President Truman visited FBC frequently, both during his time in office and the twenty years he lived in Independence after leaving the White House. However, like the politician he was, Truman never joined any particular church. Yet the President never hesitated calling himself a Southern Baptist. Traditional lore says that First Baptist Church, Independence, Missouri was the spiritual home of the late President.

Dr. Paine also explained to us the difference beteen the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints, whose headquarters is in Independence, Missouri, and the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), whose headquarters is in Salt Lake City, Utah. During his explanation, Dr. Paine revealed his own Christology (very conservative), his soteriology (salvation by grace through faith), his bibliology (the Bible is sufficient for all faith and practice of the Christian), and his ecclesiology (Christ is the head of His church).

Dr. Paine revealed to us that, shortly after he had become pastor of First Baptist Church, the Missouri Baptist Convention kicked his church and eighteen other Southern Baptist churches in Missouri out of the state convention for their 'dual alignment.' Dr. Payne said that his church had contributed to many Baptist organizations over the years, including the SBC and CBF.

I am a full supporter of all things SBC, and have never believed our convention should separate, divide or splinter. Many people already know that when the CBF formed in Oklahoma in 1992 I nailed on the door of the organizational meeting 95 Theses Against Participation in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Oklahoma. This act led some in the CBF to label me a fundamentalist, while some who are are without controversy true fundamentalists call me moderate or liberal.

I was impressed with Dr. Paine's warm evangelism, his orthodox theology, and his attempts to keep his church focused on reaching the community for Christ. We commended Dr. Paine for his work at reviving the historic downtown church, had prayer with him over his life and ministry, and bid him a cordial farewell. Since meeting Dr. Paine and touring the historic First Baptist Church of Independence, Missouri, a question has continued to plague my understanding. Regardless of one's views on the politics at play within the SBC, I believe the same question must be confusing to anyone and everyone working in cooperating missions ministry . . .

"Why would any conservative agency of the Southern Baptist Convention, whether it be state or national, reject the mission dollars of a church or individual who desires to contribute to that agency's work in reaching the world for Christ through the proclamation of the gospel?"

What does it prove when that agency refuses mission dollars?

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

Update: Don Wideman informs me that President Truman was a member of FBC Grandview in the years prior to his Presidency, and upon moving to Independence never changed his membership, but attended his mother-in-law's home church (Episcopal) and other churches in the area, including FBC.

The Final Post on Grace and Truth to You on the New Tongues Guideline at the IMB

Unless providentially shown otherwise, today's post will be the final one on this subject at Grace and Truth to You. I will move on to other issues related to the SBC. The words of Dr. Boyd Luter, former dean of Criswell College, a New Testament theologian and currently a Southern Baptist pastor, shall provide the benediction. If you would like background to Boyd's comment, you might wish to read the comments at the end of Friday's post.

Wade and All,

As I said in answer to a question on the panel at the Holy Spirit Conference at Arlington, the way people interpret biblical passages (regarding tongues) today is going to be significantly affected by at least the following areas:

- Cultural Leanings (Are you still a Modernist with a closet anti- supernatural suspicion, if not bias, or are you young enough to where you grew up with at least a mild Postmodernist bent, even if you didn't know what it is?)

- Colored Lenses (Did you come to the text having been taught by your highly respected pastor/ mentor/professor/"hero" [or all the above] that a certain view was true, and who are you to think otherwise?)

- Comfort Zone (Are you fearful of change or being "out of control" or even scared of the Holy Spirit?)

- Controlling Passages (They function this way: "That passage can't possibly mean that, because I've already made my decision on this doctrine from this other passage [or passages], which fit my preconceived notion.")

Bottom line here: You guys, all of whom I really like, and all of whom are passionately convinced of your positions, are not going to change the other's views... at least not much, unless something shifts significantly in one or more of the four categories above.

I wish it wasn't so, but it is.

Here's the only other thing I think is worth saying here: Alan, (who is a continuatist) I think you are wrong that a tide is turning against you. If anything, I think there are signs the opposite is happening, though slower than you would want.

Here's what I think you are reacting to: You didn't hear this argument played out at Golden Gate, and you didn't become really aware of things until the recent IMB controversy. In that regard, these "guidelines" sound ominous to you.

But, the other side of the story is that the SBC has been heavily Cessationist behind the scenes right on along, although almost no official stances were taken (either because nobody wanted to mess with the BFM for so long, or because it was not thought that anything even needed to be done).

Now, however, the issues--although I would agree with Wade that they are 3rd tier doctrinal areas--are front and center because of the IMB BoT's 2005 decisions and because evangelical Christianity in many parts of the world, which is unquestionably growing much faster than in North America, is also unquestionably Charismatic. And, what has just happened?

Was it a setback? Yes, but nothing at all like the type or number William Wilberforce et al had to absorb on the way to their final victory in the British Parliament.

You see, after the first CR generation, in which many, if not most, of the leaders and lieutenants were left-over Cessationists more or less of the Criswell variety, things have now BEEN changed, first slightly by the recognition in 2005 that there may be such a thing as legit. tongues, then this week by the elimination of the previous statement "The majority of Southern Baptist churches do not practice glossalalia." W.A. Criswell and his followers would have been scandalized even by the quasi-Semi-Cessationist wording in 2005 and completely dumbfounded by the elimination of the "majority" statement in 2007 (which adds up to Semi-Cessationist/Semi-Continuationist exegetical conclusions, even if the application of them is Dogmatic Cessationist, due to the narrower Fundamentalist desire to hold the fort.

It would appear that the IMB Trustees are smart enough to see the writing on the wall long-term.

The make-up of the SBC is clearly getting less Cessationist with every passing year and even the new BoT policy at SWBTS is unlikely to change that much, given how many other SBC educational options exist and SWBTS's trending decline in numbers and impact for some time now (Does anyone remember not that long ago when SWBTS was considered the SBC flagship and the idea of her enrollment [which did not then include the College] dropping below 4,000 seemed totally ludicrous?). Thus, the IMB trustees' ad hoc committee definitely had their job cut out for them: 1) Put their finger in the dike in the face of of an increasingly less Cessationist and more Continuationist (though not necessarily Charismatic) SBC; 2) while facing the facts that the only even partly Cessationist position they can still make a straight-faced case for exegetically is Semi-; 3) but having to "save face" with those who got them their appointments by maintaining what appears to be a hard-nosed Cessationist practical stance (and even that has moderated somewhat).

We must face this fact: Meaningful change is almost always hard and very seldom quick. But, from a "big picture" standpoint, the glass is half full if, for no other reason than, the IMB BoT, representing the SBC, a people of "the Book," have updated their exegesis reflecting a generational reality and toned down their negative implications and practical outworkings. And, for that same reason, the glass is half empty for the shrinking Cessationist ranks in SBC life. They no longer have the unquestioned large majority of the churches and they no longer have a prevailing, if unofficial, "close the door completely" exegetical stance in their favor. And, frankly, with the virtual admission that there are no real problems on this front in the missionary force on the field, they do not have a whole lot left there either. And, if the new "guidelines" were only passed by a 3/4 majority on a seemed to be a fairly well stacked board, there would appear to be reason to hope that this is not the last time these issues will be heard by this Board in the foreseeable future.

Just let the heat (it's only "righteous indignation" if short term [Eph. 4:26-27]) level die down and the light [loving wisdom] level gain its equilibrium and things may look at least a tad different.

Boyd

Solid Food For Thought from Drs. Luter and Storms

I have had a very long week and a long day of travel home from Kansas City. There are several very interesting posts that I will publish next week about the time in KC. The commissioning service brings tears to my eyes every time I see all the missionaries lined up giving their testimonies, and the service Wednesday night was no different. Further reflections will be forthcoming after the first of the week. Until then, I have chosen to post two comments on yesterday's post, one from Dr. Sam Storms, and the other from Dr. Boyd Luter. Both comments are worthy of serious reflection. The issue over the adoption of the new guidelines at the IMB is over. These men's comments are posted to help you understand some of the larger issues that will be coming before the convention at large.

Dr Sam Storm's Comment

Wade and others,

I am not writing to address the denominational or political issues that are provoked by the recent decision of the IMB. My aim is simply to address what I perceive to be the theological naiveté and exegetical imprecision of the IMB statement posted on your blog.

Several points need to be made.

First, in its statement on Glossolalia the “Guideline” affirms that glossolalia “is considered to be a legitimate language.” This isn’t at all helpful, given the fact that most Continuationists acknowledge that all glossolalia is linguistic in nature. All tongues speech, whether exercised in public or private, is “language” that communicates cognitive content. The Apostle Paul makes this clear when he declares that the one who speaks in a tongue speaks “to God” (1 Cor. 14:2) and in doing so prays (1 Cor. 14:14), praises (1 Cor. 14:15), and gives thanks (1 Cor. 14:16). Praying, praising, and giving thanks are all meaningful, substantive communication between the believer and God. So yes, of course tongues is a “legitimate language.” But what this statement fails to address is whether the language is human, such as Russian or Chinese or English, or a language of heaven or an angelic dialect or a uniquely spiritual language constructed by God to constitute this particular spiritual gift.

Second, the Board refers to “ecstatic utterances” in spite of the fact that nowhere in the New Testament is this vocabulary used of tongues speech. Why is it so difficult for the IMB Board or Christians in general to recognize that tongues speech is not ecstatic? It never has been. It never will be. Nowhere in the NT portrayal of tongues speech, whether public or private, is it ever described as entailing the loss of control, loss of consciousness, loss of awareness of one’s surroundings, or loss of will on the part of the one speaking. Tongues speech in the NT never entails the individual experiencing some sort of altered state of consciousness or disengagement with his/her surroundings. May I ask that we all, once and for all, drop the adjective “ecstatic” from our descriptions of the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues. I make this appeal to Continuationists and Cessationists alike.

Third, the Board stated that according to the New Testament “prayer is to be made with understanding.” This also is ambiguous and misleading, and in one particular case, patently false. My first response is to ask, “Whose understanding?” Is the Board saying that the person praying must have understanding of what he is saying? In all instances of prayer, except for the gift of tongues, the biblical answer to that question is Yes! But the very nature of tongues as a spiritual gift is that one is enabled to pray and praise in a “language” (whether human, heavenly, or angelic) that one does NOT understand. That is why God graciously and appropriately provides the spiritual gift of interpretation. If the person praying always and automatically understands what he/she is praying via tongues, what would be the point or need for the gift of interpretation? What would be the point of Paul exhorting those who pray in tongues to pray also that they may interpret (1 Cor. 14:13)? If they necessarily always understand what they are praying, interpretation would be superfluous.

On the other hand, perhaps the Board was referring to the understanding of others, those who hear someone pray. If that is what they meant, then I agree. So does Paul, which is why he always insisted on interpretation if tongues is used in public. Without interpretation, no one understands, neither the speaker nor the listener. And without understanding there can be no edification (1 Cor. 14:2,5,27-28) for others in the body of Christ (although the person praying in tongues is still edified; see 1 Cor. 14:4). This is the reason for Paul’s meticulous regulation of the use of tongues in public. It is wonderful for tongues to be used in public IF and ONLY IF there is interpretation. In the absence of interpretation, it must be restricted to one’s private “prayer closet” (so to speak).

Look carefully at 1 Cor. 14:14-15. Paul says that when he prays in a tongue his s/Spirit prays but his mind is unfruitful. That is to say, he is praying well enough but neither he nor anyone who might be listening understands (this is what Paul means by the word “unfruitful”). What then should Paul (and we) do? According to the IMB, he should keep his mouth shut. Since there is no understanding, Paul should never again pray in tongues, either in public or private, and he should prohibit all others from the same. But that’s not what Paul concludes! Keep reading. He says: “What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit [i.e., in tongues], but I will pray with my mind also [i.e., in the vernacular, so that all can understand]; I will sing praise with my spirit [this is simply tongues speech put to music or melody], but I will sing with my mind also [as do we all when we sing hymns and psalms, etc.]” (v. 15).

The IMB is under the mistaken assumption that for any experience to be beneficial it must occur via the cerebral cortex of the brain. They seem to believe any experience that transcends the rational comprehension of the person in whom it is happening is useless. Paul disagrees! He obviously believed that it was possible for the human spirit to commune and communicate with the Divine Spirit in a way that transcends rational comprehension. However, he also believed that if no one is present to interpret such “speech” for the edification of other believers that the person with tongues should keep silent in the corporate assembly.

So, as you can see, I don’t think the IMB is going to progress very far in this matter until they come to grips with the actual language of Paul concerning tongues in 1 Corinthians 14. Blessings to all!

Sam

Dr. Boyd Luter's Comment

Wade and others,

Sam had a lot of solid exegetical insight to offer, but it is not going to change the decision of the IMB BoT. They do not appear to be willing to listen to a critique of their supposed exegetical basis at this time. Rather, they are comfortable in the fact that those who have been their behind the scenes advisors in this process are curently willing to sign off on what is now commonly called 'Semi-cessationism' (see my further explanation below), if for no other reason than they believe that they can make the same stand over Charismatic Continuationist candidates as they could with a full Cessationist position.

But, I honestly believe that there is a "the glass if half full perspective" that is worth noting here, to at least partly balance the large number of "the glass is half empty" opinions that have been expressed. Here it is: for the first time, there is an official statement that recognizes that some kind of "tongues" (i.e., glossalalia) do in fact exist.

Yes, the way things are worded in point 3 and the applicational angles are highly skeptical. But, points 1 and 2 add up to the recognition that there is, in fact, biblical reason to believe that there is a legitimate form of tongues at work in the world today.

What does that mean from a "glass is half full" perspective? Even though, in the IMB BoT's view, there is much out there that is not legit. tongues, THERE IS AlSO SOME THAT IS. In other words, the wording of their statement can be just as accurately described as "Semi-Continuationist" as it is "Semi-Cessationist" (since the prefixed 'semi-' means "having some of the characteristics of"). That is why, when I did my presentation in Arlington, even though I used the common term "Semi-Cessationist," I also put in parentheses "Skeptical Continuationist?". You see, the view reflected in the IMB BoT decision is at least as much akin to the Continuationist side of the aisle as it is to Cessationist side EXEGETICALLY, though not ATTITUDINALY. The door has been opened to some degree from an exegetical standpoint (i.e., mild Continuationism), but there is skepticism attitudinally (i.e., practical Cessationism).

Think about this and gain perspective: the Conservative Resurgence saw conservatives calling the other bunch Liberals, which they felt was MORE ACCURATE, when they wanted to be called Moderates and the broader group calling their opponents Fundamentalists, which they felt was MORE ACCURATE, when the other bunch insisted on calling themselves Evangelicals. Similarly, is it really in any way inaccurate to call the newly expressed IMB BoT position Semi-Continuationism (or Skeptical Continuationism)? After all, their statement clearly allows for the continuation of tongues, though the application quibbles about the legitimacy of its its manifestations.

What an amazing thing? To be able to construct what they fell is a safe 'fall-back position' biblically, the IMB BoT had to slide across to a view that, exegetically, is at least equally Continuationist as it is Cessationist. Their application of their exegesis is indeed inconsistent (and tragically so for certain missions candidates). But, even if unintentionally, the exegetical ground beneath the controversy within the SBC has clearly shifted in a positive direction, just not far enough (yet).

Call me an "optimist" if you like, but I'm not a "blind optimist"--I'm a "see the big picture" optimist." Something of a significant incremental nature happened right under our eyes and, because it wasn't all some people wanted to see, they missed it completely.

Boyd

Good insight from two brilliant Southern Baptist theologians.

Have a Great Weekend!


Wade

IMB Policies Now Guidelines: Tuesday at the IMB

Yesterday, May 8, 2007 was a very busy day. In subsequent days I will post reflections on . . . (1). A visit to FBC, Independence, Missouri and her pastor, Dr. Kevin Payne, (2). A trip to the Harry S. Truman homeplace and Presidential Library and Museum (May 8 is the late President's birthday), (3). A great time of fellowship with Dr. Sam Storms of Kansas City and an experience of midnight worship with about 250 young people at the Kansas City International House of Prayer. IHOP began this 24/7 worship and prayer meeting on May 7, 1999 and it has continued unbroken, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week for a total of eight years. Many thousands of young people have been pulled off the streets, converted from backgrounds of drug abuse, and now serve the KC community through IHOP. It may not be how you or I would do ministry, but one has to admire what God has done through IHOP and Pastor Mike Bickle to bring thousands to Christ, including many Kansas City Chiefs professional football players. (4). I will also post about one of the strangest conversations I have ever had with another human being. It was with a man who is a high priest in the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints -- now called "The Community of Christ" and it took place at the RCLDS headquartered outside Kansas City -- a conversation that led me to witness to this high priest on the essential nature of the atonement of Christ.

But the important information for today is what happened in the trustee plenary session of the International Mission Board on Tuesday night, May 8, at 6:30 p.m. at the Hilton Airport Hotel in Kansas City. Trustees approved the following report from the Ad Hoc Committee on Tongues and Baptism.

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.

(End of Ad Hoc Committee Report)

The debate that occurred on the adoption of these guidelines was cordial. People spoke on both sides of the issue. After about 45 minutes of debate, the guidelines were approved. Because of the vote tonight, the former policy on private prayer language is now, with the baptism guideline, a guideline, and not a policy.

I spoke only once during the debate and made the following two points and concluded my remarks by asking a question of Paul Chitwood, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee.

The First Point I Made: The rationale for the guidelines states that there is not 'a systemic problem with charismatic practices among field personnel', but the committee felt it necessary to adopt the private prayer language guideline. I pointed out that The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, the Abstract of Principles, and the 1925 and 1963 Baptist Faith and Message are all silent regarding a specific interpretation on the gifts of the Spirit, and to go beyond our major confessions and demand a specific doctrinal interpretation on a matter not addressed in the BFM should be the sole responsibility of our entire convention, and not the trustees of the IMB. I also expressed concern that we were being asked to vote on the guidelines without hearing from the Regional Leaders of the IMB on what they thought of the new policies. One trustee, John Click of Kansas, had asked, prior to me speaking, that Rodney Hammer, a Regional Leader for the IMB be allowed to speak, but the chair ruled that request out of order. John Floyd was very gracious in his spirit when he ruled the motion out of order, but I was confused as to why it was said there was no 'systemic problem,' and the RL's were not allowed to address the full trustee board before we voted, but yet we felt the need to establish a guideline prohibiting 'prayer language' from those wishing to serve as missionaries for the SBC. I asked, again, if it was wise for us as a trustee board, or any SBC board for that matter, to press beyond our confessional statement and exclude people who affirm the BFM 2000, but disagree on specific interpretations of doctrines not addressed by the BFM 2000. If a ban of private prayer language is needed on DOCTRINAL grounds, since there is no anecdotal evidence that a problem exists on the field among personnel, then maybe we should wait for the SBC to speak on the matter.

The Second Point I Made: I also said that though the baptism guideline was worded better than the original one voted on in November 2005, the new baptism guideline, unfortunately, still made the baptism of a believer an identification with a specific church and not Jesus Christ. However, since there was no alternative to the proposed guidelines, nor a recommendation to rescind the November 2005 policies, at least it was a step in the right direction. I, again, cautioned us as trustees that implementing any doctrinal standard that exceeds the BFM, though we can do it as trustees, just might not be the wisest thing to do.

I then asked my question:

What is the difference between a policy and a guideline?

Dr. Floyd pointed out that this question was asked yesterday, and then said, "Wade, you must have not been in the meeting to hear the answer." I didn't have the heart to tell Dr. Floyd publicly that I was in the meeting, and it was I who had asked the question yesterday, but the question and response occured in the closed door forum, and it was best for us as a convention that the answer be on the record since other Southern Baptists could not hear the answer in the closed door meeting.

Matt Bristol, Attorney for the IMB was called upon to answer the question, as he was also asked to do in the forum yesterday. He said a policy is 'dogmatic' and a 'guideline' is flexible in its implementation. Later, the attorney said that functionally there was no difference, but that the word guideline conveys a spirit of flexibility (the word he wished to emphasize) in the application of the policy.

After further discussion, all in a good spirit, the vote was taken and the new 'guidelines' passed.

I have tried to give you simply the facts of what occurred without going into any commentary. I am pleased, however, that progress is being made to understand that there are different viewpoints on these matters within the SBC and for us to function as a cooperating convention, we must not exclude anyone from missionary cooperation and participation those who disagree on tertiary doctrines like the authority of the baptizer and the importance of what a person does in his private prayer closet.

All the officers of the IMB were reelected without opposition.

I pray that we as trustees of the IMB will put this matter behind us, focus on the mission challenges ahead of us, and trust that, in the providence of God, all that has occurred in these last two years on the board has been good and healthy for us all.

I'll blog tomorrow night about the most important part of this trustee meeting -- the commissioning service.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson

Can Continuationists and Cessationists Co-Exist in the Southern Baptist Convention? Dr. Boyd Luter

Dr. Boyd Luter, former dean of Criswell College, a highly respected New Testament and theological scholar within the Southern Baptist Convention, and currently a pastor in the SBCT of Texas, has given me permission to publish his recent presentation on the subject 'Can Continuationists and Cessationists Co-Exist in the Same Church and in the Southern Baptist Convention?' I found Dr. Luter's presentation on cooperation in the SBC among those with different views on the gifts to be the most cogent, practical and balanced view on the subject I have seen. If everyone thought like Dr. Luter and valued missions cooperation and living peacably among people with various theological views as he does, there would be no controversy in our convention over the issue of private prayer language.

CAN CONTINUALISTS AND CESSATIONISTS
CO-EXIST IN THE SAME CHURCH
AND IN THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION?

A. Boyd Luter, Ph.D., Pastor
Comal Country Church (SBTC)
New Braunfels/Canyon Lake, Texas

My simple up-front answer to the questions in the assigned title of this session is “It depends… .” Previewing the areas I will be discussing before directly answering each question in more depth, it is my carefully considered conclusion that whether the wider groupings called “Continualists” and “Cessationists” can co-exist in the same local church or in the S.B.C. depends largely on three factors:

(1). What flavor of Continuationist or Cessationist you are.

(2). What kind of doctrinal statement you have (with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 notable here) and how such a statement functions in regard to the biblical ideal of 'unity in the faith' (Ephesians 4:2-3).

(3). What you understand 'co-exist' to mean and how you relate to the biblical priority of 'the unity of hte Spirit' (Eph. 4:2-3).

I. IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS WITHIN THE CATEGORIES:

BLACK AND WHITE AND SHADES OF GRAY

The title assigned to this session might leave the impression that all persons holding either of these two viewpoints are in more or less complete agreement. That would be a major misunderstanding. Allow me to briefly define the general categories, then fill in a number of shade distinctions that have been—or should be—made, which will help us greatly in answering our two questions with adequate perspective:

GENERAL DEFINITIONS

- Continualist: Believes all spiritual gifts have continually operated in church history (including, for some who use this term, revelation equal in authority with Scripture)

- Continuationist: Believes all spiritual gifts have continued through church history, even if not found in every generation.(Note: Dr. Luter points out that he prefers the term 'continuationist' over continualist to distinguish those who believe in the 'continuation' of the gifts but would never put any current revelation on par with inspired Scripture -- the position of most SBC continuationists).

- Cessationist: Believes sign gifts' ceased either at the end of the apostolic era or in early church history.

- Semi-Cessationist (or “Skeptical Continuationist?”): Believes the gift of speaking in tongues is a known language and very rare.

SHADES OF DISTINCTION

- Complete Cessationist: Believes all spiritual gifts ceased.

- Dogmatic Continuationist: Believes anyone who does not believe that all spiritual gifts continue is unspiritual (and may not be Christian).

- Dogmatic Cessationist: Believes anyone who believes that the sign gifts continue is either emotionally/psychologically unstable, demonically influenced, or faking it.

- Cautious Continuationist: Believes all spiritual gifts continue, but not all manifestations are of the Lord.

- Non-Charismatic Continuationist: Believes all spiritual gifts continue, but has not experienced, or possibly not even observed, charismatic gifts in use.

- Open Cessationist: Does not believe the sign gifts continue, but is willing to rethink with persuasive evidence.

THE POLARIZING POSITIONS ON THE GIFTS

Continualism, Full Cessationism, Dogmatic Continuationism, Dogmatic Cessationism.

When people in leadership hold either one of these for views, it polarizes the agency, institution or church because the doctrinal relationship with others is too far apart to even dialogue. In fact, proponents of the four views above erect 'straw men' to win their arguments.

THE FLEXIBLE POSITIONS ON THE GIFTS

Cautious Continuationism, Open Cessationism, Non-Charismatic Continuationsim, Semi-Cessationism

These positions are close enough to each other, and open enough to dialogue with others to understand and learn.

(1). The polarizing views on the gifts, listed above, are held by people who often seem to have one of two attitudes: Others must buy their view 'hook, line and sinker' or the views of those who hold to a different belief must be dismissed by 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater.'

(2). The flexible views on the gifts, as listed above, are held by people who seem to want 'to save the baby and throw out the dirty bathwater.'

II. DOCTRINAL STATEMENTS SPEAKING ON THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE HISTORY OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION:
“UNITY IN THE FAITH”

- Abstract of Principles (1858): It is silent on spiritual gifts.

- 1925 Baptist Faith and Message: The same wording used as the Abstract of Principles

- 1963 Baptist Faith and Message (Amended 1998): "[The Holy Spirit] bestows the spiritual gifts by which [believers] serve God through the church."

- 2000 Baptist Faith and Message (2000): The same wording is used as that in the BFM 1963.

CONFLICTING PERSPECTIVES ON THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF BFM 2000 SINCE ITS PASSAGE

Whatever “unity in the faith” BFM2000 seemed to provide for conservative Southern Baptists when it was overwhelmingly passed, there have developed significantly conflicting “takes” on the authority/parameters of BFM2000 since then

Dr. Al Mohler (BFM 2000 Committee Member: June 14, 2000) - "This statement is a regulative document for use by the agencies and institutions and seminaries . . . The Convention has said, 'This is what we believe' and we expect that those who serve our agencies to believe this . . . The individual boarrds of trustees have taken that action as a matter of accountability and faithfulness to the Convention." (Notice: The BFM is 'regulative.' Since the BFM is worded so that different views on the gifts are acceptable, cooperation should not be determined based upon conformity to specific interpretations on the gifts).

IMB TRUSTEES (Fall of 2005, following the NAMB policy) - Outlaws the use of private prayer language by missionary candidates as 'policy.'

SWBTS TRUSTEESS (Fall of 2006) - Outlaws the encouragement of and the employment of professors and adminstrators with a private prayer language as 'policy.'

SBC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (February of 2007) - "While not a 'complete statement of faith,' the BFM 2000 is 'the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies . . ."

Note: The SBC Executive Committee seems to issue a caution to SBC boards and agencies. At the very least, the questions raised are these:

(1). Is the BFM 2000 really the sufficient (SBC Executive Committee wording), regulative document (Mohler's wording) that provide 'unity in the faith' for Southern Baptists, or nothing more than an agreed-upon miminal doctrinal framework?

(2). Even if it is permissible for SBC entity trustees to make de facto doctrinal additions to the BFM 2000 through 'policy' is it wise and - more important - is it in keeping with the expectation of 'accountability and faithfulness' to the Convention at large?

III. CAN CONTINUATIONISTS AND CESSATIONISTS CO-EXIST IN THE
SAME (LOCAL) CHURCH OR CONVENTION?: “THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT”

Before briefly reviewing the above discussions for their helpfulness in answering the first question in our session title, it remains for us to define “co-exist.” There are two widely-held definitions of the word:

TWO WIDELY HELD DEFINITIONS OF 'CO-EXIST'

(1). To exist together, at the same time and place.

(2). To live in peace with another or others despite differences.

"With all humility and gentleness, with patience, accepting one another in love, diligently keeping the unity of hte Spirit with the peac that binds us" (Ephesians 4:2-3 HCSB).

REASONS CONTINUATIONISTS AND CESSATIONISTS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CO-EXIST IN THE SAME CONVENTION OR CHURCH

(1). Leadership holds an inflexible and polarized attitude toward the gifts.

(2). Leadership is unquestionably top-heavily controlled and totally dominated numerically by a polarizing position on the gifts.

(3). The convention's or church's doctrinal position is a narrow, polarized statement on gifts.

(4). A doctrinal amendment would be sought, either through back-door policy, or convention wide through the BFM 2000, that would take a polarized position on the gifts.

(5). The convention's or church's approach to 'co-existence' is unloving isolation of anyone in disagreement with the power brokers.

(6). If the Convention condoned or allowed any unloving fleshly attitudes by those championing a polarized position on the gifts so that they 'ran off' those holding ot more flexible views.

REASONS CONTINUATIONISTS AND CESSATIONISTS WOULD BE ABLE TO CO-EXIST IN THE SAME CONVENTION OR CHURCH

(1). Leadership holds a flexible, humble view on the gifts.

(2). When there is a substantial proportion numerically of leaaders who hold to the more flexible views on the gifts.

(3). The convention's or church's doctrinal position does not rule out either view.

(4). There is an effort to intentionally keep a 'purposeful silence' on the gifts (i.e. 'leaving room to agree to disagree agreeably' in peaceful co-existence').

(5). The convention's or church's members pursue biblical 'co-existence' (i.e. 'humility, gentleness, patience, acceptance, love and peacefulness toward one another despite differences').

(6). If Southern Baptists as a whole choose to lovingly apply the biblical priority of 'the unity of the Spirit with the peace that binds us.'

Wade Burleson's Conclusion About Dr. Luter's Presentation

I would consider myself a 'cautious continuationist' as defined by Dr. Luter. I have no desire for any polarizing view on the gifts to dominate the SBC. It is my sincere belief that those who champion full cessationism must be very, very careful seeking to impose this polarized view on Southern Baptists. I would be thrilled to follow the leadership of those who hold to cessationism --- 'as long as they did not demand conformity to this interpretation.'

Once demands for conformity begin, the SBC becomes polarized.

In missions cooperation we should strive to live peacably, cooperate fully, and love unconditionally those who disagree with us on tertiary doctrinal issues.

I don't think this is hard for most to understand. We'll see.

In His Grace,


Wade Burleson

The Kansas City IMB Meeting, May 7-9, 2007

This Sunday I will drive to Kansas City for the May trustee meeting of the International Mission Board. At this meeting, the report of the Ad Hoc Committees studying the new policy forbidding the appointment of missionaries with the private prayer language and the guideline that forbids the appointment of missionaries who have not been baptized in a Southern Baptist Church or one that teaches 'eternal security' will be considered. At the St. Louis trustee meeting on November 1, 2006, it was stated in the plenary session by trustee leadership that trustees would receive the Ad Hoc committee report in advance of the meeting in which we would consider it.

I have not yet received the report via mail, and it was not available on the trustee internet site, so after calling the International Mission Board staff last Wednesday and learning the offices were closed due to a staff retreat until Friday. I called the IMB staff in Richomond again on Friday and received a prompt call back from support staff saying the report would be made available to trustees in Kansas City. They were very helpful and said if I had any further questions to contact Paul Chitwood, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committees. I decided not to contact Paul since I had already visited earlier in the day with fellow trustee Rick Thompson, Pastor of Council Road Baptist Church in Oklahoma City and he had two calls into Paul to ask the same question (where is the report?), and up to that time Rick's calls not yet been returned.

I do not know what the Ad Hoc committe report contains. I don't know if there are recommendations or not. I don't know if it is simply 'a report' with no action, or a report with recommendations that require action. I don't know how long or short it is, and I don't know if the private prayer policy and baptism guideline have been reworded, rescinded or left the same. I'm sure the Ad Hoc Committee has worked diligently putting this report together, and I trust that it will be well written, with supporting evidentary, logical and Biblical reasons for whatever action they have taken. Whatever happens in Kansas City, we will leave with one of three things occurring: (1). The board will keep the new policy on private prayer language and baptism guideline as is, or (2). The board will reword the private prayer language policy and/or baptism guideline, or (3). The board will revert back to the practices of the mission board prior to November 15, 2005 in the evaluation and acceptance of missionary candidates regarding their baptism and use of a private prayer language. Prior to November 2005, missionary candidates had to give to the board expression of their faith in Christ and that they had followed Him in believer's baptism, by immersion, trusting Christ alone for their salvation. If the candidate had a 'private prayer language,' they were instructed to simply keep it in their prayer closet and not practice it publicly or they would face staff discipline and/or correction.

My question, as a trustee for the IMB, from the day I heard of the effort to implement the new requirements for missionary candidates has been 'why do we need the tighter restrictions?'

There are some who say the policy and guideline are needed, 'because of problems on the field.' Well, by George, if there are problems, let's change the policies and guidelines, but show us the problems, don't just tell us there are and act as if staff has not appropriately dealt with it. Others say, "it's a doctrinal issue," well, by George if you are going to impose a new doctrinal standard upon the largest SBC cooperative ministry, you better be sure that there is clear cut agreement on the issue. As has been pointed out numerous times, the issue is not the PUBLIC speaking of tongues, for that has always been prohibited by policy; the new issue is barring a person from having 'a private prayer language' in his closet. There are a handful of people in the SBC who hold to viewpoints on both ends of the extremes regarding the gifts, and neither group should hold sway. The vast majority of Southern Baptists are hesitant about tongues being spoken publicly (and rightly so, for Scripture restricts the practice as well), but I think you may be surprised that most Southern Baptists don't care what someone does in their prayer closet.

I am hopeful that a full and free discussion of this report will take place in a public plenary session and not behind closed doors. Closed door forums are for the protecion of missionaries and appropriate for security, but Southern Baptists have every right to know the reasoning behind major policy shifts at agencies that occur on 'doctrinal grounds.' Specifically, if our agencies determine a shift to an adoption of a total cessationist viewpoint is needed at the IMB, then the explanation for the demand for cessationist conformity before cooperating in missions needs to be heard and understood by the average Southern Baptist who has no access to closed door meetings. If there is a desire to accept only those baptisms done in a Southern Baptist Church or a church that teaches 'eternal security,' then the average Southern Baptist needs to hear and understand the rationale behind baptism being identification with 'a church' rather than Jesus Christ and faith in Him.

It should be an interesting meeting. In the past year I have spoken publicly in our board meetings only one time. The meetings have been run quite well, with proper decorum by all present, and the focus has been on missions.

I trust the same will be true of this meeting as well.

Look for reports on the IMB meeting beginning Monday and going through Thursday of next week.

In His Grace,

Wade

A Tenacious Bulldog Tussling With a Porcupine

One of my church members sent me the photograph below of a pit-bull who was set loose by his owner to attack a porcupine that was rooting up the garden in the backyard. The battle between bulldog and porcupine lasted about an hour in small town in Southern California. The pit-bull is known for both his bravery and tenacity; the porcupine is known for the ability to repel all attacks while stealing his food. The porcupine ultimately last the battle, but the pit-bull paid a high price . .



A vet sedated the dog, and then removed a total of 1,347 quills. The dog's owner now has a garden that is lush and fruitful - thanks to his pit-bull.



“The history of the world is full of men who rose to leadership, by sheer force of self-confidence, bravery and tenacity.” Mahatma Gandhi

Dr. Drake Told Me He NEVER Signed the Petition

Last night I was able to visit with Wiley Drake by phone. He adamantly denied ever signing any online petition and said his name has been falsely used. Below is the statement Wiley emailed to me and asked I place on my blog.

I did not sign any such document and anyone who says I did is telling a lie.

Until a friend called me about this I had never heard of nor did I know who James Kopp is.

My stand against killing babies has not changed. I am against killing babies.

Killing a doctor that is a baby killer is never right. Two wrongs do not make murder right.

Please hear my heart, I am deeply sadden about our killing of babies, and all those who do so will face an angry God; but that's God's business not mine.

Dr. Wiley S. Drake Sr

Regardless of one's opinion of Wiley's philosophical or theological views, it seems to me someone owes Wiley an apology for publicly accusing him of supporting a murderer of an abortion doctor without ever first calling Wiley and asking him about his alleged support.

In His Grace,


Wade

Why Wiley Drake Should Not Be VP of the SBC

When the Southern Baptist Convention voted to boycott Disney World, I took my entire family, the very next day, to Orlando, Florida to enjoy Disney World. I told my church it was the best vacation we ever had. It was then, in the mid-1990's, that Wiley Drake first came into my consciousness. He was the man who recommended that boycott at the SBC, and the messengers passed it. I let my strong disagreement with Wiley be known at the time.

In fact, Wiley's views on everything denominationally, politically, and about life in general are as different from my views as the colors across the aisle on the 50 yard line at the annual Texas OU Cotton Bowl tussle. Wiley's classic dispensationalism, ardent fundamentalism, and strident political activism are the antithesis of my views. My concern over the last several years has been that we, the SBC, are becoming ideologically like the Wiley Drakes of this world .

Last year in Greensboro, North Carolina, an elderly pastor named Bill Dotson took it upon himself to nominate Wiley to the position of Second Vice President of the SBC. He asked Ben Cole to write the nominating speech. I believe the speech to elect Wiley Drake will go down in history as one of the most, if not the, funniest SBC nominating speeches of all time.

Wiley Drake was elected.

My choice for Second Vice President was my friend Bob Bender from Colorado. In fact, I had helped Bob get his nominator and talked with him several times about his being nominated. I did not know Wiley personally before he was elected, having only one conversation with him (and that was about our disagreements), but after Wiley was elected, I met him, his wife, and his mother-in-law during an informal reception at our hotel.

This is what I discovered. Wiley is a man who possesses a very soft heart. He ministers to the down and out in a street ministry that he personally leads. Most of us who are Southern Baptist pastors wouldn't even think of helping in, much less organizing, such a ministry to the poor and outcast. He cares for the Mexican immigrants in California as if they were his own family, buying food and clothes for them as he tries to help them get established. He cared for his aged mother-in-law, who was in a wheel chair, with both class and grace. Wiley is a man of paradox. He thinks like a fundamentalist but he seems to care for the underdog like a liberal.

Wiley's views on abortion are well known. He strongly opposes abortion and calls it 'the murder of our children.' What is not so well known is Wiley's alleged support of a man in prison for killing an abortion doctor. Some liberals question why people are silent about Wiley's 'support' of domestic terrorism. Other fundamentalists take me to task for sending a message to the powers that be in 'getting Wiley elected.'

A few thoughts on Wiley Drake for people to ruminate on:

(1). If our convention continues down the road of fundamentalism, Wiley Drake will be the norm, not the aberration.

(2). People are beginning to wake up to where we are headed, and if it takes the election of Wiley Drake for Southern Baptists to see that the logical end of extreme evangelical fundamentalism is having leadership that advocates the boycott of Disney World and allegedly supports the murder of abortion doctors, then maybe Wiley's election is for our ultimate good - it will wake us up to the fact that our mission is to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the ends of the world. We are a gospel convention not a political convention.

(3). However, I would be very cautious about accepting something you read on the Internet about Wiley Drake. I have not spoken to Wiley on the issue of his 'support' of a murderer. I, like everybody else, just found out about it. I've not heard Wiley speak to it. Too many people are quick to jump to unfounded conclusions before talking to the people involved. I am not defending Wiley, I am just urging caution to all who would castigate him before you talk to him.

(4). I love the SBC and support the SBC with dollars and ministry. I am skeptical of anything that is said to embarrass the SBC by those who were once participating in the SBC but pulled out. The SBC needs neither liberalism or fundamentalism. Both Pharisaical and Sadduceal extremes may have their place in the religious world, but not in the SBC. We need moderation in all things except our love for Christ.

(5). Wiley Drake should not and will not be reelected to an SBC office in San Antonio. Thankfully, people want moderation in our leaders, not extremes.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson