SBCOutpost

We seem to have a problem with agreeing about truth in Southern Baptist life. Over the past few weeks, we have seen information come out that tells us that Southern Baptists are in decline - and, we have argued over it. We have seen competing resolutions submitted on integrity in church membership - and, we have argued over it. Yesterday, Dr. Patterson released a First Person article that basically says that things are not that bad numbers wise, and what ails us is weak preaching and culture chasing. Dr. Page recently said that half of all SBC churches could vanish by 2030. I suppose we’ll argue over that as well. No matter how you look at it, Southern Baptists are in crisis, and we continue to argue over it. We are at each other’s throats and we refuse to listen to one another. Is God pleased? Truth on these matters seems to be elusive, or maybe it is just held captive to our own opinions.

On top of all of this is the resignation of Rodney Hammer, the Central and Eastern Europe Regional Leader for the IMB. Mr. Hammer tells a disturbing story of trying to speak to the trustees regarding the policies on baptism and private prayer language, without much success. Finally, he was allowed to speak with a group of trustees, but his concerns were dismissed. Hammer’s statements regarding the lack of a problem on the field related to charismatic practices dispute what former IMB trustee chaiman Tom Hatley said in 2006 when he said that, “we were receiving concerns from the field, from pastors and others returning from mission trips, and from trustees visiting the field. The concerns were varied, but the three greatest doctrinal concerns were the need for a consistent definition of a local church, a poor understanding of the importance of scriptural baptism and charismatic problems that would intrude into some of our mission work.” There were many statements made that these new policies were in response to problems on the field. Hammer says that there were no problems with charismatic issues on the field in his region and he seems to imply that that was the case in ALL the regions of the IMB. This was a big enough deal for a Regional Leader of the IMB to resign over. If what he is saying is true, we should all be very alarmed. Unfortunately, we continue to turn and look the other way, or, we just argue about what it means. So, how do we make sense of this?

From Mr. Hammer’s perspective, there were no problems with charismatic practices on the field. There were policies in place that forbid a missionary to advocate one spiritual gift as normative to all believers or to publicly practice speaking in tongues. These policies were sufficient to eliminate any problems. But, from Mr. Hatley’s view, there were problems anyway. Could it be that the problems that Mr. Hatley heard of and referred to were enlarged in his mind because of his predetermined prejudice or the prejudice of those telling the stories? Could it be that the IMB Board of Trustees, filled with people who feared anything that might resemble charismatic practice, were biased to begin with? If all of the Regional Leaders of the IMB told the Board of Trustees that there was no problem, then what justification do the trustees have in changing the policies to eliminate a non-existent problem? Could it be that their own theological bias was all the basis that they needed? Apparently, the problem was the mere existence of IMB missionaries who had a private prayer language or were baptized differently, whether they were a problem or not. It was a theological issue.

That is a somewhat defensible position logically, even if many believe that they exceeded their perogative as trustees because they created doctrinal policy that went beyond the BFM2000. But, the position falls apart when the trustees allowed current violators of the new policies to stay on the field. Basically, violators were grandfathered in. Under what basis was the “truth” of the trustees compromised? Hatley says that it was deemed to be “fair” to the previous missionaries who had a ppl to continue to serve as long as they did not violate the other policies about making charismatic teachings public. This is very confusing for a denomination that claims to be guided by “truth.” Either practicioners of ppl are wrong and they believe in doctrine that is harmful to the churches and thus, they should not be on the field, or, it is possible for them to faithfully serve as IMB missionaries while still holding to their convictions if they do so in a way that is not divisive. The IMB Board of Trustees is espousing both positions at the same time, but they seem to agree that practicioners of ppl can be good Southern Baptist missionaries, otherwise, why are they allowing them to stay on the field? To be fair? Truth is not always fair. If they want to be consistent, they should remove all of the IMB missionaries that have a private prayer language. But, there is no reason to do that, as Mr. Hammer has said, because there were no problems on the field. It becomes a theological issue that was important enough to tear apart the SBC for the past several years, but it was not important enough to currently protect our mission work from the dangers of missionaries with a private prayer language. If the trustees really believe both contradictory positions at the same time, then how can they adequately lead the IMB? The logical implications of such relativism causes the mind to swim.

Are the trustees liars? From their perspective, they are not lying. I would tend to agree. But, there is another issue. Mr. Hammer and the rest of the Regional Leaders say that there were no problems with charismatic issues. Mr. Hatley refers to some reports from trustees and mission teams returning from the field that says that there were problems. Who do we believe? The trustees or the Regional Leaders? For the trustees, it seems that their theological position has prejudiced them to believe what they already feared to be the case, despite the direct testimony of the Regional Leaders. So, what is truth? Is truth what can be confirmed and proven, or is it what is proclaimed relative to the perspective of the person speaking? Is truth verified outside of us by some standard, or is it established by those who hold power and can speak the loudest? The SBC after the Conservative Resurgence claims to be a denomination built on truth, yet again and again we turn away from the truth that can be verified and proven in our dealings with one another, to the truth that is proclaimed to by those in power relative to their experiences and presuppositions. That is the fallacy of postmodern relativism and it appears that our SBC leadership is eaten up with it.

Dr. Patterson told us in his First Person article that a weakness in the SBC right now is that we are in “hot pursuit of cultural adaptibility.” I agree. Since we live in an age of postmodern relativism, I believe that our leadership should repent of such sin and deal with issues in a way that affirms absolute truth instead of giving into moral relativism because it appears to be easier at the time. But, the problem remains: Whose truth? Who gets to decide what truth is on these issues? Apparently, whoever is in power at the time. And that relativistic state of affairs makes power more important than truth in today’s SBC. Will God bless this?