New Policy: Southern Baptist Missionary Candidates

[Guest shiloh357]

"Boy, does that statement drip of despising the gift of the Spirit or what?"

"The" gift of the Holy Spirit, and the unknown tongue being a trivial matter have nothing to do with despising. I don't despise tongues, neither do I despise those who use it. What I do despise, however, are those who cast judgement upon me for saying I approve of people standing up for what they believe. But I suppose you're entitled to your opinion.

To adress the issue, I couldn't be more in love with the gifts from the Spirit. Though I must admit I don't thank God enough for the Holy Spirit, or his gifts. To say the least I don't believe the unknown tongue is a gift of the Holy Spirit, I also don't think tongues should even be nearly as important to people as they have become. Tongues is to confirm salvation to those in doubt, not to the user. Kinda like baptism.

If tongues were such a "trivial matter" we would not have people trying to prevent its use. It is possible to stand for what you believe without being tyrannical, which is what I see happening in the SBC concerning tongues. If it is genuine gift from God (and it is), then it should not be hindered. It certainly should be a criteria to be used against the missionaries. Again, it is not a threat to SBC doctrines. I do believe it should be kept within the guidelines of Scripture. As long as it done in accordance with Scripture, those who fight the manifestation of this gift will find themselves fighting God.

Instead they merely stated, "you cannot take part in the SBC's Missions and participate in a trivial doctrine."

Rerun, you put that in quotes, but they did not say that. They are claiming that you cannot participate in the missions program and speak in tongues. Nowhere do they claim that it is a trivial doctrine. If they thought it trivial, they would not enact (yet again) this policy. They have tried this before, and it went flat. If it is trivial and therefore of no major consequence, they should not object to its practice. What they are saying, is that "you cannot fulfill God's calling on your life, unless you conform to what we want." They have overstepped their bounds as authorities in the Southern Baptist Church by forcing people to sign a decalaration and making their ministry conditional upon it.

I have heard testimonies of missionaries who have miraculously began supernaturally speaking in other languages they did not know, and in a few instances, it saved their lives. No one can legislate the power and operations of the Lord. I have heard testimonies first hand of SBC pastors who have laid hands on people and they were healed. My pastor has operated in the gift of a word of knowledge. God's power is real, and there is no policy by any board or committee that can legislate it away. This is probably the only big area that I disagree with my denomination about, but I do see changes occurring at a grass roots level.

[yomotalking]

lets see now, you can go to war but no bullets or guns are allowed......

..............only insults which tear down your faith..........

[book_wirm]

"In terms of general practice, the majority of Southern Baptists do not accept what is referred to as `private prayer language'. Therefore, if `private prayer language' is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB (International Mission Board) of the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention)."

I don't see that the SBC is denying that God may grant a true gift of tongues to whomever He will...whenever He will. This policy does not warn of punishment to those who are given a gift nor instruct them not to use it. What it appears they are saying is that those who regularly engage in unintelligable babbling show that they have drastically different beliefs regarding the gifts of the Holy Spirit than the SBC. How can one teach in opposition to a church and be surprised that such a church will not support them? From what I understand about the policy, I would tend to agree with them.

Perhaps there is more to it which I would disagree with...but from what was reported I see nothing incorrect in their decision.

In Christ,

Eric

[WayneB]

"Boy, does that statement drip of despising the gift of the Spirit or what?"

"The" gift of the Holy Spirit, and the unknown tongue being a trivial matter have nothing to do with despising. I don't despise tongues, neither do I despise those who use it. What I do despise, however, are those who cast judgement upon me for saying I approve of people standing up for what they believe. But I suppose you're entitled to your opinion.

To adress the issue, I couldn't be more in love with the gifts from the Spirit. Though I must admit I don't thank God enough for the Holy Spirit, or his gifts. To say the least I don't believe the unknown tongue is a gift of the Holy Spirit, I also don't think tongues should even be nearly as important to people as they have become. Tongues is to confirm salvation to those in doubt, not to the user. Kinda like baptism.

If tongues were such a "trivial matter" we would not have people trying to prevent its use. It is possible to stand for what you believe without being tyrannical, which is what I see happening in the SBC concerning tongues. If it is genuine gift from God (and it is), then it should not be hindered. It certainly should be a criteria to be used against the missionaries. Again, it is not a threat to SBC doctrines. I do believe it should be kept within the guidelines of Scripture. As long as it done in accordance with Scripture, those who fight the manifestation of this gift will find themselves fighting God.

Instead they merely stated, "you cannot take part in the SBC's Missions and participate in a trivial doctrine."

Rerun, you put that in quotes, but they did not say that. They are claiming that you cannot participate in the missions program and speak in tongues. Nowhere do they claim that it is a trivial doctrine. If they thought it trivial, they would not enact (yet again) this policy. They have tried this before, and it went flat. If it is trivial and therefore of no major consequence, they should not object to its practice. What they are saying, is that "you cannot fulfill God's calling on your life, unless you conform to what we want." They have overstepped their bounds as authorities in the Southern Baptist Church by forcing people to sign a decalaration and making their ministry conditional upon it.

I have heard testimonies of missionaries who have miraculously began supernaturally speaking in other languages they did not know, and in a few instances, it saved their lives. No one can legislate the power and operations of the Lord. I have heard testimonies first hand of SBC pastors who have laid hands on people and they were healed. My pastor has operated in the gift of a word of knowledge. God's power is real, and there is no policy by any board or committee that can legislate it away. This is probably the only big area that I disagree with my denomination about, but I do see changes occurring at a grass roots level.

Brother David, excellent and well spoken! The SBC is treading on dangerous ground when they begin "legislating" what is acceptable and not acceptable in the Lord's sight.

1 Corinthians 14:39 Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

1 Thessalonians 5:19 Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good.

Just because the GIFTS are abused and often fabricated AND just because not all believers have experienced all or one of them does NOT make tongues, healing and prophecy a thing of the past. The Holy Spirit is still moving in a strong way and people tread on dangerous ground when they begin saying what gifts are real and what gifts are not.

Lastly, doing what they suggest is like sending men into combat with one hand tied behind their back. To deny the GIFTS is to deny the Holy Spirit... in my humble opinion.

May the Lord Bless you richly,

Wayne

[apothanein kerdos]

"In terms of general practice, the majority of Southern Baptists do not accept what is referred to as `private prayer language'. Therefore, if `private prayer language' is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB (International Mission Board) of the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention)."

I don't see that the SBC is denying that God may grant a true gift of tongues to whomever He will...whenever He will. This policy does not warn of punishment to those who are given a gift nor instruct them not to use it. What it appears they are saying is that those who regularly engage in unintelligable babbling show that they have drastically different beliefs regarding the gifts of the Holy Spirit than the SBC. How can one teach in opposition to a church and be surprised that such a church will not support them? From what I understand about the policy, I would tend to agree with them.

Perhaps there is more to it which I would disagree with...but from what was reported I see nothing incorrect in their decision.

In Christ,

Eric

I agree with what you are saying to an extent. Unfortunately I know almost all the men on the board (personally know them) and can tell you that the intention is much more political than anything else. The reports as of late have been SBC missionaries reporting the dead raising, people being healed, and numerous other things. The "men" on the board (or the majority) have been discussing for quite some time that this seems to be a move towards a "TBN style ministry" and they want to nip it in the bud. This is the first step of many to come.

Keep in mind that these men are rich men in powerful positions within the church....they have built their pulpits by preaching on the hot issues of our time (homosexuality, gambling, abortion, etc)....if people catch wind of a revival elsewhere it could potentially hurt the Baptist congregations over here. I know it sounds absurd, but that is the actual conversation that took place before me at a resteraunt with four of these men....three of them held the attitude....the fourth resigned.

[Catsmeow]

I guess they forgot the Scriptural commandment specifically NOT to forbid tongues.........

How are the mighty fallen.

No, I don't think it's that.

I think (and here I'm only GUESSING )...but I think it's based on the fact that the scripture says there must be someone who "interprets" a given tongue and the SBC may be concerned that there are too many "tongues" being spoken and not enough "interpreters"...

The REASON that might be important is covert groups (wiccans, black witches, satanists, et al) will infiltrate churches using bogus, demonic tongues. If there's no one in place to interpret the tongue, infiltrators will pronounce demonic curses on the congregation.

This is one of many testimonies by ex-witches who've confessed to being used to infiltrate some pentacostal churches...

[nebula]

. . .those who regularly engage in unintelligable babbling . . .

Hey Eric -

Catch!

[Catsmeow]

My own personal belief is that if a charismatic missionary is sponsored, there must be a corresponding "interpreter" with them...since scripture is specific about having someone to edify the Body with an interpreter...

[book_wirm]

My own personal belief is that if a charismatic missionary is sponsored, there must be a corresponding "interpreter" with them...since scripture is specific about having someone to edify the Body with an interpreter...

Thank you. That is what I was trying to get at.

In Christ,

Eric

[book_wirm]

...I know almost all the men on the board (personally know them) and can tell you that the intention is much more political than anything else.

Whether you know them or not, who can say? But based on what is clearly printed on the Southern Baptist Missions Board website they do not deny the gift of tongues nor forbid its use (nor healing, word of knowledge, etc. etc.). They only say that each of these gifts can be misused. I can agree with that. The "private prayer tongue" (unintelligable babbling in the church with no interpretation) is one method of misusing the tongues, I believe. For them to say they cannot support such activities is reasonable.

The measure passed with a 25-18 vote (with several trustees not voting). Such numbers do not give me the impression that it is a handful of men "ruling from the bench".

I want to make it clear that I am not trying to promote the SBC. I, too, have several disagreements with them, but all in all I think they are right about many important issues.

In Christ,

Eric