This is the first in a series of posts wherein I will share my opinions on some of the pressing issues in the SBC. The genesis of this series is a post titled “The Questions Young Future Leaders are Asking.” In that post, I listed fifteen of the top questions my Baptist History and Distinctives students ask me on the last day of class, which is an extended Q & A about the future of the convention. This list is not exhaustive. I do not claim it represents all or even the most pressing issues among us. It does, however, represent the specific issues my students are concerned about. The following question, with its variations, is by far the most FAQ I get from college students, many of whom desire to serve with the IMB as missionaries.
1. What is all the fuss about at the International Mission Board? (Variation: What do you [NAF] think about the new IMB rules?) (Variation 2: Is there really a problem with missionaries who are speaking in tongues?)
In November 2006, the International Mission Board developed two new rules for prospective missionary candidates. Different terminology has been used at different times to describe the rules (policies, guidelines, etc.), but they are really rules regarding candidate eligibility.
Rule one: All candidates need to have been baptized by a church that practices exclusively believer’s baptism by immersion, does not believe that baptism contributes to a person’s salvation, and adheres to some form of eternal security. If your baptism does not meet this standard, then you have not really been baptized (just dunked), and you need to be baptized in a Southern Baptist church.
What the baptism rule does not say: This rule does not say that only SBC baptism counts, contra the rhetoric you may hear. This common misunderstanding comes from the last sentence in my above paragraph. All the rule is saying is that, if your baptism is deemed invalid, you ought to be baptized in a SBC church, because, after all, you are already a member of an SBC church or you would not qualify for IMB service for other reasons. My thoughts are that IF a candidate is not really baptized, then it makes sense for them to be baptized in an SBC church like the very church that has recommended the candidate for missionary service. No denominational idolatry here–just common sense.
What the baptism rule does say: So-called “alien immersions” are not valid immersions. For most of the history of American Baptists in the South and Southwest, even before the formation of the SBC in 1845, many Southern Baptist writing theologians, churches, associations, and some state conventions have argued that immersion itself does not always a baptism make. For example, very few Baptists have historically accepted Church of Christ baptism as valid because it carries a totally different meaning (baptism as the completion of one’s regeneration) than what Baptists believe the NT teaches (baptism as symbolic of a believer’s union with Christ in his death and resurrection). In other words, many Baptists have historically taught that an immersion administered under the authority of a Church of Christ is just as much a “non-baptism” as sprinkling a baby. Many Baptists have also rejected immersions administered in pedobaptist churches because these congregations believe that there is more than one valid mode (method) of baptism–sprinkling, pouring, and dunking. The rationale behind the eternal security clause is that Arminian churches believe it is possible for baptism to be repeated because someone can lose their salvation, be saved again, and then need to be baptized again.
What NAF thinks about the baptism rule: I agree with some aspects of this rule and disagree with others. I agree with the position that baptism is a Christian ordinance that is administered by local churches. This means I reject immersions that occur with no relation to a local church (e.g. parachurch immersions, fathers dunking sons in the lake on a camping trip, tour guides submerging tourists in the River Jordan, etc.). I do think that churches perform baptisms, though not necessarily (or even ideally) in sanctuaries or other meeting rooms.
I also reject Church of Christ immersions because I do not believe they are not real churches (their gospel is different) and their immersion means something different than what the NT teaches (a form of baptismal regeneration). I think a missionary candidate who was immersed in a Church of Christ or baptized independently of any congregation needs to be baptized. They do not need to be “re-baptized” because they were never baptized to begin with.
I obviously reject immersions of individuals who were not saved at the time of their dunking. I think almost all Southern Baptists agree with this position.
I disagree with the argument that a church must teach eternal security for the baptism to count for two reasons. First, while I understand the logic behind the argument, I believe that logic is built on a misunderstanding of what Arminianism actually teaches. Most Arminians do not believe that folks can get saved and unsaved and saved again on a whim. Instead, those Arminians who reject eternal security (mostly Wesleyans) argue that it is possible for a true believer to finally fall away from the faith and become apostate. These individuals do not get saved again–they have knowingly and willfully rejected the grace of God in Christ. Simply put, I think the rule is reacting to a specter that does not really exist (or is so rare its not worth a rule).
Second, if a belief in some type of eternal security is necessary for a valid baptism, then many earlier Calvinistic Baptists like Benjamin Keach and Abraham Booth were not really baptized because they were General Baptists before they became Particular Baptists. Yet their new churches did not seem to think it was necessary for them to be baptized again. So in short, I think the arguments for rejecting an immersion based upon a church’s belief about eternal security are lame. This peculiar view is an idiosyncrasy among some American Baptists who have been influenced by a Landmark-like sectarianism. In fact, I cannot find this conviction anywhere besides among Landmark writers until very recently.
Take a deep breath–I also disagree with the argument that a valid immersion cannot occur in a pedobaptist congregation. I admit I have changed my position on this issue over the last couple of years, and I sometime waffle to this day. But I do not accept the proposition that only baptistic churches are true churches. While I believe Baptist churches are most consistent with New Testament polity, I believe that a church’s view of the ordinances are not part of the essence of that church but rather are part of the health of that church. In other words, while I think pedobaptist churches have a deficient ecclesiology–as they also believe about us–I do not think that makes them “not churches.”
The vast majority of pedobaptist churches with which I am familiar practice the missionary immersion of new adult converts, at least upon request. In other words, adult converts are sometimes dunked in theologically conservative Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, and Lutheran churches. If that is the case, then I believe their baptism is a valid baptism because they have been immersed under the authority of a true church, i.e. one that is rightly preaching the gospel. If the adult convert was sprinkled, then this is a non-issue; he has not been baptized because he has not been immersed. The same is obviously true of infant sprinkling or christening. If the immersion occurs in a Catholic church, I do not believe it is a valid immersion because they preach a totally different gospel.
So to review, I do believe there is a such thing as an alien (invalid) immersion. That said, I would not be as rigid in my definition as the trustees of the IMB. I admit that my position on immersions in pedobaptist churches is a minority position in Southern Baptist history, though there have always been some Southern Baptists who have held it. But where I cannot find biblical warrant for our denominational traditions, I depart from our traditions.
Rule two: Candidates who speak in tongues, including practicing a so-called private prayer language, cannot serve as missionaries. I think the point of this rule is pretty obvious.
What NAF thinks about the tongues rule: I am not a cessasionist, preferring to call myself “cautious, but open.” I do not speak in tongues and have doubts about the validity of what normally passes for glossolalia in most Pentecostal, Charismatic, and Third Wave churches. I am personally totally exegetically unconvinced of the existence of a private prayer language, though I concede that others would disagree with me.
IMB leadership has made it abundantly clear that there were already guidelines in place to deal with missionary personnel who openly embrace miraculous spiritual gifts. It is my understanding that when this very rarely occurs on the mission field, the missionary is terminated. Though we can debate the biblical nature of these gifts, the IMB believes they are divisive in a missionary context, particularly among missionaries who come from a tradition that has not been widely open to such gifts. I agree.
As for rules about private prayer languages, I have several thoughts. First, though I know it has become something of a pun in some circles, I agree with those who say that private prayer languages ought to remain private. Second, in my personal opinion it is nobody’s business how or what a candidate prays about in their prayer closet, period. Third, the missionaries with whom I talk do not perceive private prayer languages to be an issue on the field. Most of them only know of one missionary who has ever claimed to have a private prayer language, everyone has known about his beliefs on the matter for years, and he is not serving on the field anymore. I believe our missionaries when they say this is not a problem. In my opinion, the concern about private prayer languages is unwarranted and should have never been addressed, even though my personal convictions are reflected in the new rule.
So I have mixed feelings about the new IMB guidelines. My disagreements over some points aside, I totally support the IMB trustee board’s right to lead their organization in the manner they best deem appropriate. I believe in the freedom to dissent and attempt to persuade the trustees to rethink the policies. But I do defend their right to lead their mission board, even when they make decisions I probably would not make. Ultimately, if the people of the Southern Baptist Convention believe the IMB trustees have acted out of turn, they will address the issue at an annual meeting, and I have every confidence that the trustees will honor the desires of the convention. But until they do so, these guidelines stand, and I will defend their right to stand, even while I register my disagreement and hope that the guidelines will eventually be relaxed.
[Note: I understand this is a controversial subject, and you are welcome to comment on it as you see fit. That said, two rules seem wise in this case: 1), If you question motives or attack individuals, I will torch your comment. 2), Do not expect me to engage all of the comments. If you want to have a real discussion about the guidelines, my understanding of the issues, etc., then email me and I will get back with you when I can.]
Again, thanks for the reply.
