Alethes (Truthful) Baptist

All Things Southern Baptist Considered

Archive for the ‘IMB trustees’ Category

Answering Jeremy Roberts

Posted by Alethes (Truthful) Baptist on July 29, 2006

Ben Cole, pastor of Parkview Baptist Church in Arlington, TX, posted today a call for Tom Hatley, former Chairman of the IMB Board of Trustees, to resign in light of the comments printed in the Florida Baptist Witness. In the comments section of Cole’s post, Jeremy Roberts asked the question: “BSC – what specifically did Hatley say to cause you to want him to immediately resign?

I’m not sure if Roberts is serious or not. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I tried answer his question by posting a comment on Cole’s blog. However, Cole’s comments section is reserved for those only having Blogger accounts with Google. Since I use WordPress, I was unable to post my response. Therefore, I decided to copy and paste my response on my own blog. It is as follows:

Jeremy,

I can’t speak for Ben, but I would suspect his answer would be as follows:

Due the recently passed IMB policy forbidding trustees to speak against agreed upon policies, there was also a caveat stating that trustees could not defame the character of other trustees in public. This rule Mr. Hatley has broken. How, you might ask? With the following words:

[The first sentence belongs to the author of the article, Joni Hannigan. The words in bold belong to Mr. Hatley]

“Hatley said his primary concern about Burleson’s attendance at the trustee forums has been driven by concerns for the security of IMB workers worldwide. [Hatley said] ‘The whole purpose of the forum is so we can talk about places where we have to keep our missionary stuff secret and if you put that on blog sites, you can’t be a trustee in those meetings‘.”

There is a clear implication that Hatley is accusing Burleson of either: a) posting sensitive material that was discussed in forum which has compromised the safety of missionaries; or b) having the intention of posting sensitive content. To make such an unsubstantiated accusation is a defamation of character of another trustee in public, breaking the very rule which was passed during his time as Chairman.

I find the duplicitous nature of this act, along with Corbaley’s recent admission of ACTUALLY violating BoT confidentiality, sickening if not dealt with at the next trustee meeting (most likely in Sept.). As I said in an earlier post on my blog, the SBC is watching every step the IMB BoT makes. Their leaders are breaking the very rules they have set in place and expect bloggers, and all the SBC, to trust them. That time has passed, dear friend. I hope that answers your question of why Hatley should resign.

Charis humin,

Alethes (Truthful) Baptist

Advertisements

Posted in IMB trustees, Southern Baptist Convention | 12 Comments »

IMB Trustees and “The Police”

Posted by Alethes (Truthful) Baptist on July 14, 2006

As I was thinking about the upcoming IMB Board of Trustees meeting on July 17-19, I was reminded of an old song and how its message was appropriate for the trustees (sans the romantic references). It was too funny not to share:

Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I’ll be watching you

Every single day
Every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
I’ll be watching you

Oh, can’t you see
You belong to me
How my poor heart aches
With every step you take

Every move you make
Every vow you break
Every smile you fake
Every claim you stake
I’ll be watching you

Since you’ve gone I been lost without a trace
I dream at night I can only see your face
I look around but it’s you I can’t replace
I feel so cold and I long for your embrace
I keep crying baby, baby, please…

Oh, can’t you see
You belong to me
How my poor heart aches
With every breath you take

Every move you make
Every vow you break
Every smile you fake
Every claim you stake
I’ll be watching you

Every move you make
Every step you take
I’ll be watching you

I’ll be watching you
I’ll be watching you
I’ll be watching you
I’ll be watching you.

Don’t worry, no attemt to make a threat. I just thought the lyrics were somewhat appropriate. As the BoT is answerable to the Convention, and especially in light of the motion made in Greensboro and way they have treated Wade Burleson, they have to know all eyes will be upon them as they convene next week. May Christ be exulted as the extend their authority over one of our missions agencies.

Charis humin,

Alethes (Truthful) Baptist

Posted in IMB trustees, Southern Baptist Convention | 2 Comments »

The IMB Policy On Private Prayer Language

Posted by Alethes (Truthful) Baptist on June 23, 2006

A few days ago, I was reading Don Carson’s Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14. I noticed a lengthy quote that speaks volumes to the current policy concerning private prayer language recently adopted by the IMB trustees. His definition of what qualifies as a spiritual gift (which agrees with Wayne Grudem’s definition) is found in 1 Corinthians 12.7: “But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” That is, there is no ‘definitive’ or ‘exhaustive’ list of spiritual gifts found within the New Testament, but any and all aspects of the spiritual life that promote the common good of the Church qualifies as a spiritual gift.

What about private prayer language, though? There appears to be no express verse listing it as a spiritual gift. More over, it benefits the individual with the language and is not ‘for the common good’ of the Church. Are the IMB trustees, then, justified in rejecting mission candidates with a private prayer language? Other blogs have dismissed any such justification from the standpoint of our convention’s confession (or previously adopted confessions, for that matter). What about from a biblical standpoint?

Carson states:

These gifts are not for personal aggrandizement, but ‘for the common good.’ The peculiar expression that is used might be literally rendered ‘with a view to profiting,’ not in itself making it clear whether the profit is for the individual or the group. The broader context makes it clear that the latter is in view (see especially [1 Corinthians] 14). Even so, this clearly stated purpose of ‘spiritual gifts’ (if I may continue to use that term for the full range of the manifestations of the Spirit that Paul envisages) must not be brought to bear on the broader discussion in a heavy-handed way. As we shall see, some wish to rule out the legitimacy of any private use of tongues on the basis of this and similar texts: What possible benefit for the entire community is there, they ask, in such private tongues-speaking? Clearly there is no direct benefit: no one but God is hearing what is being said. But Paul was granted extraordinary visions and revelations that were designed only for his immediate benefit (2 Cor. 12:1-10); yet surely the church received indirect profit insofar as those visions and revelations, no to mention the ensuing thorn in his flesh, better equipped him for proclamation and ministry. In the same way, it is hard to see how verse 7 of this chapter renders illegitimate a private use of tongues if the result is a better person, a more spiritually minded Christian: the church may thereby receive indirect benefit. The verse rules out using any charismata for personal aggrandizement or merely for self-satisfaction; it does not rule out all benefit for the individual (just as marriage, one of the charismata according to 1 Cor. 7.7, may benefit the individual), providing that the resulting matrix is for the common good (34-35).

Carson has eliminated the argument that a private prayer language is disqualified from the realm of spiritual gifts. There may be no direct impact for the common good, but certainly there is the possibility for indirect impact. His example of marriage and singleness being called ‘spiritual gifts’ given by God (1 Cor. 7) is an excellent example of charismata benefiting the individual primarily and the church secondarily.

In their desire to rid the IMB missionaries of charasmatic tendencies, the trustees have no confessional leg to stand upon. In addition, they have no biblical leg upon which to rest. One wonders, then, where they derive their justification for rejecting private prayer languages. Maybe it's because “Baptists have always believed this way”.

Charis humin,

Alethes (Truthful) Baptist

Posted in Don Carson, IMB trustees, NT exegesis, Private Prayer Language | 3 Comments »