"Former IMB trustee Wade Burleson, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Oklahoma, clashed with other trustees over the policies. In 2006, a group of trustees tried to oust him from the IMB board, but that attempt failed. Burleson praised the changes in policy, in a phone interview. 'This is what I was asking for 10 years ago,' he said."
Looks like David Platt, who was elected president of the International Missions Board last August, has been doing some moving and shaking in the Southern Baptist Convention. In case you're not familiar with Platt, you can hear him sharing his heart about missions in a clip at the end of this Christian Post article. Perhaps Platt's passion in reaching the lost has helped bring some needed changes to the rules governing missionaries who serve in the IMB.
Christianity Today featured an article entitled International Missions Board Drops Ban on Speaking in Tongues, which describes some of those changes. Here is an excerpt from that piece:
For more than a decade, the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board (IMB) disqualified candidates who spoke in tongues or who had been baptized in churches that disagreed with the convention’s view of baptism.
Similar rules barred divorced people or those with teenagers from being missionaries.
That changed Wednesday, when the IMB’s trustees, at the prompting of their new president David Platt, approved a new, simplified set of rules for the agency’s more than 4,800 missionaries.
Missionary candidates must affirm the doctrines found in the Baptist Faith and Message statement of beliefs, be baptized by immersion, be a member of a SBC church, and demonstrate an “intimate, growing relationship with Christ.”
Wade Burleson was serving as a Trustee on the International Missions Board a decade ago when those IMB missionaries with a private prayer language were disqualified. Back then Dee and I were clueless about any of the things we discuss here at TWW, and it would be another three years before we had an inkling that something was terribly amiss in the conservative corner of Christendom.
As we began conducting internet research in the fall of 2008, we stumbled upon Wade Burleson's blog. While serving on the IMB, Wade became distraught over changes that were being implemented behind closed doors. He decided that Southern Baptists needed to know about the shenanigans that were occurring, so he started blogging. By the time we discovered his writings, he had already been blogging for several years. If you are interested in what happened to Wade, we recommend that you read his book Hardball Religion. (Note: this is an unsolicited, unpaid endorsement…)
So here we are ten years later, and Wade has summed up this change of policy in his aptly named post – Tragedy to Triumph IMB Reverses Itself. Here is how Wade begins that post:
Last week trustees of the International Mission Board (IMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention reversed two decade old doctrinal policies it implemented in 2005. Those two policies revolved around (a). a prospective SBC missionary's baptism; and (b). a prospective SBC missionary's private prayer life.
A decade ago, over my objections as a trustee of the IMB, my fellow trustees went beyond the Baptist Faith and Message and restricted the appointment of Southern Baptist missionaries to only those who had been baptized in a Southern Baptist Church and to only those who had never "prayed in tongues" in their prayer closet.
The belief that proper authority and doctrinal orthodoxy of the baptizer is necessary for a valid baptism is historically a Landmark position. The Baptist Faith and Message is not a Landmark document, and the Southern Baptist Convention is not a Landmark denomination. In addition, the Baptist Faith and Message is absolutely silent on the subject of a believer praying in tongues.
The Christian Post provided an additional perspective on this policy change (that the SBC is not endorsing speaking in tongues). (see below)
Reversing a decade-old policy, the Southern Baptist Convention's International Missionary Board has lifted the ban on people who have spoken in tongues or "private prayer language."
In comments given to The Christian Post, IMB President Dr. David Platt explained that the new policy does not mean that the SBC will endorse speaking in tongues.
"Up until this point, if a person had spoken in tongues or practiced a private prayer language, they were immediately disqualified from being appointed as an IMB missionary," said Platt.
"IMB trustees voted this week to remove that automatic disqualification. But this was a vote that addressed issues of qualification for potential IMB missionaries in the church, not the practical work of actual IMB missionaries on the field."
Platt added that "over the course of appointing, training, and supervising missionaries, IMB addresses many significant theological, missiological, ecclesiological, and practical issues, including the use of tongues."
The Religion News Service also covered this development with an article entitled Southern Baptists to open their ranks to those who speak in tongues. They seem to get to the heart of what may have led to this policy change. Here is the pertinent excerpt:
Allowing Southern Baptist missionaries to speak in tongues, or have what some SBC leaders call a “private prayer language,” speaks to the growing strength of Pentecostal churches in Africa, Asia and South America, where Southern Baptists are competing for converts and where energized new Christians are enthusiastically embracing the practice.
In addition to reversing its policy on a private prayer language, the IMB also made some other changes. As explained in the Christianity Today article, divorced candidates (who had previously been allowed to serve on short term mission trips) will now be eligible to serve as long-term missionaries (depending upon the circumstances for why they divorced as well as other factors, such as the culture where they will serve).
Also, parents with teenagers can now be considered for missions. The IMB's previous position was that uprooting teenagers to locations overseas was too disruptive. Now IMB leaders will consider on a case-by-case basis whether parents with teenagers can serve as missionaries. The locale in which the missionaries will be sent appears to be the primary factor in whether families with teenagers can serve.
The Christianity Today article provided some details regarding why the IMB took the position it did a decade ago regarding "private prayer language" by stating:
IMB leaders said the baptism and tongues rules, adopted in 2005, were needed to safeguard the Baptist identity of missionaries at a time when charismatic and Pentecostal practices were growing.
Tom Hatley, former IMB board chair, told CT in 2006 that some missionary candidates who spoke in tongues—a practice also known by the New Testament term glossolalia—claimed to be getting direct revelation from God.
“That's one reason that Southern Baptists have been suspicious of glossolalia," Hatley told CT in 2006. "If somebody believes they're getting direct divine revelation from God, obviously that's claiming an equality with Scripture that we would not allow."
The CT article goes on to mention Wade Burleson and how a group of trustees tried to oust him from the IMB Board. Their attempt was unsuccessful, and Wade ended up resigning.
Perhaps the real reason for these policy changes are revealed in the following excerpt from the CT article:
The policy changes come at a time when the IMB faces financial and staff constraints.
The number of missionaries is shrinking and there’s not enough money to send out more full-time replacements for all the people who retire.
In 2009, there were about 5,600 IMB missionaries. Today, there are 4,734, a drop of 15 percent.
“We are pretty fast on the way to 4,200 missionaries,” said Platt.
He hopes that more missionaries will be self-funded in the future. That could include retirees, people who have jobs overseas, or students studying aboard.
Having a simplified list of requirements will allow more people, from different backgrounds, to officially partner with the IMB, said Platt.
It will be interesting to see whether these changes are discussed at the upcoming SBC Annual Meeting.
I note this statement from their web site under the heading of “spiritual qualifications”:
Call: The call to serve as an IMB missionary has been discerned within a local church and affirmed by that local church alongside IMB leadership.
What I thought at the time is that some of the churches have deep pockets and could support their own missionaries (as the custom of some is) and this could be about money as much as anything else.
The statement that some people thought that the practice of glossalalia thought they were hearing from God–ummm how many times have non-tongues people said that “during my quiet time this morning the Lord laid on my heart that…..” Now if they had said that people were introducing heretical ideas and claiming direct revelation via tongues for heresy-that would be one thing. But this other? I don’t want to hear it.
@ Nancy:
Sorry about any and all garbled sentences. Some of this is dear to my heart for reasons previously discussed. I do not “do” English too well when I feel passionately about something.
Back then I was convinced it was all about Patterson trying to get rid of Rankin. Now I see it as an overall attempt to grab power using any issue to rally troops. Today, I see the reversal in the same way. It gets attention and sets up the players.
Seriously, if one has a “private” prayer language who would know besides God? However, I do understand concerns over people claiming they hear directly from God and using what they define as tongues. I would run the other way, for sure.
lydia wrote:
Coming from a church whose characteristic way to flake out is “Mary Channeling”, I am skeptical of any private revelations. Whether these revelations come scat-singing in Tongues or (as cited above) “The LOOORD Laid on My Heart…”
Nancy wrote:
Oh yes. It is about money. what is even more interesting is the new IMB president, David Platt. The hero of the Dubai Hilton. so you would think the new IMB presidents former mega church would have been a big supporter of the co-operative program, right?
well you would be wrong. and perhaps you would be wrong because you have common sense. Why would they hire a mega church pastor whose church gave pennies (compared to tiny churches)?
Because he is a YRR celebrity.
“Similar rules barred divorced people or those with teenagers from being missionaries.”
The juxtaposition in that sentence from the CT article is classic.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
You know, it is one thing for an individual to have a private word/revelation/prompting. But quite another when they try to ascribe that to others in any way shape or form. That is where I draw the line.
From the IMB website on FAQ for this I also note that they apparently plan to send missionaries to London. Somebody better give the locals a heads up. (Okay, maybe they did not actually mean London? or maybe the did.)
I do not personally speak in tongues but for many years I belonged to a church where people did. There was never a new revelation, not once. Someone would speak in tongues and someone would give a translation. These translations were always in line with Scripture. Honestly, just uncontroversial motherhood-and-apple pie stuff.
lydia wrote:
Me too. I also think that this whole area can be a hot spot for fuzzy thinking. There are people who will read something in the OT spoken by one of the prophets to a specific person or situation, and who will then take that and name it and claim as meant for them and everybody else forever more amen. Perhaps not; let’s exercise some discernment here.
Nancy wrote:
yes, this is one of my huge pet peeves. Not taking cultural context into consideration and not seeing the overarching spirit and the progressive narrative instead of making it some sort of command for all time.
Perhaps the IMB meant London, Ky? :o)
@ Marsha:
It is interesting to hear other views. We were taught as children they were actual languages (Because of the Diaspora in Jerusalem during Pentecost) that were miraculously understood. In Corinthians it says to have a ‘translator’ for the different languages which makes sense considering the cultural context of Corinthians. Anyway, that was the understanding we were taught.
For me it is a C issue unless someone tries to ascribe something to others. I will admit I am uncomfortable around it. But I cannot stand big brother type thinking on the subject either from either side.
So are they coming up with a plausible explanation of how they were wrong then and right this time. Is there any discussion of their change in thinking or is this simply expedient?
It reminds me of the Mormon church in 1890 suddenly getting a revelation from god to prohibit plural marriage. I’m sure it had nothing to do with the increasing pressure and recent federal law that would confiscate their property.
Bill M wrote:
Oh, IMO, it is about sending a message to the right people. It is really about winning an internal fight. Both times. IMO, Platt is just the loyal tool. It is not like they hired a seasoned, wise, mature, independent President who has a long history of supporting the Cooperative Program. They hired a celebrity the YRR would rally around.
It was never really about the “issue” of PPL.
Bill M wrote:
They said something about maintaining baptist identity? in the prior decision I think. Since the current BFM does not take a stand on this the question has been raised as to how that was maintaining baptist identity in the first place.
My own opinion is that lots of people are ‘soft’ charismatics including a private prayer language and lots of people are drinking beverage alcohol and more than a few are getting a little on the side, and practically nobody tithes and look how many are divorced with/without remarriage and given all that, how many people would be left? I think the IMB is trying to stay in business. They have already said their numbers are slipping and there is not enough money to replace retiring missionaries.
Nancy wrote:
My view is that the model just does not make as much sense anymore in a global economy. Mega churches have been doing their own mission things for years now and giving very little to the CP. And mega churches pretty much focused a lot of their energy on what they called the “unchurched” here in North America calling it “missions”. There is now more of a focus on bringing more money into the local church, for expanding, deluxe accommodations and paying higher salaries than there is for supporting missionaries in other countries.
I have long suspected missionaries from the underground church in China will start coming here to teach us a thing or two.
I don’t get the part about the changes regarding divorce. Why is there a principled difference between short-term and long-term missions and between support and “real” missions? If divorce is wrong, then it seems that it should be wrong for all. If it isn’t wrong, then it seems that it shouldn’t bar people from any position in the IMB. Why the distinction?
Gram3 wrote:
They are no longer making that distinction. Here is a quote from their FAQ section on their web site.
“Divorce is no longer an automatic disqualifier for long-term service. Short-term assignments (two to three years in length) have been open to people with a history of divorce for years. In all categories of missionary service, individuals who have been divorced may be able to serve.”
Then they go on to say ‘it depends’ and talk about that a bit.
Speaking in tongues (aka private prayer language) as practiced today is not the Biblical gift of tongues – it’s just meaningless gibberish.
However, the conflict between Wade Burleson and the IMB over this matter was that the IMB was imposing something that went beyond the Baptist Faith and Message – the official SBC doctrinal statement. Wade felt that the IMB was wrong to do this, and I would agree with him. If the SBC doesn’t take a stance on a subject, then neither should the IMB.
@ Nancy:
I want to find out if being a part of an egalitarian marriage would automatically disqualify someone for missionary service. My guess from the neo-cal rhetoric that it would. Something about essential to the gospel and all that.
@ Gram3:
This is not your mother’s SBC! To reference an old car ad. I am not sure what I think of it all, but I sure am glad that it no longer impacts my life like it used to.
@ Nancy:
That part I get. This is the part I don’t get from the FAQ:
How does a person’s role (hate that word) affect the acceptability of divorce, in principle? I suppose this means that the deciders will decide if a given divorce situation is acceptable or not. ISTM that if a missionary is representing the IMB, then they are representing the IMB in whatever “role” they fill. Now, the suspicious side of me suspects that whether or not the divorce is considered acceptable will turn on how much the IMB wants or needs that particular missionary.
Nancy wrote:
I think it is a safe assumption that anyone teaching mutuality or equality between the sexes would not be deemed orthodox or gospelly enough. Platt is a staunch hierarchicalist. He has a complementarian series on Youtube where he does a great unintentional impersonation of C.J.
Nancy wrote:
No kidding. What was so wrong with the BFM 1963? Or whatever was before that which was good enough for me to be baptized into my SBC. Honestly I do not remember ever hearing much about the BFM until fairly recently.
Ian wrote:
Glad you enlightened me. I will disaffiliate from the Assembly of God church immediately.
Ian wrote:
I’ve heard people justify a private prayer language as either tongues of angels (1 Corinthians 13:1) or as spiritual groaning. (Romans 8@3-26.) Either way, it’s something other than the gift of tongues, which was apparently speaking in a culture’s language unknown to the speaker and should be exercised only if someone was there to translate it for everyone.
Gram3 wrote:
That is probably the case. However, having more or less survived a divorce myself I do think that there are some things in church (and presumably in mission) that I doubt that a divorced person would be particularly qualified for. For example, I personally do not see a divorced person as a marriage and family counselor in a christian setting, whether or not they have remarried. Maybe in a secular setting, but not as a representative of the church or the IMB. People either come out of a divorce damaged or not. If they are damaged then there are some jobs they probably would not handle well. If the are not damaged then one has to ask why were they not? But the idea that they might need an orthopedic surgeon somewhere divorced or not-I can see that.
__
“Da Time Will Come?”
@ Headless Unicorn Guy,
Itz time we getz you’ze a new church!
faithful is He whi calls, faithful is He who brings it to pass.
ATB
Sopy
—
Ian wrote:
1Co 14:13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.
1Co 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
Ian, tongues is a gift of the spirit and as such is not meaningless. There is a difference between that which is spoken and needs interpretation, and that which is a prayer in the spirit. Paul says that the person gifted with tongues in speaking to God. It’s a beautiful, perfect prayer because it’s completely void of the carnal nature.
It may sound like gibberish to man, but it’s not to God. It’s the Holy Spirit’s intercession in groanings too deep for our natural language.
I know it’s strange to some, but it’s such a blessing to others.
I’ve hammered Platt before, but if he’s part of opening this up, then God bless him.
Nancy wrote:
Ding ding ding….. We have a winner. I have been saying this for years. Let me give you a scenario that i think is quite accurate although I had several party line totting seminary professors who disagreed. Little Johnny grows up in FBC Chitlin Switch. Grandma Mary ( not his grandma more the grandma of the church) knows little Johnny. She held little johnny in the nursery and prayed for little Johnny asking that God would call him to missions. Little Johnny went to VBS every summer where Mary again taught and loved him. She taught him in Sunday school ect ect. Johnny comes to faith in Christ and through GA/RA’s Johnny hears about all the mission work the SBC has done but also how much more is needed/ Johnny determines that God has called him the the mission field. His church agrees and affirms that call. He goes off to seminary (which by the way, Mary helps to fund directly and indirectly). Johnny applies to the IMB and gets accepted. He writes home often to his supporting church. That church comes to his area of assignment to see the work first hand. Mary makes the trip cause she has prayed for this young man and the work he is doing. A few years pass and suddenly John doesn’t meet a new arbitrary IMB standard, see he prays in tongues or whatever the cause or the time is. John comes back home. Now Mary and her whole church know this man, his character, his walk with the Lord, his calling they know God has called him to missions and somehow an organization has decided he doesn’t quite fit. How much money do you think Mary or that church will send to the IMB. More than likely they encourage John to find a different sending organization and fulfill God’s cal, as a matter of fact John we will help fund you with the money we used to send the IMB. Johnny goes back to the field, Mary continues to pray, souls are saved without the IMB and everyone lives happily ever after…….. except the IMB who can no longer fund 5000 missionaries even though they have a budget that honestly sounds like a small state government budget.
So this whole thing with speaking in tongues, can I ask a question? How big of a deal is this sort of thing? Are we talking “How many angels on a the head of a pin” or “Luther looking for a hammer and thumbtacks to hang his theses” type of disagreement? My Christian background includes AoG and charismatic non denominational churches so this wasn’t an uncommon thing, but I have no idea of the larger Christian thought about the whole tongues thing.
Tim wrote:
There are a few loose ends that need tied up with what you are saying. That entire comment in 1 Cor 14: 27-28 raises some questions. Our usual understanding is that the ‘tongue’ was a known language but was not known to the speaker at the time. So Paul says somebody has to interpret. Okay, so far so good. But then he says that if nobody is there to interpret then the speaker should keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.
Wait a minute. If the speaker did not know what he was saying, did not know the language in which he was speaking, how would he know whether or not somebody was there to interpret? He could not ask is somebody here who knows ABC language to see if such a person was there if the speaker did not know enough ABC language to know that is what he was about to say. Trial and error maybe? The text does not say. But if it was trial and error, and nobody was there who knew ABC language, how did they know it was ABC language at all and not just random sounds?
And wait some more. The text does not say do not do it, merely do not do it in church. Do it in private (to himself and God.) But if the speaker does that, then whatever he is speaking, actual language or not, it would essentially be gibberish to him under the circumstances without an interpreter.
To me this text raises more issues than it solves, except that worship participation should be orderly and courteous with people taking turns and being willing to sit down and be silent.
Now, I am just talking about the text. I have read that linguistic analysis of recorded tongues has failed to show the characteristics of language in the sounds. And I have read that glossalalia is practiced in various religions, not just christianity. Those are different issues which are interesting but they are not what I am talking about right here. What I am saying is that for those of us who like to carry things out to way too many decimal points this text leaves too much unexplained.
@ Nancy:
What you said is what the non-suspicious part of me might say. Let’s just say I don’t trust Platt or the others because I’ve trusted them and believed the best while my suspicious self chortled and later said, “I told you so.”
I see that the baptism part has been changed to the way I have always understood it, and it is not what Piper was pushing at BBC. I guess the previous baptism requirements actually were Landmarkish.
Victorious wrote:
That is true. But right now I have to go pick up a grandchild at school and can’t talk. Disclaimer: I utilize a private prayer language, whatever it is, and my experience with it has not put me on psych meds much less left me institutionalized. My overall condition of being a piece of work is congenital and therefore to be celebrated as how God made me-according to current ethical and theological concepts.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
Back in the 70’s there were some Baptist churches that experienced a lot of discord over the charismatic renewal. The younger people who were part of that were very enthusiastic, and usually the enthusiasts are not the best representatives of a movement. So, for those of us who are older, that plays into the way the charismatic gifts are viewed. Those who are younger did not see that, and they are therefore more open but cautious, as they say. Plus the younger people that IMB wants to recruit have been influenced by Piper and Grudem. My guess is that the average SBC pewpeon of whatever description doesn’t particularly care how someone communes with God privately as long as they don’t push TBN-style charismatic teaching.
Another thing is the idea of the sufficiency of Scripture and the perceived need to guard that from extra-biblical revelation. A subpoint under this is that in some places on the mission field, the farther-out-there charismatics are also active, and there is a desire to differentiate from the prosperity wing of charismatics.
Sometimes things happen at the denominational level which are incomprehensible to the pewpeons.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
For the SBC in 2005 it was only a big deal because the president of the IMB prayed privately in tongues and a few movers and shakers Patterson et al) wanted him out. So they influenced the trustees to put a policy in place that would exclude the president of the organization from serving as a missionary in the organization. How crazy does that sound. All done with the idea of forcing him to resign. But as a man of integrity Rankin stayed even though many wanted to see him go. If you ever take a look at the total budget for the IMB you will see that this is probably the most well funded organization in the SBC and we have to make sure that we have the “right” I mean godly type of man in that position. Pure politics and today is no different just a different puppet master (Mohler). It must drive the ole guard nuts to see one of their water boys now running the whole team!
lydia wrote:
My own church (RCC) has a similar policy, based on 2000 years of institutional experience. Private revelations are binding ONLY on the person who had the private revelation. Others may voluntarily follow the private revelation, but it is NOT required.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Marsha wrote:
Same here. Did NOT fit in with the Pentecostal types, but there was something about a Charismatic Low Mass at the Newman Center in the Eighties, where the priest (a college chaplain) was elevating the Host during/after the Consecration and the tonguing would begin, growing and ebbing like waves breaking against a shore, finally fading away; only after it faded would the priest continue with the Mass.
Nancy wrote:
Warning, pointless comment incoming: Let me play devil’s advocate and propose that they might have known which language was being spoken in the same way that I can guess with reasonable accuracy which language someone is speaking, as long as it’s either Spanish, French, Japanese, Chinese, or German, despite having next to nothing in the way of vocabulary knowledge in those languages. Beyond that, I bet that many people here could identify at least most of those languages at least as well as I can (in other words, I don’t think I have any special linguistic abilities).
On a related note, it’s hard to prove a negative, but languages have structure, and if one has more talent than I have at linguistics (which is not hard to surpass!), the difference probably becomes even more clear between something like
“Mein Hut, es hat drei Ecken”
and
“IshouldhaveboughtaHondabutIboughtaHyundai” (say it quickly)
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist sharing that phrase of fake tongues I learned from a youth minister.)
@ Ian:
Had it not been for Wade going public with this back in the SBC wild west pioneer blogging days, most of us would never have known about the upper level SBC internecine war.
Lydia wrote:
They said the same thing about “missionaries from the persecuted church in Russia” after the Second Russian Revolution, but nothing came of it.
The tone back then was similar to editorials in Guns & Ammo and/or Soldier of Fortune of the time, denouncing Soft Spoiled-Rotten Baby-Fat Lukewarm Americans vs the Rugged Committed Soviet Supermen. But again, nothing ever came of it.
Nancy wrote:
But you can be a divorced comp missionary, perhaps?
Sorry this part was what I wrote not Albuquerque Blue
In my opinion this is another topic that Christians argue about, each using scripture to back up their biases. Just as they argue about Calvinism, eternal security, prophesy, complementarian, baptism, trinity, etcetera.
Margaret wrote:
And while they argue theology, predestination, eternal security, prophecy, and tongues, pastors’ widows are still eating out of dumpsters.
@ Mitch:
Oh that’s Vatican level politic playing there. Thanks for the explanation!@ Gram3:
Oh okay, so it’s a tribal identifier type thing. Like in the old joke.
@ Gram3:
I did not even know it existed until 2004. and I come from a family where some members did not miss a convention in 50 years and many in my extended family were involved at Southern up until the early 90s. The BFM simply carried no weight in those days.
It boggles my mind how it is consulted and parsed these days and how the SBTS Abstract was pulled from the archives, dusted off and presented like Holy Writ by All Mohler.
@ Margaret:
Ah, gotcha. Not one of the big schisms, one of the multitude of everyday ones. Thanks!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
It’s appalling how the church can chew up and spit out its staff. For all the talk of oppressive pastors and leaders, it can do a number on those who are its staff. I have family that used to be involved in church ministry, they most assuredly are not anymore.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
HUG, did you find that a beautiful experience? I have heard the same type of singing (in the spirit) at an Episcopal church and it was obviously spontaneous and unrehearsed that I found it amazing. Truly beautiful worship.
Ian wrote:
Well, Ian, thanks for identifying yourself as a Bright Shining Monument to Ignorance.
@ lydia:
I think the fundamental mistake is thinking that a confession of faith is sufficient to sustain the faith it confesses. It seems that Mohler thought the decline of SBTS was due to its departure from the confessionalism embodied by the AoP. How many denominations have confessions of faith that they pay either no attention to or make into another Bible? It’s not just Baptists, either.
I do not know what to think about the SBC anymore.
I stay confused and mad at everything they do today…
It is the most dysfunctional, goofy, all about ” me” and my power organization today….I seriously wonder why some of these churches keep calling themselves SBC? Tradition?
Mitch wrote:
It does seem so. But I have trouble seeing why they chose the issues they did (the IMB) since Mohler has not been exactly pushing divorce or private prayer language or alien (I think they call it that) baptism.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
If only the joke were a joke. I think it is more a case of “I’m not that, I don’t understand that, so I don’t think that is good.” So, during the 70’s you had young and enthusiastic charismatics saying the non-charismatics were “dead” and denying the power of the Spirit. The non-charismatics were saying the charismatics were over-emotional and were abandoning the Bible. In both cases the camps were assuming a position of spiritual superiority over the other, and the only thing that was different was the set of criteria used to judge. No news there.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
I got that image from one of my writing partners (the burned-out preacher-man). He said in his denomination it happens more often than you think.
Victorious wrote:
Very much so. Unlike the usual Pentecostal/Holy Roller hype, it fit the atmosphere and situation.
Now, I’m waiting for the IMB to drop its requirement that missionaries sign the BFM.
(Former FMB missionary)
@ Gram3:
A statement of faith (doctrine) does not maintain any faith and surely nobody thinks that. That should not matter however, since this is not about faith. A statement of faith (doctrine) helps identify who is in and who is out, should that become necessary. At the same time, all anybody has to do about something like the BFM is simply to remain silent about it unless forced into a corner about some issue. At that point all one has to do is look up the correct answer in the BFM and proclaim that is what one believes. All the while one’s real beliefs can be different or even non-existant and nobody will know.
It is called looking up the answers in the back of the book. It has its uses.
K.D. wrote:
[Cue Fiddler on the Roof]
Tradition!
[/Cue]
The opposite of that also happens, with [mega] churches who keep the politics of the SBC, including the sub-par, but are embarrassed about the name. Those are the “non-denominational” churches with a brief statement in fine print buried on their website admitting their SBC affiliation.
On that train of thought, remember back in 2012 when the SBC took on a rebranding project with the name “Great Commission Baptists”?
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/06/21/contemplating-the-sbc-gcb-trajectory/
(That fresh coat of paint didn’t stick for long, it seems to me…)
Gram3 wrote:
Oh how true how true. Well said gram3.
Florence in KY wrote:
I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one. Florence if you dont mind answering, are you a former missionary because of the signing of the BFM issue or something else (please don’t feel like you have to answer, I am just curious).
That issue seems to be pretty settled and is the true test of ones SBC bonifides. there are even some who seem to be pushing for churches that do not follow the BFM2000 to be considered as not in friendly cooperation with the convention.
I really do not understand this issue at all since the BFM has changed and honestly changed in some drastic ways over the years. In a class on BFM one point that really stuck out was that the BFM is a document that reflects the beliefs of some baptists at a specific point in time. Seems to me that isnt a document anyone should have to sign since in isn’t timeless nor does it reflect the beliefs of all baptists. But them again we have to have some way to determine if your in the group or not. My trouble is I have found there are just to many documents to agree with and funny thing is none of them are the Bible and all of them can be changed at the whim of some individual in charge. No Thanks
Josh, Doctor of Pulchritudinousness wrote:
ChEKA rebrands itself as OGPU which rebrands itself as NKVD which rebrands itself as KGB, but the mass graves in GULAG still fill without interruption.
Gram3 wrote:
Just another case of Christianese One-Upmanship.
@ Josh, Doctor of Pulchritudinousness:
Good points. I think that we make too many assumptions in this area and in rather many areas. We are assuming that because some of what what was said was in some known language, like at Pentecost and apparently like in the situation Paul was talking about, then all of it was in some known language. Perhaps so and perhaps not. But that is an assumption. It may be that Paul was making that assumption also, but the text would be the same regardless of whatever he thought was the reason for the lack of an interpreter.
For example, he might have thought that the utterance which he is telling people to be silent about may be genuine but should be saved for a later time. Or he might have thought that if there was no interpreter present then the utterance might be bogus assuming that if it were genuine the Lord would have provided an interpreter. Or he might have been thinking that not all utterances have an interpretation (which skates close to the idea that it might not all be language as we know it) and that some things might be something between the individual and God in the first place and the absence of an interpreter was an indication of that. Or maybe he had no idea and had not thought that much about it and was mostly concerned with decorum in worship. The text does not tell us. Personally I don’t much care for assumptions as ways to come to conclusions.
For example, I have no idea what the comment of ‘tongues of angels’ means, so whatever I would think about it would be an assumption. The problem with assumptions for me is that we then think we have the answer to something and we clamp our minds down on the assumption and quit asking questions and looking for evidence and listening to other people’s take on something. Sometimes then we could miss a real answer when it comes along.
And malaria is not caused by any miasma down by the swamp. Close but just not close enough, no matter how many people thought that.
Nancy wrote:
That was my takeaway from Mohler’s explanation of why he was bringing the AoP back front and center. IIRC, he is the one who came up with that explanation, and it did not ring true to me then nor now. It is right out of the Founders POV, as far as I can see. I can’t remember if it was a chapel or something else, but I listened to it off the SBTS website many years ago.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
And that really is THE question isn’t it? Why is it a big enough deal to marginalize and ‘demonize’ those who don’t believe as I-you-we believe at best, and at worst want to blow up each others places of worship like they do in Mosul and Tikrit?
I know it sounds trite but I think Dylan had the best answer in his song Blowin’ in the Wind.
Nancy wrote:
I think that it may have been a rhetorical expression to emphasize the over-emphasis that some in Corinth were placing on certain gifts. Maybe Paul was saying that even *if* he spoke with the tongues of angels (which would be heavenly and oh-so-spiritual) and did not have love it would be just a clanging symbol which is not so heavenly.
That doesn’t prove either point of view, as far as I can see, but it does support his later instructions to them about the proper use of the spiritual gifts, whatever those might be and whatever forms they might take. Someone could conclude that they were abusing a real gift and he was correcting the abuse. Others could conclude that he was certifying the existence of heavenly language. Regardless, the greater point of Corinthians seems to be taking the lesser place and practicing love in humility. The way someone speaks to God is between that person and God. In public is another thing.
You are absolutely right about assumptions not being truth. Reading into the text what one expects to find or wants to find is not a truth-seeking exercise.
@ Gram3:
Well, he is worse off than I thought. Which is entirely possible of course.
Gram3 wrote:
I had not thought of that, but it sounds plausible.
@ Florence in KY:
Exactly, Florence!!!
Law Prof wrote:
Not really. In the Bible, speaking in tongues always refers to speaking a known language. No-one today has ever done this (ignoring the anecdotes that can never be verified). The belief and practice in modern-day tongues comes from the pentecostal and charismatic movements which have a track record of making false claims.
Tim wrote:
“Private prayer language” is not a phrase you’ll find in the Bible. And, in the Bible, when angels speak, to each other, men, or God, they always speak in a normal language. In any case, 1 Cor 13 is poetry, not to be taken literally – people don’t move mountains or know all things – and not to be used for making doctrine.
Victorious wrote:
The problem is that modern-day tongues does not match up to the gift of speaking in tongues described in the Bible. As I said before, Biblically, speaking in tongues is always speaking in a known language.
Did you know that the first pentecostals believed they were speaking known languages? They called it missionary tongues – some even travelled overseas
“He hopes that more missionaries will be self-funded in the future.”
That’s just not possible for some churches, particularly the megas. What with the pastor’s salary in the hundreds of thousands, the nine-figure houses they need, the elaborate sound and video systems required to spread the ‘Gospel’, the need to fund jobs for the pastor’s family and BFFs, a church campus worthy of the pastor’s ego (complete with coffee bar and baristas), etc., why, they can barely make ends meet as it is.
Victorious wrote:
The problem is that modern-day tongues does not match up to the gift of speaking in tongues described in the Bible. As I said before, Biblically, speaking in tongues is always speaking in a known language.
Did you know that the first pentecostals believed they were speaking known languages? They called it missionary tongues – some even travelled overseas but failed miserably to communicate with the natives. At this point they changed their beliefs and came up with the idea of heavenly languages, without a shred of Biblical support.
I don’t agree with John MacArthur’s calvinism or complementarianism, but get his recent book “Strange Fire” in which he discusses this subject in detail.
@ Ian:
You don’t have to convince me! 😉
@ JeffT:
If missionaries are self funded might that not affect their willingness to let the board tell them exactly what to do and where to do it? This is an old argument within baptist-dom regarding missionary funding with IFB missionaries going on deputation to raise their own financial backing, which is a problem for them in more than one way, and the SBC which used to be proud that this was not the way they did things.
So why would the SBC/IMB even be thinking of doing this now, regardless of the method in which the missionary got their funding. It looks like there may be more to the story than what we have been told.
Ian wrote:
1Cor 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
Ian wrote:
I would share my testimony about receiving this gift, but it sounds very much as though you have already decided it is not legitimate today but rather meaningless gibberish. Let me just say that I didn’t even know what tongues was when I received it and had ask someone what had happened to me.
I would never deny this particular gift anymore than I would the supernatural gift of miracles, healing, word of knowledge, prophecy, and discernment of spirits.
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1Cor 2:14
@ Nancy:
I think you’re right. I know very little about about the issue but it does seem that a move by the SBC toward encouraging self-funding of missionaries runs counter to their original philosophy.
@ Nancy:
Ha! There has been a whole lot of “backing into corners” since 2000. The BFM 2000 has been parsed to death on SBC blogs.
Ian wrote:
John MacArthur is acting in a position which is not scriptural, isn’t he? Is “pastor” scriptural? Isn’t only One the Shepherd we are to follow? Don’t we hear the Shepherd’s voice or must we rely on “under-shepherds?” Didn’t Jesus tell us that only One should be called “leader?”
John MacArthur wrote an entire book furthering his belief/agenda about a gift that I have. Why would I acknowledge his erroneous theory?
FTR, I am in the Lydia/Tim camp on the tongues. The real concern for me is that the new SBC Prez Ronnie Floyd started teaching the Robert Morris Blessed Life tithing stuff last year. He’s bullying his congregation to make their 10% tithe current or be cursed. He’s encouraging other Baptist preachers to do the same. Now this tongues bit is being added. This looks like a move for Baptists becoming Charismatics because there is big money in it and it’s far easier to convert people to a movement that is about spiritual entertainment than one based on obedience, repentance and devotion. Jesus’ way is hard. Steven Furticks’ way is fun, easy and lucrative. The Catholics are embracing Charismatic rituals/practices/”gifts” in record numbers. That’s what concerns me.
*
When anyone start bending doctrine and promoting false teaching in order to achieve higher numbers, people should wonder where this will end? As a Southern Baptist, Perry Noble preaches the same false tithe teaching, plays AC/DC’s Highway to Hell on Easter and for Christmas he says the N word and teaches there are no 10 Commandments. He also runs the largest Baptist church in the U.S. Granted the SCBC sent him a nasty gram about that. But the SBC and IMF didn’t. Isn’t IMF starting to look like, out of covetousness, they want to emulate Noble/Furtick/Morris in order to achieve their financial and numerical success?
*
Last year Ronnie Floyd/SBC adopts the mandatory tithe. This year IMG embraces speaking in tongues. Next year it could be slaying in the spirit and contemplative prayer. Then comes the mysticism, gold dust and full kundalini experience. Slouching towards Charismatic/Pentecostalism has a price. IMBs numbers will go up and the leaders will get their own private airstrips like Kenneth Copeland, but at what cost? I feel this is a very sad day for Christendom. If it’s really all about numbers they should drop the bible altogether, rebrand themselves as Joel Osteens or Creflo Dollars, give away free beer and pizzas and turn their worship into a rave and/or burlesque show. What a numerical “revival” that could bring.
Ian wrote:
Ian – You speak of that which you do not know, and you speak with great certitude. This is common among the average ignoramus.
A very strong counter-argument to what you claim can be made on Paul’s narrative in I Cor 13 and 14, you act as if the entire NT period ended at Acts Chapter 2 as if that were the only example of tongues extant in the Scriptures.
You are utterly out of your element, and it shows.
Ian – You need to take a step back and understand that this is not a forum to debate tongues, this is a forum about spiritual abuse. Granted, I took the troll bait, but you, my good man, were the troll. This is neither the time nor the place.
JeffT wrote:
That has its own set of problems. JMJ over at Christian Monist was a “must provide own support” mishie for the Navs and wrote about how he had to pen glowing (and deceptive) sponsor letters begging for money. My writing partner (the burned-out preacher) says the same thing, that in his mishie days he spent a lot of time writing sponsor letters literally begging for money. (And when he tried to find another ministry before burning out in his present one, all the offers were “must provide own support”.)
And on the other side of the equation, to a man of (some) means like me in the fandoms I’ve been in, you get sick of fighting off the endless parade of moochers (“But you’re Rich! You gotta gimme!”); having been constantly “volunteered” as the Sucker in the never-ending Game of Mooch-and-Sucker game (“But you’re Rich!”), I would NOT react well to a missionary sponsor letter. At all.
Ah, the issue of tongues…almost as bad as creationism in its ability to ruin friendships and dinners.
Here is the problem in the debate on tongues. Either they exist and those who do not believe they exist are wrong.
Or tongues don’t exist and this causes a real dilemma for those who believe they do not. For if they do not exist, then the people who utilize them would have to be declared a bit unusual.
From my own point of view, I prefer not to get into the debate and let those who practice them have their space and let God sort it out in heaven. I also have some dear friends who practice tongues and I respect them greatly.
However, if you all want to discuss it, have at it. I have found the Scripture to be a bit confusing on this subject.
I am going to stick to easier issues, like complementarianism!! 🙂
Jen wrote:
Seriously? I need to pay more attention, it seems. There are others I will not mention who are certainly moving in the direction of Give to Get and Bigger is Blesseder, but they are not SBC. This is very concerning.
@ Jen:
@ Gram3:
Yes, this is true. They are all getting into the tithe or be possessed, cursed or whatever.
dee wrote:
I don’t think that will solve your problem. They speak in unknown logic and definitely the tongues of men, but I haven’t been able to find an interpreter. Now, if they want to keep their heavenly logic along with their private interpretation really private, then that’s fine, too, but they are a little insistent on everyone seeing things their way. 🙂
dee wrote:
Or maybe when one believes a thing to be real it is real in its consequences. Let’s say that speaking in tongues has ceased and is no longer a real phenomenon. But if people believe they are praying to God or praising Him, He will know what is in their hearts regardless of what they say.
@ Jen:
You paint a very disturbing picture of where SBC may be heading. I hope it does not turn out that way. I am tempted to again preach my sermon called ‘there is better to be had just for the going and getting it.’
Let me just say this, and then I’ll hush up about tongues. I can’t think of anything more insulting to a brother or sister than to tell them or imply that their gift of the Holy Spirit is nonsense, unscriptural, meaningless or is a figment of their imagination.
Even when the Holy Sprit fell on the apostles in the upper room and they began speaking in tongues, there were some who were mocking and thought they were drunk from wine. Peter recognized it as a fulfillment of the prophecy in Joel and said so. Included was the mention of prophecy, dreams, visions and empowerment of young, old, male and female in the last days.
When Jesus assured the apostles He was not leaving them as orphans, but would send the Holy Spirit who would provide power, conviction, and gifts for the edification and exhortation of believers.
I think it’s relevant to the topic since it was a bone of contention with the SBC evidently.
I’ll not deny the operation of any of the supernatural gifts given to us because they might be/have been misused.
I appreciate hearing the different perspectives, thank you.
Victorious wrote:
That’s good because it isn’t a sound basis of judgment. Every good thing can be misused or corrupted. I’ve never spoken in tongues or desired to. But that does not mean that therefore no one else has been so gifted by the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t make either of us better or worse. The important thing is that we use our gifts for the benefit of the Body and not to build up ourselves. Regardless of the gift.
dee wrote:
I’ve lost my scorecard. Who was Ronnie Floyd’s “sponsor” for the presidency? Does that tell us anything?
Victorious wrote:
Completely agree with you. Wise words.
__
“Cloud Of Smoke?”
hmmm…
Apparently, It is the Spirit of God that has been neutralized and made meaningless. No wonder there is so much illness and unbelief in da churches today.
(sadface)
Yet, where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.
YaHooo!
Sopy
—
@ Jen
__
Smoakin Tongues leads to harder ‘charismatics’?!?
hahahahahaha
🙂
—
Here’s something I wrote the other day. Its a personal reflection on the late Christopher Hitchens.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/a-personal-reflection-on-the-late-christopher-hitchens/
___
“Your Sale Has Been Declined?”
hmmm…
If these pastoral guyz are operating 501(c)3 business’ as oppose to legit ministries, you don’t have to fear them, no matter what their threats or ‘curses’; you certainly don’t have to pay them.
A workman is worthy of his hire; if he gves you manure, well…
Are ya gonna pay um?
🙂
—
Nancy wrote:
They are grasping at straws. They see the denomination losing more and more members……and the mega boys have to preach tithe. There is so much overhead they have to keep that money flowing in…..the denomination is doomed. In 10-15 years, the SBC will just be a shell of its former self.
Sopwith wrote:
Only if it is well-composted, he delivers it, and spades it in.
K.D. wrote:
It seems that way from a human viewpoint if the numbers are true. The thing is that the only reason that the SBC exists as a “denomination” is for the cooperative mission effort. If the IMB goes down the tubes or is re-invented along the mission society model, then what is the reason for the SBC to exist? Independent churches can send out missionaries who fit their local beliefs without all the spiritual overhead of the BFM2K and the financial overhead of the IMB/NAMB.
Jumping in I can relate only my experiences from the 70s. One was a charismatic service, good message preached, I recall about 5 came forward, two or three spoke in tongues. All the fuss was made over the tongues, none over the others who had just made a life changing decision. I’m also now aware that was crosswise with Paul’s teaching requiring translation. I was very unconformable with the environment and bugged out.
I’m not casting a concrete judgement on tongues either way, thankfully this is no longer the 70s. I only relate this as part of the reason some like myself are distrustful of tongues. There was so much peer pressure and taking eyes off the goal that the charismatic churches of the 70s shared some of the attributes of abusive environments. It is part of my baggage and I now just steer clear.
Gram3 wrote:
There is another side to that also.
1 Corinthians 14:4 (ESV)
The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.
I am thinking by build up you probably meant something like showing off or trying to look good in people’s eyes, but I wanted to bring up the idea that not everything in the christian life is all about other people. I got the idea as a child that somehow everything was always supposed to be about other people, but I have changed my mind about that. Some things are for the person, not necessarily for the church body all the time. Much less for the ‘world is watching you’ idea. I think this is one of those things.
Bill M wrote:
When I was a teenager I was invited to play my violin at a pentecostal church prayer meeting once. These were people who had moved to town from the mountains when the coal mines closed. Enough said. I was scared out of my wits and made a solemn promise to the effect of ‘Lord, if you will get me out of this I promise I will never do this again.’ And I won’t. But there is a lot of distance between that and what a nice pentecostal lady at the school where my daughter teaches does when she prays for people who ask her. None the less, I certainly understand how people would be concerned about it all.
dee wrote:
When last week the battle raged over LBGTXYZ on the Jenner thread that was my sentiment. With tongues have we finally found Dee’s one weak spot?
@ Nancy:
Nice contrast.
Marsha wrote:
Raised COGOP. After repeated tries at conferences, retreats, revivals and camps, raising hands in worship with people laying hands all around me, at 16yo I managed to stutter something that sounded like a lawnmower starting. They counted it as speaking in tongues and I was chosen at the end of the week to go the special international youth camp for Real True Christians. I felt like a fraud. But I got to see NC for the first time.
__
Calvinists as a general rule don’t buy Tongues. With suficent numbers of them will the SBC experience a split?
—
Nancy wrote:
This is what happened in my denomination, but not related to missions. It was an issue within the local churches. We were shrinking because no one who was divorced or remarried could really be placed in any type of ministry at church, so people would leave.
@ Gram3:
“If the IMB goes down the tubes or is re-invented along the mission society model, then what is the reason for the SBC to exist? Independent churches can send out missionaries who fit their local beliefs without all the spiritual overhead of the BFM2K and the financial overhead of the IMB/NAMB.”
++++++++++++++++++
jobs?
to perpetuate the salaried positions that have been created?
just how many salaried/paid positions are there in the SBC? (not the individual pastors, but those at corporate/headquarters/whatever you call it)
@ Sidewalks:
Oh yes! No divorce; no remarriage; no alcohol; no dancing; no smoking; no movies; and we were even told not to wear red as it was the color of the devil. And that wasn’t told us when we were children mind you. We had a list of don’t, can’t, shouldn’t, ought nots, a mile long. Good grief!
Law Prof wrote:
Law Prof wrote:
And chocolate, right? I’ve been lurking for months, and am going through the 2013 posts/comments right now. I definitely remember chocolate.YEC, hurricane Sandy, and the Japanese man getting the email by mistake about the miscarriage (that was a sweet one). and being single, and HUG is a Brony?
This is a forum about spiritual abuse, but I learn when people have dissenting opinions given in a respectful manner, even if once and awhile they are OT.
@ Nancy:
That’s a very good point about the Holy Spirit working in individuals as well as the Body as a whole or in individual groups of Christians. And I did have in mind self-promotion when speaking of self-edification.
@ Ian:
““Private prayer language” is not a phrase you’ll find in the Bible”
+++++++++++++++++
who wants to add to my list of terms in Christian culture that you’ll not find in the bible?
i’ll start:
1. complementarian
2. headship
3. servant leadership
4. altar call
5. trinity
6. pastor (formal title)
7. teaching pastor
8. executive pastor
9. business pastor
10. discipleship pastor
11. discipleship
12. assistant pastor
13. church service
14. pulpit
15. easter
16. palm sunday
17. christmas
18.
Sidewalks wrote:
Chocolate is not a debatable issue. The theology and the science are both settled and in agreement.
@ elastigirl:
Boom!
Sidewalks wrote:
I am glad you remembered some of these topics. i totally forgot.
Mitch wrote:
Mitch, my husband and I served from 1949-1964 in Hawaii before it was a state. Many missionaries from the Orient started the mission work there when World War II forced them to leave their fields of service (mostly from Japan and China). After Hawaii became a state, the FMB urged its missionaries to leave. We came back to KY where my husband taught at a Baptist college. Our years with the FMB were delightful. No BFM to sign. We were “trusted and free!”
@ Bill M:
LOLx10
elastigirl wrote:
I was trying to not think about that and try to remember why the SBC exists in the first place, not that it seems to matter much at this point…
I don’t know if this is good news or bad news, but there are people in at least one other denomination who are just as fed up with the salaried overlords and alphabetic agencies.
elastigirl wrote:
senior pastor
children’s church
Sunday school
Worship leader
Secretary to….
Men’s groups
Women’s “fellowship”
Recovery groups
Accountability groups
elastigirl wrote:
Trinity (term not there)
@ Sidewalks:
Someone usually protests, but hardly anything is off limits as long as the discussion is respectful.
@ elastigirl:
“…my list of terms in Christian culture that you’ll not find in the bible”
++++++++++++++
18. communion
19. Lord’s supper
20. eucharist
21. rapture
22. pre-millenial
23. post-millenial
24. a-millennial
25. Great Commision
26. Golden Rule
27. omnipresence
28. omniscience
29. sunday school
30. narthex
31. baptismal
32.
@ Victorious:
I have both experienced and participated in masses where this happened, back in the 70s, and was definitely one of the people who sang spontaneously. it was incredibly beautiful, very haunting, and completely unrehearsed.
I still pray in tongues some, privately, and never was taught to view it as some big mystical experience. You can do it while you’re folding the laundry – a useful thing. For all we know, Paul did a lot of praying in tongues while he was piecing tents together. teasthis is the polar opposite of the ecstatic displays that sometimes happen in Pentecostal and charismatic service.
elastigirl wrote:
If I can paraphrase, it was Bill Kinnon that said servant should not be used as an adjective, it is a noun.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Catholics who were involved in the charismatic renewal tended to be pretty level-headed about tongues. At least, that was my experience. It was never overdone or theatrical in public.
@ elastigirl:
32. parsonage
Gram3 wrote:
Only if it is dark chocolate, milk chocolate is debatable.
@ elastigirl:
(all of bridget & victorious’ ones)
41. small group
43. home group
44. life group
45. sinner’s prayer
46. x-gen pastor
47. sabbatical
48.
@ elastigirl:
33 Worship team
@ Bill M:
Gram3 wrote:
Chocolate is not a debatable issue. The theology and the science are both settled and in agreement.
Only if it is dark chocolate, milk chocolate is debatable.
++++++++++++++++
CHEESE
@ Bill M:
‘worship team’….. makes my toes curl backwards. its’ just so cute. reducing something mysterious and wondrous and transcendent to cuteness. BAH!!!!
@ elastigirl:
Pews
Conferences
John Piper
Book Tour
Sabbatical
John Piper
WWJD
The Prayer of Jabez Study Bible
Biblical Manhood
John Piper
Awana
Building Campaigns
Worship Team
Seeker Driven Worship
ESV
10% tithe in NT
Pastoral Bodyguards….
@ Bill M:
We think alike except…I love milk chocolate-especially hollow chocolate Easter Bunnies with candy eyes.
dee wrote:
I guess it had to come, and its even over something substantial.
@ Gram3:
Isn’t Floyd the one with a fire truck baptismal for kids?
dee wrote:
Wow, that’s a name from the past. Heh, nostalgia bomb.
elastigirl wrote:
Here’s one that’s near and dear to so many Evangelical hearts (bless their hearts!) it’s almost a doctrinal stance:
Purity
@ elastigirl:
Love this list!
Bill M wrote:
Which is Laodicean chocolate. Strong chocolate for the strong.
dee wrote:
Oh my! Love all chocolate, but THOSE bunnies case like wax, to me anyway.
elastigirl wrote:
Okay, if you insist. Chocolate cheesecake is within the pale of orthodoxy.
@ Gram3:
Except for the milk or dark divide.
@ Bridget:
. . . taste like wax. How did auto correct turn taste into case!?
@ elastigirl:
48. Calvin
Bridget wrote:
Because paraffin tastes like wax. Paraffin is to chocolate as guar gum is to ice cream. An abomination.
@ elastigirl:
Oh, i am SO there on cheese! I’ll admit to having skmetimes imbibed cheese the way Tina Fey’s 30 Rock character, Liz Lemon, has been known to do. (“Workin’ on my night cheese…”)
Well-aged Gouda and Parmesan… yum!!!
@ Bridget:
Welcome to my world… 😉
elastigirl wrote:
Baptist
Presbyterian
Methodist
Lutheran
Calvanist
Roman Catholic
Adventist
Steeple
Church Building
Rec Center
@ Bridget:
Not the Lindt ones, though. Those are pretty amazing.
lydia wrote:
Please tell me this is a joke…
numo wrote:
Those probably aren’t the ones with the creepy blue candy eyes.
numo wrote:
Agreed. Let freedom ring throughout the ixtian landscape. Why should anybody care what you do with your own voice in prayer to the Almighty? Back upthread somebody mentioned MacArthur’s Strange Fire screed. Blech… If it were up to the MacArthurs of this world, we’d still be flogging, flaying, burning, and hanging those who don’t believe as we believe.
@ Bridget:
No, they’re the ones in the pretty gold foil. The standard milk choc. bunnies taste like wax to me, too.
@ Muff Potter:
I am not bothering or harming anyone by doing it. It is very private prayer, and, imo, kinda cool. It just seems normal to me, though i don’t do it very often anymmore.
@ Gram3:
Must be why I like Breyers with three ingredients 🙂
Bridget wrote:
Check the label. Times have changed with Breyers and even the Vermont boys. Food science marches on, and chocolate no longer melts at body temperature and ice cream is stretchy and holds its shape even when it is melted. New and improved.
@ Gram3:
There are a few blog posts about it. Here is one:
“Ronnie Floyd’s Endorsement of Robert Morris’ Teachings on Prosperity Gospel Should Disqualify Him From SBC Presidency”
http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2014/06/ronnie-floyds-endorsement-of-robert.html
Ian wrote:
No, under no circumstances will I be reading MacArthur. He is a young earth creationist, a complementarian, a proponent of nouthetic counseling, and he contends that Catholics are not saved. Why would I trust him on speaking in tongues?
@ elastigirl:
Is the word “Bible” in the Bible? 🙂
Gram3 wrote:
I am talking plain vanilla. Chocolate, flavors, and bits of course have more ingredients. And maybe they make a different version for the California crowd. 😉
@ elastigirl:
(all dee’s, bill m’s, muff’s, ed’s, and Lydia’s ones)
78. sermon
79. excommunicate
80. love offering
81. VBS
82. sex before marriage
83.
@ Daisy:
83. bible
@ elastigirl:
Yes, the list continues
denomination
church staff
administrator
conference speaker
best selling author
Dee added pews so I was going to add chairs, but bummer chairs are mentioned in Kings.
Bridget wrote:
They might market something different in California, but one of the big companies bought them (Unilever or P&G?) and they changed the formula. Adding the guar gum or carageenen (sp) stabilizes the frozen dessert formerly known as ice cream so that ice crystals do not form as readily when it slightly melts and then refreezes. The companies say it is due to “consumer demand” for a product that will keep longer in the home freezer and still be “creamy” which I guess is corporate-speak for rubbery. Right. Because ice cream always stays in my freezer long enough to thaw and refreeze a couple of times. There was quite a stink about it among Ice Cream Fundamentalists a few years ago, and even the NYT picked it up. When I was a kid some dairies had ice cream parlors. We used to do all kinds of unsafe and really fun things like that.
Nobody asked me if I wanted algae in my ice cream to make it stretchy or paraffin in my chocolate to make it crunch instead of melt.
Do not get me started on “buttercream” frosting that has neither butter nor cream in it and which does not require cooking and whisking.
@ Bill M:
“3. servant leadership
If I can paraphrase, it was Bill Kinnon that said servant should not be used as an adjective, it is a noun.”
++++++++++++++++++++++
…nor as a marketing word
elastigirl wrote:
Did someone already mention “winsome” or “season” or “transition” or Testamints?
@ Gram3:
You’re right; it tastes nothing like the old, original Breyers did. Such a shame.
@ numo:
wensleydale with cranberries
@ Marsha:
“No, under no circumstances will I be reading MacArthur. He is a young earth creationist, a complementarian, a proponent of nouthetic counseling, and he contends that Catholics are not saved. Why would I trust him on speaking in tongues?”
+++++++++++++++
he must be one of those new and improved Christian, with a long ingredients list that’s hard to pronounce
(had to make the chocolate/ice cream tangent topical somehow)
(bill m’s and gram’s ones)
93. inerrant
94. winsome (had to list it again — this should have been #1, and belongs in the center square of bull$h1t bingo, the Christian version)
95. gender role
96. role
how about “role” (as in women’s)?
@ Victorious:
Oh sorry…I didn’t see May’s post right before mine. Better get some coffee…. 🙂
97. Sunday
The names of the days of the week correspond to the planets as Roman gods: Diana as the Moon for Monday, Mars for Tuesday, Mercury for Wednesday, Jupiter for Thursday, Venus for Friday, Saturn for Saturday, and Apollo as the Sun for Sunday.
Florence in KY wrote:
Florence thank you and your husband for your service to our Lord. I am sure you have seen many changes since your days on the field and many of those must have you shaking your head.
__
“Someone Is In Da Kitchen wit Jesus?”
hmmm…
Isn’t it God’s words that save, that heal? Should we not be concentrating on what is in the Bible as opposed to what our Lord chose to leave out?
ATB
Sopy
—
@ Ed:
Not in English,they don’t. Nor in the Romance languages i studied, back when – not quite, anyway.
@ elastigirl:
I bet that’s lovely!
@ elastigirl:
Egalitarian. 🙂
I humbly apologise, but I couldn’t resist!
elastigirl wrote:
That made me literally laugh out loud. Thankfully, no beverages were spilled in the process of…
Victorious wrote:
I’ve skimmed through most of what you have said on ‘tongues’, and agree with you.
I do wonder how some evangelical big name teachers just don’t get spiritual gifts. MacA on tongues was probably the worst sermon I have ever heard. He may complain about the Pope, but why do evangelicals of his tribe insist that charismatics exercising spiritual gifts such as prophecy be infallible, never make mistakes or get it wrong? There doesn’t seem to be such an expectation of sermons or prayer.
@ numo:
Please know that I was just having some fun with the chain of additions. Though, here is a link to a really thorough Wikipedia article that does trace the names of the week and their derivation from Roman Gods, including romance languages, (which changed Sun, Apollo, Day to Dominica, Lord’s Day – but that got changed back to Sunday).
Again, I found the chain of additions to make an important point, in a light-hearted way, on how mankind’s religious pursuits have added so many things. Yes, God’s Words are life, but isn’t that what is being highlighted, the traditions of men can be detrimental, and should be approached with caution, (and some humor because of the futility, weakness of works of the carnal mind). Jesus is Lord. Peace be with you.
My apologies, here is the link on the article about names of the days of the week, if anyone is interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_days_of_the_week
98. Hedge of protection
This one showed up some years ago, don’t know if it was used in your parts. If I am threatened please pray for a host of angles. If the angles are busy, pray for a rock wall, 15 or 20 feet high and ask for some razor wire on top. You can also throw in a moat to prevent someone digging under the wall.
Note the hedge in Isaiah 5.5 isn’t for protection. If you need protection and someone prays for just a puny hedge, figure they don’t really care what happens to you.
99. Cafegymatorium / not in my Bible
Gram3 wrote:
And let us not neglect PGPR, found on the label of most chocolate candies these days. Horrible stuff. I researched it because I kept wondering what that “PGPR” was on the labels of the candy bars my teens were buying. I didn’t remember seeing it a few years ago, and all of a sudden it was popping up everywhere.
Victorious wrote:
Wow, reminds me of “The Witness Wore Red” — that account of the downfall of Warren Jeffs of the FLDS.
Since I picked up reading in the middle of the comment thread, trying to find where I left off the other day, you might be talking about being a member of the FLDS, for all I know. Or is it some Baptist teaching?
Gram3 wrote:
Only one other?
Victorious wrote:
community groups
teaching elder
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Hey, thanks to Awana my self-proclaimed atheist teen can quote scripture better than many churchgoers of my acquaintance.
Gram3 wrote:
Carageenan is a migraine trigger, among other things, and I seem to recall it’s unsafe for celiacs. I always read labels. It’s true, if you leave ice cream in the freezer long enough, it gets unpleasant ice crystals that mar the creamy texture. Therefore, the wise will simply eat it at a fast enough rate to preclude this possibility.
@ Gram3:
Did someone in making this list of christianese words not in the bible already include gospel? (I mean, “gospel” used as an adjective. Of course the noun form is in the bible.)
@ elastigirl:
inerrant isn’t in the bible? Really?
Time was, the local SBC existed to aid the believer in the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ (non trademarked version.)
The SBC existed to help the local church help the believer in that endeavor.
Now the believer exists to fund the local church which exists to fund the state and national entities of the SBC.
Nope. Not in this lifetime. Not for me.
refugee wrote:
Yes, and I am exceedingly wise in that respect. Ice cream was ordained to melt into a liquid puddle and run down the sides of the cone. Hence the cream in ice cream. Similarly, when it refreezes, it should turn into ice. Hence the ice in ice cream. This is not difficult. Cream to cream and ice to ice.
@ Gram3:
You would think the ice cream manufacturers would welcome the “planned obsolescence” of a limited shelf life. Wouldn’t they sell more ice cream as a result?
refugee wrote:
I may not be an atheist, but years in AWANA as a kid put me in a similar spot. Unfortunately, the verses always come out in King James English… 😮
(AWANA prints their material in other translations as well these days, leading fundamentalists across the country to condemn AWANA as apostate and create their own King Jimmy-approved knock-off kids’ programs.)
And speaking of hedges of protection…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Le33lZaMOI
refugee wrote:
I think the idea is that it extends the product stability while it is in the supply chain. There used to be very localized production and distribution. No so much now. The first outrage was when I bought Blue Bell in the post-guar gum era. I do not want to chew my ice cream or taste the stabilizer. Too bad, because their banana pudding flavor was simply awesome.
@ Gram3:
Sadly, that makes sense.
Guess it might be good to invest in an ice-cream maker.
Except that it is *extremely* difficult to find cream anymore in the store, that doesn’t have carageenan added to it! Even the ones labeled “organic”! I know of only one brand, locally, that just says “cream” on the label, and you can only find it at specific stores (two chains, actually; the rest don’t carry the brand).
refugee wrote:
Indeed we will… 😉
@ Ed:
Well, in English, most of the names are directly drawn from Norse/Germanic mythology, which is what I was angling for.
In French and other Romance languages, it’s a bit different, as in “mardi” = derived from the name of the Roman god Mars (aka Ares in Greek).
@ refugee:
Not only that but try finding cream that not has not been “ultra” pasteurized.
@ refugee:
We used to have all that delivered when I was a kid bi weekly. There is a reason such items were regional. Today, The long life seems to be more about shipping and shelf life.
@ elastigirl:
Has “covering” been mentioned?
@ Ken:
you booger
@ Victorious:
“covering” is there (as in ‘figleaf’) and other uses. & apparently my hair is some kind of spiritualized ‘covering’ for me, which I am in need of. I personally Paul had food poisoning or something when he wrote that.
lydia wrote:
And I read somewhere that the “ultra pasteurized” process changes the nature of the dairy enough to make it problematic for celiacs and other gluten-intolerant people, along with those sensitive to MSG, who would otherwise not have a problem with dairy.
(refugee’s ones ) & ken’s
103. wedding vows
104. three wisemen
@ refugee:
105. gospel (as an adjective)
@ elastigirl:
I was thinking of the “covering” doctrine or “umbrella of Protection” that Gothard taught. Everyone needs another person who covers them spiritually which amounts to a pyramid of authority.
Anyway..years ago it was very popular and if you asked the wrong person a question, they would reply with, “who is your covering” (person you are accountable to.)
Honestly…you can’t make these things up.
@ Victorious:
yes, that was so ridiculous!!!
refugee wrote:
Only one other denomination about which I have personal knowledge and experience. I do know of other churches but they are non-denoms. I’m convinced that people are people and bad stuff happens everywhere, though the bad stuff may be different bad stuff.
elastigirl wrote:
I think that certain people have badly misinterpreted Paul such that he appears to be terribly uneducated, delusional and inconsistent, a misogynist, and overall an unpleasant human being. Some people have done the same to stuff I’ve said, too.
numo wrote:
Was or Is? These efforts at authority/hierarchical systems just keep reinventing themselves using slightly different nuances so hopefully their real purpose isn’t discovered. Shepherding, covering, umbrella, accountability, discipleing, headship, etc. Same system designed for one to have power and control over others.
@ Victorious:
i agree. the past tense is me thinking back, as i am no longer within 100 light years of those kinds of churches.
@ Gram3:
Well, the boys in Jerusalem had some problems with Paul. And he and Peter tangled. Interesting that we only hear one side of that story. Paul described that he had issues with other church leaders who were coming behind him and disagreeing with some of his teachings. Again, that is one side of the story. James took issue in writing with Paul. Somehow some people seem to have decided that Paul was always right and everyone else always wrong even without knowing the whole story. Perhaps it is more complicated than that.
The thing about inspiration of scripture is that we note that holy writ includes these evidences of disagreement, if not in much detail. There must be some reason for that.
Lydia wrote:
For some people, going to London, KY, could be just as much a culture shock as going to London, England! 😀
@ Victorious:
I remember hearing something about that covering stuff. totally bewildering…. but I came away thinking, “yeah….. I need a covering…..God really wants me to have a covering…..if I have a covering then i’ll really be on the spiritual fastrack…….hmmmm….what’s a covering?”
bunch of horsesh1t
(too tired to filter the honest truth)
Nancy wrote:
Yes, they did tangle, and it’s a good thing they did. Saul/Paul had to do a lot of unlearning of what he thought he knew, and apparently he learned his lesson well and had to do some remedial work with Peter on a few things when Peter backslid, as we used to say. They are so much like me, and I can identify with them. Paul’s faults are on display, but I think that he has also received a lot of bad press that is undeserved. Most of the bad press I get is richly deserved.
K.D. wrote:
It already is! 🙁 And as someone who has dedicated his life to serving through the SBC, I’m heartbroken!
Josh, Doctor of Pulchritudinousness wrote:
Awesome, he even had the razor wire, but he missed the moat.
@ Jack:
They are fighting over the CR spoils of war. In the meantime people keep leaving.
I want to know what happened at that “Conversation With The Elders On Karen Root”. The one that took place on Sunday, March 14th in the Cambridge Cafeteria where the elders hosted an open conversation specifically as it related to Karen Root.
What was said? How was she portrayed? What was the degree of spin, deception, ‘mis-speaking’, lying…
(what a violation, to be discussed like this with a large group, through the lense of & being represented by the guardians of the institution and empire no less)
Is there anyone who was there who can comment?
sorry, wrong post.
@ numo:
Numo, thank you for the clarification and the short language lesson. I find that kind of research and understanding very interesting.
You know, ever since language was confused at the Tower of Babel, human communication has been tricky. I think that is a reason that God empowered the understanding of many languages on Pentecost. A sign that He restores by the outpouring of His Holy Spirit. Where there is division, there is confusion and every evil work. However, where the Spirit of the Lord prevails, life and peace.
Sincerely, Peace be with you.
“Reversing a decade-old policy, the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Missionary Board has lifted the ban on people who have spoken in tongues or “private prayer language.”
In comments given to The Christian Post, IMB President Dr. David Platt explained that the new policy does not mean that the SBC will endorse speaking in tongues.”
gee, the SBC will not endorse something that the bible clearly endorses! hmmmm
1 Corinthians 14:18 (KJV)
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
Victorious wrote:
Official Board
@ zooey111:
106. Official Board
That’s quite a list of extrapolation, conjecture, and sheer make-believe. as bad as xanthan gum, methylisothiazolinone, guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride, and emulsifiers in ice cream.
@ elastigirl:
107. undercover
108. spiritual covering
109. lead pastor
110. hub of the wheel (as in pastor is the hub / sheep are spokes)
111. prosperity doctrine
112. authoritarian
113. synergy
114. paradigm shift
115. download (as in the Lord has just downloaded this revelation to me)
116. small window of time (to reach America, so send your donations please)
117. conferences
118. gift of prayer (as in intercessor)
119. intercessor
120. 501c3