Yarnell Sermon Pivotal Gauntlet in IMB Policy
Dr. Malcom Yarnell's dialogue with David Rogers continues at loveeachstone. His white paper will be the seed of much blogging and SBC discussion as it posits the "official" position of the IMB majority trustess in a sermonic format.

One Blogger's Reply.
My response would be the following:

Wow. I see now that if you disagree with the "narrow" view of cooperation as evidenced in the Yarnell sermon, you are "out of line" with the BF&M. I didn't know we had voted on Dr. Yarnell's sermon as being synonymous with the BF&M 2000. Perhaps it was in a footnote the years I joined with thousands of other messengers to adopt the document.!?

Seriously, Dr. Yarnell's passion and commitment to our Lord are shining through in the white paper. What is distressing is his narrow view that only Baptists (should I now read that only Southern Baptists!?) are actually fulfilling the Great Commission.

My NT/Greek professor in Seminary (Kendall Easley. . .Mid-America) made a helpful distinction which has served me throughout my pastoring and teaching. He suggested what would help most debates would be a clear demarcation between heresy and error. Many times we throw mud at brothers with whom we disagree, and actually go across the line into calling them heretics, when in actuality what they are believing/practicing is error.

Without pretending to speak verbatim for David, Wade Burleson, Joel Rainey, et al; I would say that we believe that one can be absolutely committed to Southern Baptist theology, ecclesiology, and polity without viewing our Christian brothers (may I say Great Commission Christian brothers!) as being so out-of-touch with the Savior that we could not evangelize, pray, take communion, and worship alongside of them.

In this regard, we view the Billy Graham style of cooperation as the more proper model, as against a more militant (a.k.a. fundamentalist) seperation model.

I will diligently and vigorously defend my Baptist position with my paedobaptist friends, and with my Wesleyan buddies as well. But I will not accuse them, either to their face, or behind their back as being either unsaved or in disobedience to the Great Commission because of their equally cherished (and, in their hearts, Biblical) beliefs.

Interestingly, under Part II, D, (Baptizing) in defining the heart of a Baptist, Yarnell states 10 reasons for baptism:

1) baptism for believers only
2) baptism by immersion alone;
3)baptism based upon one’s profession of faith;
4)baptism as a meaningful symbolic representation of personal conversion;
5)baptism as a faith commitment;
6)baptism as an ethical commitment;
7)baptism into a local congregation;
8)baptism as participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ;
9)baptism as identification with the one God who is yet three—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit;
10)baptism as a public testimony to regeneration.

How does this decalogue on baptism relate the the FOUR beliefs necessary for IMB appointment by the majority trustees? Interestingly, nowhere in Yarnell's list is eternal security mentioned. So if one should adopt even Yarnell's expanded list (again, endulge me to affirm that David, Wade, et al strongly support each of the 10)---that still does not get you over the hurdle of exluding so-called "alien immersion" because of eternal security as the policy does.

Under II, E (Teaching), Yarnell states that "The sufficiency of Scripture states that our “doctrines”–that is, our teachings–need to be drawn from the Bible, and that we may never go beyond the Bible for our authority. Scripture, in other words, is sufficient for the message and practice of Baptist churches and their people."

One couldn't possibly write a better critique of the IMB policy than what Yarnell has done in these two sentences! Baptists will seperate only when the Bible demands such. . .and those who oppose the new policy are saying that Scripture nowhere demands a rejection of baptism solely upon a lack of belief in eternal security.

Interestingly, while challenging the reader/listener to avoid the extremes of Hyper-Calvinism and Hyper-Arminianism, Yarnell fails to highlight the irony that in warning of the dangers of Hyper Calvinism & Arminianism, he neglects to mention the equally dangerous notion of theological reductionism.

Reductionism is the idea that all of important theology may be summarized around one key idea. In the classic SBC layperson, this would be evidenced by thinking that all one must believe is "once-saved-always-saved." How, theologically, is one to maintian this "one point Calvinism?" It doesn't matter---we all, in the words of Rodney King, need to just get along. (By the way, I am not accusing Yarnell of believing this point).

In Yarnell's paper, Baptist theology shares the disease of theological reductionism by filtering out all other distinctives as secondary to the Great Commission. I know of thousands of pastors, teachers, and missionaries of other denominations who could affirm what he has written along these lines.

Thankfully, in most of the rest of the white paper Yarnell positions true Baptist theology as being deeper and broader than this. But in searching for a "Key" to tie Baptist theology down, (a somewhat needless exercise, I would suggest---why do we need such a so-called distinctive, just because the Reformers or Anabaptists had one?!) Yarnell appears to slip for a moment into this morass.

I look forward to hearing from others in this continuing debate.

SBC Controversy leads to a Resurrection!
AP--(Murray, Kentucky) This just in from Chuck Norris. . .The endless blogs on tongues and baptism (how exactly do those two topics fit together. . .I've heard of wet kisses!?. . .but we digress) has led one blogger's site to actually RISE from the dead. Or at least from a very lengthy hiatus. Other responsibilities like work and family have been left in the wake, reports suggest. For the two people who have been faithful readers in the past to my blog, welcome back.

Musings on Future Ramifications on IMB Policy
For the uninitiated, read the summaries of the controversy here or here.
What I have not seen elaborated on anywhere in the blogosphere are the possible future implications upon the candidates and their churches, not because of either of the "telltale" issues of tongues or baptism concerning the candidates themselves, but rather the authority issue as concerning the church from which they come.

For instance, suppose Alex and Sandy are baptized members of 1st Baptist Anytown, of Western Kentucky. This growing church has strong SBC history and ties, contributes 10% of their undesignated contributions to CP, and affirms in their church bylaws BFM 2000 as their confessional stance. But because this local church accepts "alien immersion" from denominations which immerse but do not require a belief in eternal security for membership, are Alex and Sandy to be accepted for missionary service? The slippery slope would suggest not. This year the IMB trustees are after those whose baptism is invalid. One can easily imagine that in 2-3 years (once all of the non-pure candidates are cleansed from the would-be missionary ranks) the trustees will want to make sure that each candidate also comes from a church that only accepts pure baptisms!

This reality is alive and well among churches who hold to "proper authority" (the 4th suggestion in the Hatley paper). Frequently in many parts of the SBC (including in Western Kentucky where our imaginary Alex & Sandy reside) Kentucky Baptist/Southern Baptist churches are denied a letter from being granted from their "sister" KBC/SBC church down the road---because the previous church views the "alien immersion" church as not being a church of "like faith and order." [In our hypothetical, Sandy's little sister comes to join 1st Baptist Anytown from "Strict and True Baptist Church" in the same town. . .but a letter is denied because 1st Anytown is out of step theologically].

So today we are told Alex and Sandy can be missionaries (since they themselves have a "biblical" baptism in spite of 1st Anytown's misguided acceptance of invalid baptisms) but tomorrow perhaps they will be denied because their church has some in their ranks who were immersed in a church without eternal security requirements.

The slippery slope arguments only become more absurd when you consider that while Alex and Sandy are suitable candidates by baptism, their pneumatology is, it must be said, not correct. While they affirm the BF&M 2000 in every detail (since it has no comments on tongues, after all!) they are non-charismatic non-cessationists. In short, while never having spoken in either a "language" of tongues as a gift in public worship nor experienced tongues in their private prayer life, they nevertheless interpret Paul incorrectly, it seems, by viewing the gifts of 1 Cor. 12-14 as being possible for today. Alex (College and Seminary trained with CP dollars) reads the text of the Bible itself, finds no declaration that the sign gifts are inoperable, and thus remains cautiously open to all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Alas we see again, that though he remains a viable candidate today for overseas appointment, the trustee theologians in a year or so will vote that not only must candidates embrace a non-charismatic cessationist practice, they must also adhere to the same in theory and theology.

It is with a grieving heart that I pray that our convention, which has seen a great theological, missiological, and truly evangelical move of God around this world will not be diverted from purpose or practice by straining at the gnat of theological detail upon which humble, loving friends should be able to disagree but work together.