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.