Showing posts with label testimony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label testimony. Show all posts

Thursday, May 14, 2015

I Allowed the IMB to Make a Mockery of Baptism

*Editorial Note: Pulpit & Pen continues in unrepentant sin and enabling of the ongoing sin of Jordan Hall. While it is my understanding that P&P does not plan to take down the content I contributed, any role I can play in reducing their traffic until they repent, I will. Thus I migrate this article here. 

…the International Mission Board (IMB) Board of Trustees voted to open new pathways of service by, among other things, removing previous restrictions that had been developed a decade ago. In 2005, the IMB BoT created restrictions to missionary service that included barring anyone from service who …had been baptized by immersion in a church that did not teach eternal security or that was not in line with the Baptist perspective on perseverance even if they were members in good standing of SBC churches today… Today, those policies have been changed…

In 2006, I was freshly returned from a year as a tent-maker missionary in southern Japan and very zealous to get back on the foreign mission field once again. Having been a member of a Southern Baptist church for six years that was always in the very upper echelons of per capita giving to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering (the big funding drive that provides a very significant portion, if not the majority, of IMB’s annual budget), the logical, obvious, and highly encouraged choice was to apply to IMB. The perquisites were equally obvious – official SBC pedigree, seminary discounts, well-established support structure. And, I can confidently say as someone who has by 2015 attempted (and failed) to raise his own missions budget, the salary, which means there’s no need to raise one’s own support, was the main attraction.

The salary means the missionary doesn’t have to “waste” his time networking and getting to know lots of people and churches and can instead focus on the actual mission work, the actual project at hand. It’s pretty compelling, to be honest, even though IMB missionaries still take the same kind of home furloughs as those do who have had to raise their own support. More could be said about that, but I’ll move on for now.

So my wife and I applied. We wrote down all the testimonies of our salvations. We got all the references and church information in place. We recounted our life histories, education, whether we were Calvinists, whether we had debt, whether we’d been divorced, etc. (Just kidding about the Calvinist thing.)

Then, the question to the effect of: In what church were you baptized?

Let’s step back in my personal history for a moment. The Lord saved me out of a fairly liberal Methodist family; one day, just before I turned 16, I just realized I was going to serve Jesus and be hated for His name, and that was that. A year later the Lord arranged that I meet some very charismatic high school seniors when I was a sophomore, and (despite my retrospective dismay at some of their sometimes very weird charismatic distinctives) their lack of the fear of man and of regard for others’ negative opinions became a powerful and mostly positive influence on me. I am thankful for them, even though hanging with them made me into a charismatic for around six years.

When in university some years later, I regularly attended Sunday morning service at a charismatic non-denominational church, and one day in 1998 I became convicted that my head-sprinkling as a baby at the hands of the Methodist pastor was not actual baptism. Wanting to obey Jesus, I asked that church to baptize (immerse) me (same thing), which after examination they did, at a Sunday evening service in the presence of friends and witnesses. These were people who give a credible profession of faith in Jesus and just as much evidence in my view of loving Jesus as anyone in most any SBC church.

Fast forward eight years, I am applying to IMB, and I discover the policy that IMB only accepts applicants who have been baptized in a church that at least affirms eternal security (or, in a pinch, the perseverance of the saints). Quite unhappy with that, I decided to try to avoid it by contacting my old charismatic church. On the phone with a staff member, I asked if by chance they affirm eternal security. They laughed “Of course not”, which turned into a brief but interesting conversation.

Thus thwarted, I reported the bad news to my pastor, who fully supported my wife’s and my desire to go overseas with IMB. He recommended that he (re-)baptize me. His reasoning can be condensed as follows:
  • The SBC is a loose confederation of churches with non-identical beliefs regarding what constitutes real baptism
  • Some of these churches who contribute to the Cooperative Program think that you have to be the right kind of Christian to apply baptism legitimately
  • They are the weaker brother and so you can in good conscience accede to their weakness
  • It’s worth it to get on the foreign mission field
So to my shame I conceded and was re-baptized a few weeks later. The pastor prefaced my re-baptism with an explanation to the congregation why a respected longtime member and a leader of a Sunday School class and community group was up in the baptistery. I held my nose, literally and figuratively, and got wet to satisfy the short-lived and short-sighted compromise that the IMB made with legalists.

One wonders how the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8) or the disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 19) would answer the question “In what church were you baptized?”. I guess they’d have to get re-baptized too.

It’s hard to picture the Apostle Paul requiring people baptized by, say, John Mark (before their subsequent reconciliation), Barnabas (after their rift), or Demas to be re-baptized before they could join with him on missionary outreach.

It’s difficult to imagine the Apostle Peter holding one set of requirements for becoming a part of his local fellowship but reserving more stringent requirements regarding one’s past associations for “serious” Gospel work.

I can’t see the Lord Jesus finding no fault in a man’s work, confession, or doctrine such that he is called a son of the Most High, but telling him that a ritual he once engaged in wasn’t done by someone whose doctrine was quite as good and so remains entirely incomplete.

I allowed the IMB to use me to illustrate to my entire church body at the time the hypocrisy and compromise into which the Cooperative Program has had to enter for the sake of a “greater good”. I performed a shameful act in order that I might get in good with an organisation who would later bring my wife and me out to a candidate orientation, lecture us about nonsensical things like a “call to missions“, judge our personality based on nothing more than a few hours of observation, and never contact a single one of our references, church leadership, or friends to ask what kind of people we were.

I acceded to worldly wisdom in pursuit of a godly aim. Now the IMB is relaxing that requirement. Will it attempt to bear fruit in keeping with repentance in explicitly re-educating people against the hypocrisy and compromise in which it was until recently engaging?

I repent. I call on the IMB to repent.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

A compendium of resources on Eastern Orthodoxy, so far

James Swan, the head honcho at Beggars All, was contacted by an acquaintance inquiring about Eastern Orthodoxy, because he was alarmed at the rate of conversion to EOC among seminarians with whom he is familiar.  James (perhaps unwisely) forwarded him on to me, and I gave it my best shot.  I'd like to reproduce a distillation of our brief correspondence here, for future reference.  May the Lord use this information for His glory.

----

Hello!
I'm a coblogger/underling on James' blog, and in my blogging career, I've written on EOC and interacted a significant amount with EOdox.  That is mostly b/c a close friend of mine with whom I grew up in the faith, after some 6 years as a Bapticostal and a student at ORU in Tulsa, converted to EOC.  I was alarmed, of course, and tried to stop him, and our discussions actually for a time had me on the ropes.  I was unprepared for the things he'd already thought through a few steps ahead, and so for a time I felt my own foundations shaking.  Then, however, I was able to get on top of things with the help mainly of James White lectures and debates on Romanism (which is in many ways, especially in terms of authority and religious epistemology, very similar to EOC) and on Sola Scriptura, a couple of books by Eric Svendsen, and the 3-volume set "Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith" by Webster and King.

That started me down the road of being able to deconstruct the arguments that EOx put forward, and with all that behind me now, I can say with confidence (Lord willing) that EOC is totally off the table as a live option for piety toward God.  My further interactions with knowledgeable EOx, both in person and in the blogosphere, both have convinced me further of the folly of EOxy and have helped me develop even more powerful arguments against it.

I'd encourage you to learn a little about EOC.  A good place to start is Timothy Ware's "The Orthodox Church", but unfortunately it's a pretty sanitised version of EO theology.  All the really heretical and "red flag!  Danger, Will Robinson!" stuff is removed out of its presentation of EO theology, but not a bad place to start.  If nothing else, someone will ask you if you've read anything, and you can tell them that.  It might help satisfy them that you're not just shooting in the dark.
I've read a fair amount of "dialogue" and "conversion" stories, but most of them weren't any good, weren't helpful.  Two I think would be helpful would be:
--Conversion-themed stuff written by Peter Gillquist
--My friend's conversion story
Also, I'd recommend this short e-book/long pamphlet from a Romanian who is quite familiar with EOC theology and especially the more unsavory elements and sayings from their "church fathers".  I just finished reading it and recommend it because of its lengthy quotations and evaluations of what you might call "EOC's source documents" - the church writers who have gone before.  Point these pagan and Platonic ideas out to those who are wavering, and if they respond with "but that's not what the Church itself believes!", ask them on what basis these same early church writers are cited sometimes to back up EOC's authority and are sometimes cast aside as "speaking only as a private theologian".  It's a fatal epistemological flaw in EOC, and one that is, if nothing else, sort of fun to exploit, to watch the dancing and writhing commence.

Now, as for refuting EO assertions, I'd recommend, just like with a Romanist or a Mormon, majoring on the majors, and that would be the question of authority. I think you'll have a fairly difficult time if  you try to go at it from any other position than Sola Scriptura.  That is to say, the 3/4-legged stool I've heard expressed in certain Protestant contexts will not serve you well in this arena, but perhaps that's not where you're coming from.
Anyway, you can start with my recent debate on Sola Scriptura with a knowledgeable EO blogger.  It's maybe not the best ever done, but I think it was quite good, it raised a lot of good issues, and it was accessible, not super super long.

In other blogging arenas, a great deal of superior material has been delivered on the Triablogue.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/search/label/Eastern%20Orthodoxy
I am in awe of these men's abilities and output.  I would encourage you not to unwisely confuse earnestness and gladness to know and be able to communicate the truth with nastiness.
My blog also has a lot of material on EOxy, so here you go:
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/search/label/Eastern%20Orthodoxy

My most fundamental recommendation would be, as I said, on the topic of authority.
Here are some posts I'd encourage you to focus on:
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2010/02/reflection-on-sola-scriptura-debate-1.html
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2010/03/irony-in-patristics.html

You'll probably also find that EOx will challenge you with "But there are so many denominations in Protestantism!"  Don't let them get away with it!
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2009/12/special-pleading-of-sola-ecclesia-ists.html
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2009/12/jesus-prayer-for-unity-in-john-17.html
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-special-pleading.html

---/---

The correspondent replied:  I have been shocked and saddened by the number of seminarians turning Orthodox.  It seems to be the cool, sentimental thing to do.

I responded:  Yes, it is the cool sentimental thing to do.  It's embracing "ancient" faith, "the church of the church fathers", "the early church", with liturgy and all that stuff.  It looks mystically attractive.  It's much more sensibly rich than a Protestant service.  I can relate to the attraction.  But the false Gospel, you know...sorta spoils it for me.
And that is, of course, the bottom line - does this church preach the Gospel?  Does it teach that the filthy, spiritually dead, enemy of God, God-hating sinner can be reconciled to God and have peace with God by God's grace alone by repentance and faith alone in Christ alone as mediator for the forgiveness of sins?  Ask any Eastern Orthodox, and make the question specific enough so as to eliminate wiggle room, and you'll find that the answer is a very clear no.  Which makes the answer to the question, "Should I join this church?" pretty clear as well.