Posted on 02/04/2006 2:44:05 AM PST by WKB
ENID, Okla.
A Southern Baptist pastor being removed from a national board governing worldwide evangelism says he doesn't speak in tongues himself but is defending missionaries who do to keep the denomination "broad in our cooperation."
The Rev. Wade Burleson, the senior pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, said that the board of trustees of the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board wants him to be removed because of his criticism of a policy change enacted by the IMB in November 2005. It stated that any candidate speaking in tongues, even privately, "has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC."
In a statement, the International Mission Board says it wants him removed not because of the tongues issue, but because of "broken trust and resistance to accountability." Burleson's removal depends on a June vote of the entire Southern Baptist Convention, but the controversy is being watched beyond Baptist circles, largely because of the dispute over tongues, an issue that has rankled many religious groups.
Tongues is described in the Bible as a spiritual language used by early Christians, enabled by the Holy Spirit. The issue of whether it is still relevant, or appropriate, for modern times has divided many denominations.
Burleson says he is not most concerned about tongues, but a willingness to remove ministers who disagree with what he and others consider "nonessential doctrines." Since the changes in the mission board's policy were made official, Burleson has been writing open letters and explanations of his position on his blog, kerussocharis.blogspot.com.
He has repeatedly referred to those who wanted the policy changes as "crusading conservatives."
"Crusading conservatives seek to convince you that their interpretation of the Bible on nonessential doctrines must be accepted by all conservatives, and if someone chooses to not conform to their specific interpretation, then he/she is removed from service," Burleson said.
Burleson says he considers himself a "cooperating conservative," which he defines as a person who is in agreement on the major doctrines of the Bible but gives freedom in areas of interpretation regarding nonessential doctrines. The SBC has long considered the Reformation's rallying cries of faith alone, grace alone, Scripture alone and Christ alone as summing up the major doctrines of Scripture.
The use of the spiritual gift known as tongues or glossolalia would fall into the nonessential category. Southern Baptists have a policy that prohibits their ministers from using tongues in a public setting.
"I do not want people to lose sight of the real issue," Burleson said. "It is not about the new policies. It is the direction we seem to be moving as a convention that shuts out dissent and desires conformity in the interpretation of minor doctrines."
Burleson said he does not practice a "private prayer language," the phrase some use for speaking in tongues, nor does anyone he would consider a close friend or family member. The issue, he said, is one of principle and "is not personal."
Leon McBeth is a retired distinguished professor of church history at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. He said that the SBC has a long-standing antipathy toward what some call the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit.
"In my day, our concern over the tongues issue was a biblical one," McBeth said. "In the Bible, tongues is always associated with conflict. And tongues isn't exclusive to Christianity. The practice goes at least as far back as the Oracle at Delphi.
"Sometime in the 1970s, as a way of ameliorating opposition to tongues, some Southern Baptists began to talk about private prayer language. They believed it was less offensive than calling it tongues."
Lyle Story, a professor of biblical languages and New Testament at Regent University School of Divinity in Virginia Beach, Va., said that the Southern Baptist resistance to tongues is tied to their belief that all the miraculous gifts (healing, prophecy, tongues, miracles) ceased with the death of the original 12 apostles and the completion of the Bible.
Burleson said he is resistant to the policy change because so many Christian men and women throughout history would have violated it.
"Some of our greatest missionaries of all time had a private prayer language, including Miss Bertha Smith of China, who led thousands of people to Christ and died an ambassador of the Southern Baptist Convention at the age of 100," he said.
Jerry Rankin, the president of the International Mission Board, has acknowledged that he has practiced a private prayer language for 30 years.
"We have become so intolerant that everyone must now march in lockstep with us or we kick them out," McBeth said. "I believe this (the policy change) was part of a power play to force Rankin into retirement."
The IMB made the policy change non-retroactive, so Rankin's position as president will not be threatened.
The trustees of the IMB deny that Burleson's criticism of the policy changes had a bearing on their decision to work to remove him. In an official statement released Jan. 11, board chairman Tom Hatley said: "In taking this action, trustees addressed issues involving broken trust and resistance to accountability, not Burleson's opposition to policies recently enacted by the board."
Burleson will remain on the board until the Southern Baptist Convention meets in Greensboro in June. The convention must vote to remove him, as the IMB has no power to do so. Burleson said he remains a strong supporter of the SBC and IMB.
"The International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention is doing the greatest work in our 161-year-old history," Burleson said. "I and my church support the IMB. We will continue to support the IMB."
I am not disagreeing. The purpose stated in the Bible is for the benefit of the non-believer. I am not defending the Pentacostal belief which I think is wrong. But I also think it is wrong for Southern Baptists to try to cleans any belief in speaking in tongues out of their church. There are Southern Baptists who do speak in tongues, but there are more that would like to see that practice eliminated.
No, as I have stated before. Neither 17 or 18 is a command. They are both signs, as the context clearly states.
I finally decided to just allow God to be God and follow Him according to the Scriptures and what He would have me do.
And different people interpret that differently.
I find your post not only horribly misinformed, but supremely sad.
No, the context is the same. They are signs, they are not commandments.
No, as I have stated before. Neither 17 or 18 is a command. They are both signs, as the context clearly states.
Would I be correct then to presume that
"not ALL signs are for ALL Christians."?
When Christians argue over "nonessential"
it just gives the enemy ammunition.
And in doing so, sometimes we become the enemy.
Now, where did I put those cherry bombs? :)
I've sat and watched whole football games while in the other room they circled one and prayed and prayed ....
I'm going to try that for the Super Bowl.
You keep trying to put words in my mouth that I have never uttered. They are signs for the non-believers. They are not to be sought. You are not to test God. So if you do not get those signs, it does not mean you are condemned to hell. But it is also wrong to condemn people who do get those signs.
Now, where did I put those cherry bombs? :)
I think you hid them in the Chocolate Covered Cherry
box left over from Christmas.
Actually no one on this thread is arguing that they are essential. It just seems you are assuming I have been.
Now explain to me how asking a question
is putting words in your mouth.
If God wants to talk to you, He does it directly and you'll know it. Why would He need an "Interpreter?"
Sometimes a lot of us are "on the other line" spiritually. I haven't been able to get that German chocolate cake out of my mind for a week now.
But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Man, I knew I could find something that applies to me in the Bible.
lol! I ain't sayin nothin- in English or othwerwise. At least not on this thread!
tongue-in-cheek
or
foot in mouth?
How about hoof-in-mouth?
What's REALLY important
1 Cor. 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance£: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1 Cor. 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
....
AMEN..... and AMEN
Because your question implies that I think that speaking in tongues is for all Christians, when I have repeatedly stated I do not think it is. You are trying to make a point that I have already agreed with.
You are trying to make a point that I have already agreed with
Well since we finally agree why don't stop
right there? :>)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.