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."
Man, I knew I could find something that applies to me in the Bible.
The one that applies to me:
Matt. 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you;
It all depends on the definition of the word
'shall". Got it now.
I SHALL take that under consideration. :)
I think you hid them in the Chocolate Covered Cherry
box left over from Christmas.
Oops. I sent those off to Grandma.
If someone wants to speak in tongues then there are many denominations that will support that practice. Or they can start a new one. But I am against any acceptance of the practice in my denomination. I believe it is not a power from God and therefore a dangerous practice. For that reason I do not classify it as a minor doctrine that should be overlooked. And it divides people into groups and classifications. That's fine, but it does not fit under one denominational umbrella. As a denomination, you either accept tongues or you don't. To say it doesn't matter is to accept the practice as at least potentially from God. This is a big deal. If it is not of us and it is not of God then what is left?
they're allready here!
5 SOLAS!
Anything about fools applies to me:). No foolin.
My favorite scripture is the one that says, and when they awoke, they were all dead corpses. I can't remember the reference.
lol! I ain't sayin nothin- in English or othwerwise. At least not on this thread!
Kuronde kurohan gosul handamyun, darun saramduri ihehalsuoptjiman darun saramduri pabokateyo dessayo. hehe:)
How do you reconcile that the Bible does say they are gifts from God?
Actually, the essential part of that applies to the quintessetial, being the five parts of the essetiality of the conflict, which in itself is essential. Therefore, if you assume that that is essential, it is essentially (for lack of a more essential term) not of the essentials. Now, where do I get the essentials? Well, you check around your kitchen cupboard first, but you could ask for them as well. Now, I wonder is that essential? Do we ask or do we take? It is essentially right to do one, but not the other, but to do one without the other when one could do without the other is an other thing entirely.
Was I assuming you have been talking about essentially just that? Now, maybe you may think so, but I have not been assuming anything, as you assumed. I have just been assuming that somone would not assume that I have been assuming and there have made my assuming points based on that assumption. Therefore, when one assumes that I have assuming, then we are both guilty of assuming the assuming and maybe the un-assuming as well, at least assumably.
Therefore, when we look to the essential assumptions, we are left with something absolutely unessential to assume. Therefore the essentials become assumably and essentially nothing, as I have most definitely usassumably and essentially stated.
Anyone who can't understand that
needs to give it a rest.
Which i am fixn to do.
For someone who speaks against speaking in tongues, you do a good job at typing in tongues.
Shondai rondai tie my bowtie.
You havva keys to my honda.
Who shot the pecan down.
Trust me, I know all the jokes!
Anyway, all this debate doesn't matter when the miracles start. Watching someone get raised from the dead sort of puts it all into perspective. Funny how the churches in Africa and Asia don't have debates about tongues. They are too busy being christians.
The fact is, we have NO POWER manifesting on any regular basis, to any great extent. So we sit around and wonder about whether tongues is legit or not. We would do better to desire the manifest presence of God in our midst and not worry about what happens outwardly.
http://www.irismin.org/
http://fuegodedios.com/
Here are a couple of ministries that are really manifesting the Kingdom in a powerful way. We would do well to take a clue instead of worrying about this silly hairsplitting crap.
AND not once, have I spoke aftest speaking in tongues. I agree and disagree with WKB on this, but I can respect his opinions without having to get into a hissy-fit about it.
Glad to see you got something out of it. And thanks for the compliment.
You got that right.
http://www.fbcjax.com/default.asp?pageType=home
listening to dr. Allen right now,
ty for the ping!
You have some good points. I entered the "debate" on a humorous level, but like the creation debate, I am more concerned with my salvation and relationship with Christ and my fellowmen more than anything.
Now, tell me, which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Why do people pick their noses when it all comes back anyways?
Why was Satan in the form of a serpent in the garden of Eden? Was he just being an asp?
Your post #3
To: WKB
Oh man, why did you have to go there? I'm staying awaaaaaaayyyy from this. bye.
3 posted on 02/04/2006 4:48:18 AM CST by ovrtaxt
Post # 172
Looks like you didn't make it. :>)
Sometimes curiousity kills the cat. We all have big meowths at one time or another:).
I couldn't stand it.
I've been through this debate many times. Tooo many times...
Actually, if one studies Scripture, we will find in Acts chapter 2 that gibberish was not spoken at Pentacost, as it in in Charismatic churches today.
Whatever is happening with the gibberish movement is not what happened at Pentacost.
Acts 2:6
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded,
because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another,
Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea,
and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene,
and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12 And they were all amazed,
and were in doubt, saying one to another,
What meaneth this?
Tongues as we see from God's word is not some kind of gibberish that needed to be translated or explained.
Another problems that the gibberish tongues movement has is the way it's started by and led by women.(Azuzu Street, Amiee.)
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
if the Charismatic movement really believed the Bible, instead of emotionalism, making the women sit down and be quite would wipe out the majority of people speaking gibberish in a church service.
Remember, as noted by Scripture, tongues are a KNOWN LANGUAGE.
Also, the sign gifts DID stop when the Jews finally rejected the Gospel, and Paul went to the Gentiles.
The signs were for the Jews, not the Greeks.
if you do a word search using the word "signs" you will see how very often God used the word in dealing with His people, the Jews.
1 Corinthians 1:22
For the Jews require a sign,
and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified,
unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called,
both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God,
and the wisdom of God.
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.