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."
Some of my best friends are Assembly of God pastors. I have attended an Assembly of God church since 1986. Not once have I heard anyone, at anytime, make such an assertion. Not once.
I disagree vehemently with your first senetence.
I tend to agree with your second.
I have... .repeatedly. I've been told repeatedly that if I didn't speak in tongues, the spirit didn't dwell in me... and if the spirit didn't dwell in me.... I wasn't really saved.
Some of my best friends are Assembly of God pastors. I have attended an Assembly of God church since 1986. Not once have I heard anyone, at anytime, make such an assertion. Not once.
But I have heard some "Jesus Name Only"
make that assertion.
Then you were lied to by people who are at odds with Assembly of God teachings.
Fair enough.
You mean "oneness" people?
I can't speak for them.
I said in #43 that the quote was from the article. Your reply, though, in #28 cited 2 scriptures with no explanation on how they fit. That left things open to interpretation regarding what you intended by those scriptures.
What did you intend with them?
It happens.
You mean "oneness" people?
I can't speak for them
Yes "JNO"\Oneness same thing
My wife's family is full of em.
I have a nephew who is an AOG Pastor
and a cousin who is married to one
they have never said anything like that.
I told them one time
If the Baptist would "Speak in Tongues"
and the AOG would believe in "once saved
always saved" we could "all just get along" :>)
I meant it more as a rebuttal to the assertion that tongues was only meant for early Christians, not anything to do with wether it is a spiritual language.
But here's a good one for you...What language did the angels speak??? What language did Adam and Eve speak???
Unless you change a word or two in the scriptures, anyone can clearly see speaking in tongues is a foreign language, or unknown language (to you)...
But what's important is we are encouraged by the Bible NOT to speak in 'tongues'...Why???
1Co 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
That's pretty straight forward...Are the signs for Christians in this age???
1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
The Jews require the signs and miracles...For the most part, they have too much Biblical history and tradition to accept a Crucified Christ...
Tongues are for a sign...The Jews require a sign...Chrisians look for wisdon (in preaching)...Let's also not forget that in Paul's later life, he was a physical wreck...And no one could heal him, (outside of God)...
If we all believed the Bible, there would be one denomination...
Kjam22
Pastor Wade is my pastor. We(the church) have heard a great deal about this situation. Your short summary seems to be very correct. Below is the sermon outline from the service during which he formally addressed this topic to the church. One can listen to the sermon also; he does his best to describe the situation in an hour.
http://www.emmanuelenid.org/sermons/Principles.htm
Chip
If God wants to talk to you, He does it directly and you'll know it. Why would He need an "Interpreter?"
That is more of a Pentacostal teaching that speaking in tongues is neccessary for salvation.
If you note the 'tongue' spoken was understood, what need would there be to speak in a 'tongue' that nobody understands?
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.