During the mid-1980s former Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) President Adrian Rogers told a group of state paper editors that if Southern Baptists believed pickles had souls, professors teaching at Southern Baptist seminaries would be required to teach it. Professors were free to believe what they wanted, Rogers explained, but if they were paid with Southern Baptist money, they had to teach what Southern Baptists believed.
While Rogers’ analogy was extreme, it clearly communicated the position of Southern Baptist leadership. Those paid with Southern Baptist money had to reflect the official position of Southern Baptists.
The action of the International Mission Board (IMB) in forcing the termination of service for 77 career missionaries displays a similar position. The missionaries were terminated because they refused to sign a statement saying, “In accountability to the International Mission Board and Southern Baptists, I agree to carry out my responsibilities in accordance with and not contrary to the current Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M) as adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention.”
IMB officials were willing to accept variations in belief. Many missionaries wrote of differences with the 2000 BF&M. For example, several missionaries referenced disagreement with what they perceived as a change in the emphasis on priesthood of the believer. The 1963 statement emphasized the “priesthood of the believer.” Individual soul competency before God was the thrust. The 2000 statement replaces that phrase with priesthood of believers. Some saw the plural form of “believers” as stressing the corporate nature of priesthood rather than personal priesthood and called this a departure from traditional Baptist belief.
Others expressed concern that the 1963 statement “The criterion by which the Bible is interpreted is Jesus Christ” was removed. The 2000 statement says, “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who Himself is the focus of divine revelation.” One missionary wrote, “Before, we would ask, ‘What would Jesus do?’ But the 2000 BF&M makes no allowance for this.”
Disagreement with the 2000 BF&M was expressed at other points including what some called an invasion of the autonomy of the local church, a lessened emphasis on keeping the Sabbath and the statement that women cannot serve as pastors.
The IMB noted these disagreements and usually concluded that the disagreements were not enough to force termination. This decision reflected the former practice of requiring international missionaries to affirm that their beliefs were “in substantial agreement with those printed in the BF&M and adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention.”
One difference the IMB evidently was not willing to accept concerned the use of the 2000 BF&M to demonstrate “accountability.” Some career missionaries wrote such things as “by asking us to submit our ministry to any document other than Scripture, you are turning a corner that Baptists have historically not been willing to turn.” Others reminded IMB leaders of the Baptist heritage of “no creed but the Bible.”
Still other career missionaries questioned why the “accountability” procedures outlined in the IMB’s “Manual for Field Personnel” was being replaced by a new “measuring stick for orthodoxy” — the 2000 BF&M. Many missionaries asked why their years of service, regular evaluations by IMB leadership and peers, together with regular covenants with regional leaders did not demonstrate “accountability.”
But the IMB would not budge. IMB president Jerry Rankin concluded and communicated that failing to sign the requested affirmation of the BF&M demonstrated “unwillingness to be accountable to Southern Baptists who send and support” the missionaries. IMB trustees equally supported that position.
A particular touchy point concerned women as pastors. Some career missionaries wrote that in their fields of service, women serve effectively as pastors of churches. Other missionaries noted the miracle of Christian revival in China where women serve as pastors. One wrote that these examples “demonstrate that when it comes to winning the lost and gathering them into the Kingdom, God uses any instrument available to do His bidding.”
Some missionaries noted that if they signed the requested document they would feel bound to work against women as pastors in order to “work in accordance with and not contrary to” the 2000 BF&M. Such action could “lead our IMB missionaries to establish separate churches which would not cooperate with the local conventions and unions, causing disagreement, distrust and controversy” among national Christians, one missionary wrote.
The conflicting values were all in place. IMB leadership desired to assure Southern Baptists of the doctrinal accountability of its overseas personnel. That meant agreeing to work “in accordance with and not contrary to” the 2000 BF&M. As Rogers had said, “If Southern Baptists believe that pickles have souls,” then that is what people paid with Southern Baptist money must teach.
On the other side were concerns like the BF&M becoming a creed, about raising the issue of women pastors to an “essential” belief of Southern Baptists. There were concerns about affirming only one Baptist interpretation of certain doctrines, about imposing the SBC on missions partners and, not least of all, the personal integrity of some who felt caught between what they believed and what they felt required to practice if they signed.
It was a classic confrontation between corporate values and personal values. In most cases like this, corporate values win. That is where the power is.
It must be noted that about 98 percent of career missionaries signed the required statement, some enthusiastically and some hesitantly. The 77 career missionaries forced out in various ways make up about 2 percent of career missionaries under appointment at the time. Others left without making an issue of the signing requirement. Still, it was a small percentage.
Yet the trauma this episode caused among Baptists has been huge. Individuals have been hurt. Churches have been hurt. International missions has been hurt. Whether more damage would have been done by another course of action, people may debate, but only God knows.
As Southern Baptists go forward, we hope a way can be found through which brothers and sisters in the Lord can resolve conflicts of values without harm to one another or to the cause of Christ.
Share with others: