Thoughts on the new IMB guidelines

This issue has recently been brought up by one of my church members, and I decided to look into it and give it some thought. I hope that my analysis will contribute to the conversation.

After reading the new guidelines, I would say I say I partly agree as well as partly disagree.

Concerning the position on a “private prayer language” and the new baptism requirements, here is what is now required (copied from IMB trustee Wade Burleson’s Blog The Old IMB Policies Compared to the New IMB Policies . . . ) with my comments in italics:

THE NEW POLICY REGARDING GLOSSOLALIA OR “TONGUES.”

GLOSSOLALIA

1. The New Testament speaks of a gift of glossolalia that generally is considered to be a legitimate language of some people group.2.The New Testament expression of glossolalia as a gift had specific uses and conditions for its exercise in public worship.3.In term of worship practices, the majority of Southern Baptist churches do not practice glossolalia. Therefore, if glossolalia is a public part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.

PRAYER LANGUAGE

1. Prayer language as commonly expressed by those practitioners is not the same as the biblical use of glossolalia.

2. Paul�s clear teaching is that prayer is to be made with understanding.

3. Any spiritual experience must be tested by the Scriptures.

4. In terms of general practice, the majority of Southern Baptists do not accept what is referred to as �private prayer language.� Therefore, if �private prayer language� is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.

I think the restriction based upon private “prayer-language” adherents is unfortunate and unnecessary. The practice does not conflict with the Baptist Faith and Message, therefore they do not conflict with any official beliefs. If Southern Baptists are that concerned with the issue, they should take an official position on it. I think, however, that would be unwise. I would not be surprised if we took a survey of Southern Baptists that we would find that more people speak privately in tongues than we assume. My own experience (limited, so it may not carry much weight) is that non-tongues-speaking Southern Baptists can live with those who speak in tongues as long as they do not bring it into church services.

APPLICATION

1. This policy is not retroactive.

2. Any exceptions to the above policy must be reviewed by the staff and the Process Review Committee.

The “NEW” Policy Regarding Baptism for Missionary Consultants

POINTS TO BE COVERED DURING THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS:

1. The Individual

a. Believer�s baptism by immersion

Baptism by immersion follows salvation

b. Baptism is symbolic, picturing the experience of the believer�s death to sin and resurrection to a new life in Christ.

Baptism does not regenerate.

This is correct and Southern Baptists rightly expect that missionaries hold to these beliefs.

2. The Church

a. Baptism is a church ordinance.

When it states that baptism is a �church ordinance� I would take that to mean, at a minimum, that baptism must be administered by a person ordained and authorized to do so. Since baptism is to administered to believers, we would want the baptism to administered by someone who is entrusted with the spiritual oversight of the church. We would expect that a person who is ordained is qualified to make a judgment that a candidate for baptism has made a credible profession of faith. Not all laypersons could be expected to be competent to do so. Thus, a baptism administered by a layperson would be suspect, since we don�t know whether the layperson was competent to make a sound judgment. I think this is sound. We ordain ministers for a reason.

Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer�s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.

As to the second part of clause (a) the question is, how did the candidate understand their baptism? Point 1 covers what they now believe, point 2 (a) covers what they were taught at the time of their baptism. After all, when a person is baptized, they are making a certain kind of profession. So we want to know, at the time, was the person professing that they were being regenerated by baptism, or that it in some way infused grace (that would be the concern about �sacramental�). Baptism should be a visual, symbolic profession that I am united by faith with Christ in his death and resurrection. As Baptists, our missionaries will be expected to teach accordingly, and administer baptisms accordingly. Can they say that they themselves were baptized with that understanding, that is, is that what they were professing when they were baptized? But this could be a problem even if they were baptized in a SBC church. I think the best test is not the beliefs of the administering church, but what the candidate understood at baptism and especially what they now believe.

The word �church� as used in this context does not appear to refer to a church building. So baptisms outdoors would be valid. I have heard that the some believe this clause means that baptisms would have to be physically performed in a church building.