Look in your heart & practice missionary empathy
By Marv Knox,
editor of The Baptist Standard

Let’s bring the Southern Baptist missions crisis into closer focus.

You are a Sunday School teacher, choir member, trustee or committee member, or you serve your church as a layperson in some other capacity. Imagine how you would feel if your pastor came to you and said: “A group of us have drafted this set of doctrinal statements. And some members question your spiritual beliefs. So, you must sign a form saying you believe all of these statements or tell us why not. If you refuse to sign, someone will counsel you regarding the benefits of signing. If you still refuse, you may not be welcome to serve in our church.”

You are a pastor or other church staff member. Before your church called you to your present position, you shared your salvation experience, call to ministry and personal beliefs on an exhaustive list of theological positions. Since then, you have served the church faithfully and sacrificially, embodying your beliefs in word and deed. But one day the deacon chairman sends you a letter that says: “Some of our church’s members question whether you believe just like us. I won’t tell you who’s doing the questioning, but there are questions. But don’t worry. We’ve written out what we believe. If you sign this form saying you believe exactly what we believe in every way, they’ll leave you alone. Now, you don’t have to sign; you can say you disagree and tell us why. Then some of the deacons will come and counsel you about the benefits of signing. And if you still refuse, well, I just can’t say that you’ll still have a place to serve at our church.” How would you feel?

This essentially is the predicament in which Jerry Rankin, president of the Southern Baptist International Mission Board, has placed IMB missionaries. He sent them a letter asking them to sign a form saying they affirm the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message statement. About 1,500 IMB missionaries appointed in the past two years already have signed the statement. That leaves about 3,500 veteran missionaries—all of whom were examined carefully before appointment —who now are asked to sign the new statement.

Although the BF&M was approved by messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, many Baptists—including the Baptist General Convention of Texas—have declined to affirm it. Baptists who have refused to affirm the statement have at least three problems with it: First, it defines itself as “an instrument of doctrinal accountability.” That sounds suspiciously like a creed. Baptists have resisted creeds for centuries. Second, it no longer says Jesus is the “criterion” by which all Scripture is to be judged. Many Baptists, particularly in Texas, believe this puts the Bible on par with Jesus, God in human flesh. Third, it denies a congregation the right to choose whomever it believes God has called to be its pastor, revoking the autonomy of the local church and, by implication, its corollary, the priesthood of the believer.

Would you sign a form affirming a manmade theological document in order to keep your church position? Put yourself in the missionaries’ large shoes. Would your conscience allow you to affirm “an instrument of doctrinal accountability”?

Some people already have begun to ask, “What’s the big deal?” They have accused any who would protest Rankin’s requirement of making a theological mountain out of a denominational molehill.

But this action, which Rankin said IMB trustees “commend and support,” is wrong.

To begin with, it defies sacred Baptist heritage. Our Baptist forebears fanned the flickering flame of soul freedom to dispel the darkness of two oppressive shadows— late medieval Roman Catholicism and overzealous radical Reformers. Both groups, vastly larger than that tiny band of Baptists, sought to quell opposition by demanding fidelity to a creed. Baptists and their kin resisted. “No creed but the Bible,” they responded. And some of them died at the stake and in the rivers of Europe for refusing to bow. We should not negate missionaries’ calling because they remain faithful to their heritage and refuse to affirm “an instrument of doctrinal accountability,” a creed.

Rankin’s requirement also is unprecedented for Baptist missionaries. Some will contend that, for the past 32 years, missionaries have been required to affirm the 1963 version of the Baptist Faith & Message. Not so. They were asked, “Are your doctrinal beliefs in substantial agreement with” the 1963 BF&M? This is subtle, but important: Rather than lay a rigid rule alongside them, they were trusted to examine their hearts and consciences themselves and declare their own worthiness. Not anymore.

Similarly, Rankin’s requirement violates the soul liberty of longtime faithful missionaries. Rather than being asked to state “in your own words” what they believe— as was the case when they were appointed— they now are forced to affirm an exhaustive creed written by others. They became missionaries when they were trusted to write their personal confession of faith, which was studied seriously and prayerfully, and they were affirmed as loyal soldiers of the cross. Sadly, some now will cease being missionaries, felled by shrapnel of distrust and dogmatism.

Some are saying, “But shouldn’t missionaries be doctrinally accountable?” Of course. But they, as all Christian believers, are worthy of dignity and respect. Missionaries on the field already have proclaimed what they believe. They have validated those beliefs through service on the field and through preaching and speaking in Baptist churches across the land. Now, they are in danger of suspicion and perhaps loss of ministry if they exercise their Baptist right to decline a creed.

If you were one of them, how would you feel?

April 2002