A QUESTION OF INTEGRITY AND CREDIBILITY
By Jerry Shields

Recent articles in the Baptist Standard have reported the actions of Jerry Rankin and the IMB trustees who have terminated IMB missionaries because of their refusal to sign an affirmation of the BF&M. Rankin has expressed the opinion that their failure to sign would “undermine the integrity and credibility of the IMB.” But nothing could undermine the integrity and credibility of the IMB more than the actions of its president in recent years. Rankin first asserted that missionaries would not be asked to sign an affirmation of the BF&M because of the “thorough doctrinal review of each candidate in the appointment process.”1 When Rankin did ask them to sign, the justification given was that it was not a requirement but a “request.”2 Now, a headline in a recent Southern Baptist Texan article reads “not a new requirement.”3 But this is just one more in a series of lies.

It is not the actions of missionaries that have resulted in distrust. It is the actions of SBC leaders and an agency president who blatantly lies to Southern Baptists. In the Southern Baptist Texan, Rankin is recorded to have stated that “no one was coerced”4 to sign. Certainly an educated man like Mr. Rankin cannot believe that! He cannot expect us to believe that when in the same article an excerpt from a letter to international missionaries declared his intention to recommend termination if they failed to sign or resign! Coerce means “to bring about by threat or force.” When Rankin threatens to terminate someone for not signing, he is using coercion! Mr. Rankin has not been honest with Southern Baptist people and his actions have eroded the trust desperately needed for cooperation.

Furthermore, Rankin has claimed that signing this affirmation would protect missionaries “from charges of heresy behind your back while you are overseas and cannot defend yourself.”5 While Rankin and other SBC leaders regularly refer to the accountability of missionaries to Southern Baptists, they have neglected their accountability to the missionaries, to stand with them and if necessary, to defend them. Rankin, the trustees and other Southern Baptist leaders should have protected the missionaries from these groundless slurs. If there was a “thorough doctrinal review of each candidate in the appointment process,” 6 and if the IMB “already had in place a policy that if any missionary taught or practiced doctrinal positions in any way contrary to the BF&M that it would be grounds for termination,”7 this was not necessary. If Rankin can be thankful for their “faithfulness to the call,”8 grateful for their “dedication,”9 speak of their “effective ministry” 10 and write to them: “I know that you are solid in your faith, thoroughly Southern Baptist, and doctrinally sound,”11 then he and the trustees should have protected the missionaries. They should have watched their backs. Instead Rankin and the trustees have not only contributed to a needless controversy, they have now turned on our missionaries with malice and, according to Rankin’s own evaluation of their ministry, without reason!12

In the past, the IMB missionaries have had the support and trust of Southern Baptists, evidenced by the success and growth of the cooperative program through the years. Southern Baptists have demonstrated their trust and confidence in the missionaries time and again by their continued financial support. But now, Rankin and other SBC leaders have betrayed and forfeited the trust of historic Southern Baptists in order to seek the support of those who can never be appeased (and who often give very little to missions).

The seeds of suspicion and distrust that were sown in order to gain control of the SBC continue to bear a bitter fruit. If there is not trust in the “thorough doctrinal review” of the appointment process, if there is not trust in the accountability on the field, if there is not trust in the years of “effective ministry,” there will not be trust in a signed affirmation. The evidence of this is the current situation at Southwestern Theological Seminary, where faculty who have signed are forced out and about which Paige Patterson says even now: “things are not fully settled there (at Southwestern). Whoever goes there will have some confrontation to deal with.”13 Apparently even signing is not enough. Today, people who have yet to learn that voluntary cooperation must depend on trust rather than coerced external conformity lead the SBC, and their leadership has undermined the integrity and credibility of the SBC.

Psalms 15, one of the most notable psalms portraying integrity states:

“Lord, who may dwell in your sanctuary? Who may live on your holy hill? . . . (He) who speaks the truth from his heart and has no slander on his tongue, who does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his fellowman, who despises a vile man but honors those who fear the LORD, who keeps his oath even when it hurts.”

Rankin has praised the ministry of our missionaries; yet he has stood passively by as others have cast slurs upon them, and now he himself has moved to do them wrong. Where is the honor due them? Where is the integrity and credibility? The integrity and credibility of the IMB has been undermined, not by the actions of missionaries, but by the actions of leaders within the SBC who have used ungodly methods to accomplish an unworthy and obviously unnecessary agenda. When denominational politics become more important than the lives and ministries of faithful missionaries and the people to whom they minister, when requiring people to pledge party loyalty becomes more important than doing what is right, there is a question of integrity and credibility.

Endnotes
1. From the text of Rankin’s first letter to IMB missionaries dated Jan 31, 2003, as recorded on the IMB web site. Rankin first stated the board’s position that missionaries on the field would not be asked to sign back in 2001 as recorded in the Baptist Standard, August 12, 2002.
2. According to the Baptist Standard, April 12, 2002, Rankin wrote to missionaries that he “chose to take the initiative administratively and request your collective response.” In the first letter to missionaries dated Jan. 31, 2003, he wrote that he was “asking you to affirm the current BF&M.” In the second letter to missionaries dated Feb. 19, 2003, he wrote “I am praying that God will lead you in response to my request.”
3. Southern Baptist Texan, May 1, 2003.
4. Ibid.
5. From the text of Rankin’s first letter to IMB missionaries, dated Jan. 31, 2003, as recorded on the IMB web site.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Except from a letter from Rankin to a missionary as recorded in the Southern Baptist Texan, May 1,2003.
11. From the text of Rankin’s second letter to IMB missionaries, dated Feb. 19, 2003, as recorded on the IMB web site.
12. According to the Baptist Standard, May 12, 2003, “no criticism of the ministries of the missionaries and no suggestions of immoral or unethical behavior were offered by the IMB.”
13. Paige Patterson quoted in the Baptist Standard, May 12, 2003.

June 2003