Denominations, Differences, and Distinctives in International Missions
Posted by Geoff Baggett in Uncategorized
Will heaven have an exclusive “Southern Baptist” subdivision?
We Southern Baptists do sometimes seem to act like it., don’t we?
Southern Baptist distinctives … pointing out those things which make us truly different from other Christians … is very important in some segments of Southern Baptist life. And much of the discussions on Baptist distinctives and “purity” over the past year have focused upon the practice of church planting. There is a mantra that I have often heard often that goes something like this … “I’ll do hands-on work with anyone, but when it comes to church planting … well … we must plant Baptist churches. We cannot cooperate outside the denomination when planting churches.”
Indeed, several times in my own posts and discussions on church planting, I have been asked, “What kind of churches are they planting?” And I know what those questions mean. They are denominational questions. Translation … “Are those “Baptist” churches that are being planted?”
And I feel compelled to answer that question with another question. “Does it really, deeply, truly, eternally matter?” Seriously. In the overall eternal scheme of things, does a denomination on a “sign” truly matter when the Gospel is being shared and souls are being pointed to the Kingdom of God?
This issue is really not a big deal in the United States because denominational lines are so seldom crossed in direct Gospel ministry. But we do seem to make an inordinately large deal about it. Indeed, some make it a priority to seek out that which makes us different from other believers. But I have discovered that on the international mission field it is another issue altogether. On the international field, I am finding that our workers there seem to place a much higher priority on seeking out that which we share in common with other missionaries and indigenous believers … despite the incessant scrutiny and “inspection” by difference-seeking pastors and leaders back home. I must admit that I admire and applaud their Kingdom tenacity.
Recently I have had to sort through all of this and develop a philosophy, or theology, if you will, of missional partnership. You see, my church has just entered into a four-year commitment through our International Mission Board to become the “missionaries” and “Church Planting Strategists” for the Panao Quechua “micro” people group in the Andes Mountains of Peru. (They are a “micro” people group because they are so small. They have their own unique dialect and culture, but there are only about 60,000 of them … too few for the commitment of a full-time missionary.) Our partnership is through an IMB team in Peru called REAP North. (They have a Southern Peru counterpart appropriately called REAP South.) Their mission is to connect partnering churches in the United States with these unreached / underevangelized people groups.
We will be sending three or four teams each year to our mission field. Our goals are to make relationships, share the Gospel, and work with the small number of indigenous believers to plant churches and facilitate a church planting movement.
I know … I know … someone will inevitably ask, “What kind of churches?” Well, there’s the big “elephant” in the Southern Baptist room, isn’t it? There are a scant few evangelical believers in the area around Panao. Baptist missionaries and believers have never ventured to this isolated, high-elevation location. So we were faced with a dilemma.
Here were our options:
- We could go in, on our own, and seek to begin a uniquely, distinctly Baptist effort there. We could basically to a “parachute drop” into a culture about which we are completely and totally ignorant. We could pridefully and expertly show up in our western clothes and SUV’s and tell them how to plant churches, “do” church, and “be” the church … the real way … the Baptist way. And in four years we could proudly pose for photos in front of a couple of buildings with the word, “Bautista,” on the sign. And the work would be all ours and ours alone. But it would be a truly “Baptist” work.
- Or … We could partner with the believers who are already there. We could demonstrate respect for this tiny remnant that has faithfully lived and served among their own people for seventy-five years. We could rely upon their knowledge, wisdom, and expertise regarding their own culture. And maybe … just maybe … in four years we will find that God birthed and unleashed a movement of church planting among the Panao Quechua people that is a uniquely Panao Quechua work. And if God unleashes a house church movement, there will be no “church signs.”
So we opted for “door” #2.
Here are some of our current and developing church planting partners. Others are coming …
- In Panao proper (the provincial “county seat”) our “vision team” made contact with a Church of God pastor. He leads a tiny, struggling congregation. He wants any help he can get. And he desires to train leaders and has a vision for planting churches. I saw the maps of the province posted on the wall of his tiny one-room apartment. He has a vision to reach his people with the true Gospel. We will partner with him and help train leaders and Church Planters.
- In Panao our first actual team (that just returned home on Sunday) met with leaders from a Christian and Missionary Alliance church. (Apparently, there was a CMA missionary who found his way into these rugged mountains back in the early 20th century. The fruit of his work remains.) They have already agreed to partner with us. They want leadership training and have a vision to host a “Youth Congress” for the area. I have a vision to teach church planting to teen-agers … even Quechua teens. We will partner with this church.
- Down the mountain, in a town called Molino, our “Vision Team” and last week’s team had a dialog with another Christian and Missionary Alliance pastor. He wants to train leaders and plant churches. We will partner with this church. We are sending a veterinary and evangelism team there in the last week of February to help bring attention to this little congregation in the community. Through this pastor, we met a member of the translating team from SIL that is actually translating the Bible into Panao Quechua! We will, God willing, be able to serve as distributors of these sacred translations when they become available. This is definitely a God-thing!
- And up the mountain, in a village called Chagalla (pronounced shog-ee-ya), our vision team met with the pastor of a Church of God of Prophecy congregation. He was so excited by our visit last year and so motivated by the vision that his church planted three remote, high-elevation churches even before our first team arrived last week! Most definitely an God-thing! We will partner with this church, train leaders, and help train them to plant churches. And our veterinary / evangelism team in February will spend half of their time in this village.
I know that the first “red flags” that will be waved will focus upon our efforts to facilitate church planting with a Church of God. Well … whatever. Interestingly, we discovered that these churches seem to reject the “charismatic” gifts … they don’t understand them or even realize what we’re talking about. There is one charismatic “cargo cult” (prosperity) church in Chagalla, but is is looked upon by the CoG people with great suspicion. Even they refuse to partner with that group or include them. Pretty interesting. BTW … Our people have met with and and are planning to worship with our Church of God friends there. They are good, simple, Bible-believing Christians. Of course, there will be”tongues” during the worship (Spanish, Quechua, and English), but we will have interpreters with us, so everything was done biblically.
Bottom line … we are operating on the premise that God’s heaven will be nothing short of denominationally “blind.” We do not believe that God truly cares which church reaches the souls of His children with the Good News, for if they are being reached, then the true Gospel is being preached. We are banking on the absence of a “Southern Baptist Subdivision” or “ghetto” in heaven. And we are praying that this strategy of ours is within God’s true will, and that we are simply jumping right, smack-dab into the middle of it.



Geoff – Love what you’re talking about here. In all the discussions of taking “Southern” out of the name of the SBC, there’s a part of me that would much rather see “Baptist” removed, but I say that with a smile.
We need to concentrate on working with people who agree with us on the red rules, and be willing to accommodate variations in the blue rules. We Baptists actually seem to value the blue rules much higher than the red rules.
Geoff,
When we work in Uganda, we preach in basically any church that will have us except the Kenneth Copeland people. There we are planting churches, not cooperatively, but in areas where there are no churches. The churches we have run into that are of other faiths are usually of the Pentecostal variety, and they view Baptists as unsaved or second rate. So, we don’t really deal with other religious groups. However, wherever we preach, whatever church or village we go into, we preach Baptist doctrine. This has not been a handicap in any way, except in opposition from those few other religious groups. Cooperation is not a desire for them.
We do it the old-fashioned way on the islands in Lake Victoria. Again, there are very few believers anywhere there. However, there are over 23 churches (Baptist) and 8 – 10 more on the way. We find the man of peace, preach the gospel, God converts sinners, already born-again and trained local leaders come in and do Bible studies, churches are formed, and then they send out others to do the same. If we find someone of like faith who is there, regardless of label, we work with them.
I wouldn’t cooperate with anyone in a church-planting effort until we sat down and made sure we were both of orthodox Christian faith. I would make sure we agreed on that with any national Baptist, CMA, COG, or any other local group. I would particularly focus on soteriology. That’s probably why I like Tony Sisk’s rule of thumb,“I will cooperate with anyone, insofar as the Gospel is not compromised in any way.”
Geoff: I appreciate what you have written here and agree. It also makes me glad that you are out there planting churches. Healthy churches.
Barnard,
Thanks for the affirmation.
Cyle,
I understand what you are saying. But what we are doing is a bit different. We are not seeking to plant churches, ourselves. We assume that God is doing the planting. We are just seeking to do a little “watering” by supporting the evangelical churches, assisting them in practical ways, and training them in strategies and ways to plant churches. But I think we are on the same page.
Debbie,
As I said to Cyle … it’s not so much that we, ourselves, are trying to plant churches. We simply want to help indigenous pastors and churches reproduce.
Geoff,
The “we” I was talking about was our church, SBC missionaries, and Ugandans working together. Our church doesn’t sent church planters from the US. Our church assists those who are planting by training laity and clergy in Uganda, doing door-to-door and village-to-village evangelism, evangelistic medical work, and sending financial support. The IMB couple, black americans who’ve been there about 7 years, coordinate the efforts on the islands. Ugandans plant the churches and we help them do it.
geoff,
a question if i may…does the church of God and the church of God of prophecy that yall have agreed to “partner” with teach their people that they have to work to keep saved…you know, the arminian view of losing one’s salvation? and, if they do, which i imagine they do, you’re alright with this????
or, when the church of God of prophecy tells the congregation….that your church is helping to start, or to grow…that everyone can be healed if they just have enough faith. so, if you’re not healed, it’s because your faith is weak. that’s alright with yall???
just curious.
david
btw, geoff, one more question i left out… the church of God of prophecy believes in extra biblical revelations. so, when the pastor tells the congregation that God told him to tell everyone to say…sell their burros and give it to him; or, that God told him to tell the congregation to start laughing and rolling around on the floor to get rid of the demon of depression; or something else….whatever else….then, yall are ok with that? that’s the kind of churches that yall want to partner with? to start?
david
David,
Like I said in the post, everything in the “vetting” process revealed that this church rejects much of what we understand and come to expect from charismatic/pentecostal congregations. They thoroughly reject any notion of a “prosperity” gospel. There is no prosperity there, so they just have the Gospel.
And like I said, we are simply encouraging them and training them in discipleship and church planting.
If any of the scenarios that you mention were to take place, our participation with them would end.
But what we see here in the United States in so completely different from relationships and local churches on the international field. Apples and oranges. We cannot make international decisions and partnerships using only our southern, American contexts.
Geoff,
I think that context is king in this situation. In many countries, it’s not apples and oranges. In many third world nations, it is very much like it is here. In many places, the other churches are openly hostile to us and their doctrine is hostile to ours as well. For instance, we are going to an area in Honduras this summer that is completely free of any evangelical influence. The only church there is the Roman Catholic Church and it is vehemently opposed to us.
Geoff,
These are difficult questions that missionaries and sending agencies have faced for a long time and each of our churches will have to decide for ourselves where we will draw the line of cooperation.
For me personally, I would draw the lines a little differently from you. In this whole discussion of primary, secondary, and tertiary, or if you prefer first-tier, second-tier, and third-tier, I think we have at times concluded that second-tier equals unimportant. I’m not concerned with whether or not a church we help plant has Baptist in the name as I am that they are baptistic in their theology because I believe it to be biblical.
We partner with anyone in evangelism that we can without compromising the gospel. Once you get into planting churches, I think we need to have agreement on primary and secondary issues. Adoniram Judson seemed to agree as well.
I would have no problem, in the situation you described, partnering with the CMA church. If the Church of God church held to none of the theological quirks of their denomination, I believe I would question why they would maintain that connection, particularly if there are other options in the area.
Just my thoughts.
Brad,
Good thoughts. As I met and got to know that pastor, I wondered the same thing … why was he a part of that denominational group?
I’m actually going back the last week of February, and I will get lots more personal, one-on-one time with the one pastor in Chagalla.
But if the “quirks” ever surface, we will have to let the relationship go.
And everything that we have encountered among the CMA churches has been rock solid.
Geoff,
I admire your heart for missions and your willingness to use your resources to reach an unreached group. You mentioned a mantra about being willing to work with different kinds of Christians but at the same time being unwilling to plant churches with them. I am one person who uses that mantra, so I feel compelled to respond to your thoughts with some of my own.
I helped plant five Baptist churches during my ten years as an IMB missionary in South Korea, and I am currently planting a Baptist church in Tennessee. Obviously, I firmly believe that it is very important to plant distinctively Baptist churches. I’ll try to logically organize my thoughts.
1. The Great Commission
We are told to make disciples, immerse them, and teach them “to observe all that I commanded you” (NASB). Evangelism is not complete until the new convert has been taught biblical doctrines. This teaching takes time. New converts cannot serve as pastors (1 Timothy 3:6). The pastor must be “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). Pastors should be installed in all new churches (Acts 14:23), and they must meet the biblical qualifications. Hopefully, you will agree with me that the SBC is the most biblical of any national group or denomination. If someone can prove to me that there is another national group that is more biblical than the SBC, then I will leave the SBC and join that group. If we encourage the appointment or election of a pastor while knowing that he does not meet the biblical qualifications, then we sin. The desire to speedily start a church among an unreached group of people does not trump Scripture. A Bible study group should not be designated as a church too early, and a pastor should not be appointed or elected too early. One of the greatest missionaries to serve in China was John Nevius. He served there from 1854 until his death in 1893. Nevius was very influential among the early Protestant missionaries in Korea, and they followed his biblical principles in Korea to great effect. Nevius described his work in China: “While elders should be ordained as soon as practicable, we should not forget that the qualifications of elders are minutely laid down in the Scriptures; and to choose and ordain men to this office without the requisite qualifications is in fact going contrary to, rather than obeying the Scriptures. If suitable elders are not to be found, we should wait for them, however long a waiting may be required. . . . In central Shantung no church has as yet been organized with native elders, though some of our stations have had an existence with from ten to twenty and more church members for a period of seven or eight years. We are hoping very soon to ordain elders in some of these stations. In the meantime the leaders are unofficially performing many of the duties which will fall into the hands of elders when appointed. The missionary or evangelist in charge transacts all important business by consultation with the whole company of native Christians or their leaders. These Christians or leaders have only advisory power, the authority of deciding questions being vested solely in the missionary.” John L. Nevius, The Planting and Development of Missionary Churches (Hancock, NH: Monadnock, 2003), 71-73. The “sound doctrine” mentioned in Titus 1:9 is of course the most biblical doctrine—Baptist doctrine. We should not plant churches that have pastors with unsound doctrine.
2. The Vision Thing
Geoff, I noticed in your post that you used the word “vision” eight times. I don’t know exactly what you mean when you use that word, but I think that many of us overuse and abuse that biblical word these days. The word has a certain mystical feel to it, and it is used in the secular world quite often to refer to a detailed goal that guides an organization. Pizza Hut has a vision statement, and various schools have vision statements. These days, a man is not considered to be a good leader unless he is visionary and can effectively cast a vision to his followers. In the Bible, however, the motivating “vision” always refers to supernatural revelation. In the Old Testament, a vision referred to a detailed prophetic vision of the future, a prophecy which frequently became Scripture. Other visions were condemned. For instance, notice Proverbs 23:16: “Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; they speak a vision of their own imagination, not from the mouth of the LORD.’” The detailed visions from God in the Old Testament always came to pass exactly as given. How many pastors today can say that about their own detailed visions of the future? One of the most abused verses in the Old Testament is Proverbs 29:18: “Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, but happy is he who keeps the law.” Those preachers who misuse this verse frequently leave out the second half of it. John Gill commented on the verse: “Here vision, or prophecy, signifies the public ministering of the word and ordinances, and want of persons to administer them. . . . He that keepeth the law, happy is he: not the moral law, which no man can keep perfectly, but the law of faith. It may be rendered, ‘happy is he that observes doctrine’; the doctrine of the Gospel, where it is preached; that attends to it, values and esteems it, receives it by faith, and with meekness; blessed is he, blessed are his eyes and ears; he sees wondrous things out of this law or doctrine, and he hears and knows the joyful sound, which brings salvation and eternal life unto him!” Scriptural revelation always trumps some new vision that someone claims to have. Our activities should be driven by Scripture, not someone’s new vision. Our preaching should not be about some new vision; rather, it should be about what Scripture says. Jim Shaddix, Dean of the Chapel and Associate Professor of Preaching at New Orleans Baptist Seminary, stated, “The preaching pastor has a responsibility for handling the biblical text with integrity in order to ensure that he says only what God says. . . . Exposure to the truth of God’s Word rightly unfolded is the only way that those of us who listen to sermons will ever be re-created into the image of Christ” (Shaddix, The Passion Driven Sermon, Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003, p. 4). Shaddix also said, “The message with which preachers have been entrusted is the very Word of God—nothing more, nothing less.” Folks, we don’t need any new visions. We have the Bible!
Planting Baptist churches means more than putting “Baptist” on the church sign. Planting Baptist churches means planting the most biblical type of church. As good stewards of God’s Word, we should strive to do the most biblical thing in all areas, including church planting. I’ll close by quoting R. Stanton Norman, an Associate Professor of Theology at New Orleans Baptist Seminary: “Baptists formally share with all Protestant Christians the belief that the Bible is the basis for belief and practice. But Baptists contend that we are much more consistent in this principle, especially with regard to the role the New Testament plays in shaping our theological identity.” Norman, The Baptist Way: Distinctives of a Baptist Church (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 27-28.
Mike Morris (aka BT)
Mike,
Thanks for the visit and the comments.
You said that evangelism is not complete until a new convert is taught biblical doctrines. I suppose I agree. But are you actually saying that this “incomplete evangelism” means that those who do not receive a Baptist doctrinal foundation are deficient in a salvific sense? i.e. They are not saved … unless they are biblical Baptists?
And how many “incompletely evangelized” people fill the pews of our Baptist churches because of their doctrinal ignorance? We cannot just assume such orthodoxy because of the Baptist designation … no more than we can always assume doctrinal deficit when such designation is absent.
No “mysterious” use of the word, “vision.” Actually, I didn’t realize I had used it that many times. But we do feel that God has given us a very biblical vision … reproducing churches in Pachitea Province.
Again I say … we’re facilitating church planting. Nothing more, nothing less.
Again, thanks for the comments … and making me think.
geoff,
every church of God and every church of God of prophecy that i know of believes that salvation can be lost, and in tongue speaking, and that everyone should be healed, and that there can be extra biblical revelation.
i personally would have trouble helping churches like this, or in starting churches like this.
david
David,
There seems to be a fundamental difference among the churches we have encountered thus far. I will be on the lookout, though. My visit in late February should give me greater opportunities to evaluate the relationship
Geoff, you asked,
“But are you actually saying that this ‘incomplete evangelism’ means that those who do not receive a Baptist doctrinal foundation are deficient in a salvific sense? i.e. They are not saved … unless they are biblical Baptists?”
Nope. They are not deficient in a salvific sense (in terms of conversion). They become Christians when they surrender their lives to Christ in repentance and faith. Evangelism in the broader sense (the Great Commission sense), however, is not complete until they are taught. We should not “dip them and drop them,” but Southern Baptists are unfortunately guilty of that very thing quite often. Instead of dipping them and then assuming that we have no responsibility for teaching them, we should look again at the Great Commission. Evangelism in that sense is not complete when the convert is immersed.
The word “evangelize” comes from the Greek word “ευαγγελιζω.” It means to announce good news, especially the good news about Jesus Christ. It was also used, however, in Luke 1:19 when the angel Gabriel told Zacharias about the birth of John. Luke 2:10 uses the word as the angels announce the Savior’s birth to the shepherds. Of course, salvation involves being saved from the penalty of sin (justification), being saved from the power of sin (sanctification), and being saved from the presence of sin (glorification). Thus, the proclamation of good news continues after conversion. Strictly speaking, the normal use of the term occurs in the context of conversion. The Great Commission is often viewed as the definitive passage for evangelism. That commission is not complete with immersion. Teaching must occur.
You mentioned to David that you would check out the doctrine of the people overseas on your next visit. The problem faced in many countries where there is no continuing presence of missionaries is that the ministry disappears and the doctrine changes when the missionaries are absent. That is the danger and the risk of short term trips with no continuing presence on the field. The direct involvement of our folks in these short term trips gets them excited about “hands on” missions overseas, but it is certainly expensive. We must properly balance such trips with support of long-term missionaries in our budgets. I’m excited by the fact that our church plant in Tennessee exceeded its first Lottie Moon Offering goal. We are giving 7% to the Cooperative Program and 3% to our association, and I want to increase that in the near future. We have not constituted as an official church yet, but it’s important to start getting the right missions mindset now.
Geoff,
I appreciate your heart and commitment for doing “whatever it’s going to take” to build up the Kingdom of God and fulfill the Great Commission throughout the world.
Whenever I am given the opportunity to teach on doctrinal matters, whether overseas on the “mission field,” or in the States, I always do so in accordance with my convictions on what Scripture teaches. This also happens to be in complete agreement with the Baptist Faith & Message, with the possible exception of the clause on “close communion” or only admitting properly baptized believers to participate in the Lord’s Supper.
In my experience, there are several different ways to “cooperate in church planting” with others.
In some situations, I may occupy the role of “founding pastor” of a new church, with a direct responsibility for guiding the new group in matters of doctrine and practice, and possibly appointing pastor/elders when the time arrives.
In other situations, I may have more of an auxiliary support role, and limit my influence in doctrinal matters to those specific areas on which I am invited to contribute by those officially “in charge.”
In such cases, I willingly cooperate with others who may not cross every “t” and dot every “i” just like me, even on matters covered in the BFM. Some of these groups are in other denominations, and some of them are affiliated with Baptist Unions.
If asked to give my opinion on matters on which there is a known difference, I do not shrink back from giving it. However, in some other situations, I will choose to respect the local leadership, and not teach contrary to their belief and practice, but remain silent on these matters. Much in the same way as if I were invited in the States as a guest speaker at a church of a different denomination.
The reality is that most groups who might invite my participation and support in a church planting project would be of very similar doctrinal convictions. Some groups may be open to receiving the teaching I may offer, and even changing their own views as a result. Others will be open to my teaching on certain aspects of ministry, while, at the same time, maintaining their differences with me on others.
In any one of the above cases, I see no problem in cooperating, in the sense of offering support, counsel, and practical help, as long as I am not expected to compromise on my own convictions.
Among each opportunity to cooperate that may be offered, though, I must evaluate to what degree each one may contribute strategically towards the fulfillment of the Great Commission.
Somewhere (presumably in heaven, but now I’m not so sure) those who were in attendance at Nicea are shrugging their shoulders and shaking their heads.
Mike,
I will not, necessarily, be “checking out” their doctrine as much as I will be getting to know them a lot better. We have already had a time of meeting and sharing. I will simply be looking for any “red flags” that may pop up.
Your requirement for permanent missionaries to be present has a couple of problems. First, there are not enough missionaries to have a presence among every people group, especially the “micro” groups like the one that my church is working with. Second, it also seems to place a significant amount of “doctrinal policing” in the hands of missionaries, and downplay the role of indigenous believers and leaders.
We will have teams “on the ground” every three to four months. I would think that would be a significant enough presence to help encourage doctrinal stability. And I also want to give ample room for and credit to the Holy Spirit for guiding His people.
David, you stated very well the process that we must all work through in considering our partnerships.
Ultimately, we have to ask, “Do I want to see people saved, or do I want to make sure they have all of their points of doctrine in place?” Personally, I would rather see the lost as born-again believers first, Baptists second.
Stuart,
You’ll have to elaborate on that one for me.
Geoff, you said,
“Your requirement for permanent missionaries to be present has a couple of problems.”
Here’s what I said:
“The problem faced in many countries where there is no continuing presence of missionaries is that the ministry disappears and the doctrine changes when the missionaries are absent.”
Notice that I said “many countries” rather than “all countries.” When I said that, I had in mind the type of situation you currently face where you did not start the Christian work; rather, you have tried to identify Christians already there with whom you can partner. The ideal, of course, is for you to train a new believer in sound doctrine, watch him over time to see if he meets Scriptural qualifications, and eventually see him elected or appointed as pastor while still being mentored by you. Of course, you do not have the necessary time to train or watch such a potential pastor because you are only there a short time. Thus, you have tried to find believers with whom you can partner whose doctrine is acceptable to you. In such situations there is obvious risk. Over a short period of time, we can be easily fooled. It’s tougher for people to fool us over a long period of time. Nevius warned of the danger of “rice Christians.” In a poor country, it’s easy for us to be fooled by “rice partners.” If your partners receive no financial or other benefit from their partnership with you, then there is less temptation for them to pretend to be something they are not. I’m not saying we should quit trying in such situations. I’m just saying you should be very careful.
Ahh … thanks for the clarification.
And thanks for the warning. We intend to be very careful. And we do not intend to be spreading any money around. I have already made that clear to our people. It seems like our first and most automatic response when we see a financial need in a place like this (where we are working) is to immediately send the money and pay for it.
But I feel we must avoid the “rice” phenomenon at all costs.
Thanks for your interaction here.
BTW … Where are you planting in Tennessee? I’m a TN native, and my wife’s folks still live there.
I am planting in Fayette County just south of Oakland. Fayette County is the fastest growing county in Tennessee, and Oakland is the fastest growing community in Tennessee. I am familiar with your neck of the woods in Kentucky (Cadiz). I love “Land Between the Lakes.” I served as pastor for eight and a half years (1987-1995) at First Baptist Church in Wickliffe, KY.
Fayette County?!! Are you serious?
I grew up in Brownsville. Graduated from Union in ’88, and went to work at St. Jude. I served in a couple of part-time ministry positions in your “neck of the woods.” I was Min. of Education at FBC in Gallaway for one year (a VERY interesting experience, I’ll have to tell you about it sometime…) And I was Youth Min. at Cordova Baptist Church from 1989-1995, when I went into the ministry full-time. We lived in Bartlett during our time there. My wife was a Social Worker at the TN Baptist Children’s Home.
Small world …
PS – My family and I ate at Bozo’s every other Friday night when I was a kid … no kidding. About ten tears straight. I still have to roll down my windows when I drive through Mason. Have you had a sammich down there lately?
I was talking to a guy two days ago about Bozo’s in Mason, but I haven’t been there in a long time. I was at FBC in Gallaway last Monday night for an Associational Brotherhood meeting. The current pastor there has been used by God to accomplish great things. I’ve met the current pastor at Cordova Baptist Church and enjoyed the experience. The Sloas family members are friends of ours and were with us at MLC.
Geoff,
Sorry. I knew I should have elaborated.
Just seems that several of the comments would disagree with Nicea’s “one, holy, catholic, apostolic” church.
Stuart, you said,
“Just seems that several of the comments would disagree with Nicea’s ‘one, holy, catholic, apostolic’ church.”
Actually, I do believe that such a church will be gathered in the future. As the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message states, “The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages.” That group, which is composed of the redeemed of all the ages, has not yet assembled. In the meantime, as good stewards of God’s Word, we should plant Baptist churches. For example, I think Presbyterian churches are Christian churches, but I choose not to plant a Presbyterian church. Obviously, the Presbyterian practice of infant “baptism” is not biblical. Baptist churches are the most biblical type of churches, and we should plant the most biblical type of churches. Geoff earlier said, “Personally, I would rather see the lost as born-again believers first, Baptists second.” I agree that being a Christian is more important than being a Baptist. It is also true, however, that a person can be both a Christian and a Baptist. As I said earlier, the Great Commission mandates that we make disciples, immerse them, and teach them. When we teach them, we should teach them sound biblical doctrine—Baptist doctrine. When we plant churches, we should plant sound biblical churches—Baptist churches. The founder of Southwestern Baptist Seminary, B. H. Carroll, wrote a wonderful article about the church entitled “Ecclesia.” It can be found at the following web address: http://www.reformedreader.org/ekk.htm
BT,
I sincerely doubt that the Nicene Council had some eschatalogical future “one, holy, catholic, apostolic” church in view. But then, I don’t claim to be a theologue, so I’ll just drop it.
Geoff,
Press on unapologetically.
Interesting post and dialog taking place in the comments. It is personally difficult for me to get caught up in all the “side issues” that seem to cloud the MAIN issues: the salvation and making disciples of an unreached people group!
Sometimes I think we confuse what our role is, and what Christ’s role is.
We have been commanded to “make disciples”. He has promised, “I will build my church.”
If we do our part; He will do his part. Let’s focus on what we are to do, and leave the “church planting” part to Him. It is, after all, HIS CHURCH, not ours. If we do our job in making disciples, we will not have to worry about what kind of church it will turn out to be.
I think we get side-tracked on all the 2nd, 3rd tier issues, and lose sight of the 1st tier issues of obeying what Christ said.
I respect greatly this undertaking your church has taken on under the guidance of the Lord. As you continue to focus on being obedient, He will take care of all the things we spend so much time worrying about.
Let’s not muddy the waters with too many questions and concerns. Put that same energy into doing what Christ said.
Guy:
You have cut to the heart of this discussion. Nowhere in The Great Commission are we commanded to create “Baptist” disciples.
The current “Baptist Identity” movement that is being fueled by certain individuals who have fought for control of SBC institutions will do great damage unless it is stopped.
The recent history of the IMB shows us where the entire denomination may be heading. We have driven missionaries from the field and denied others called by god their place on the field in the name of “Baptist Identity.”
If the IMB Trustees persist in their present policies, they had better get ready for a proliferation of organizations for appointing and sustaining missionaries, because if a man is called to foreign missions and the IMB says no, folks are going to find a way to go.