Rankin claimed in his January 2002 letter that the unresolved issue was “creating suspicion that there are IMB personnel whose beliefs and practices are inconsistent with those represented by Southern Baptists.”
He added, however, that IMB leaders believed such suspicion was “unfounded.” But rather than stand up for the missionaries’ proven record of doctrinal integrity, he simply called on them to endorse the revised statement in order to avoid “needless controversy.”
The problem is that several missionaries view endorsement of a man-made document as a violation of Southern Baptists’ historic aversion to creedalism. More than 30 missionaries already have resigned over the issue and the total number who quit or get fired could top 70 by next week.
No accusations of heresy
Remember that these are the same faithful missionaries who Southern Baptists have prayed for and supported—many of them for more than 20 years. No charges of doctrinal heresy have been filed against any of the missionaries expected to be dismissed. Their only offense is standing firm on their conviction that IMB leaders are seeking to push creedal conformity.
The issue was further complicated by Rankin’s latest letter to missionaries who have not affirmed the 2000 statement. Earlier this year, IMB officials insisted they were not using the word “termination” in a series of phone calls to missionaries about the consequences of failing to fulfill Rankin’s directive. Two months later, Rankin’s letter to missionaries warned that failure to sign or resign would result in him “recommending that the board take action to terminate your service in their May meeting.”
Explaining his recent actions, Rankin insisted that “no one was coerced” to comply with his request.
What? Once again, it appears that Rankin is creating his own definition of words. A common definition of coercion is to compel or force a choice. From Rankin’s perspective, however, requiring missionaries to affirm a faith statement they view as creedal, resign their career ministry positions or be fired apparently is not forcing a choice. The affected missionaries clearly believe otherwise.
Rankin also insists that since missionaries are allowed to note minor differences of interpretation from the current faith statement, “it is inaccurate for this to be perceived as a creed being imposed on individuals.” He fails to address the missionaries’ concern that the issue of creedalism involves affirming any man-made document to maintain employment rather than simply affirming commitment to the Bible.
The most tragic element in Rankin’s letter is his statement to missionaries that “these consequences have nothing to do with your calling and the effectiveness of your ministry.”
If the head of the International Mission Board believes these missionaries have a legitimate call from God to serve overseas and they are effectively fulfilling that ministry, why would Rankin not do everything possible to defend their record of doctrinal integrity as sufficient for ongoing ministry?
Failing to do so means several God-called missionaries will no longer be supported in their effort to share the gospel with people in need around the world. That sounds contrary to the IMB’s stated purpose and goals of global evangelism.
Yet Rankin explains that the reason for the missionaries’ termination is their “unwillingness to be accountable to Southern Baptists who send and support you.”
Missionaries remain accountable
In what ways are missionaries failing to be accountable to Southern Baptists? Neither Southern Baptist Convention messengers nor IMB trustees have taken action requiring missionaries to affirm the latest Baptist Faith and Message.
Here in Kentucky, state convention messengers voted in 2001 to “adopt the Bible as the basis of all our faith and practice.” Messengers also acknowledged the value of several historic faith statements, including all three versions of the Baptist Faith and Message (1925, 1963 and 2000).
Based on those actions, veteran missionaries who decline to affirm the 2000 statement are not violating accountability to either Southern Baptists or Kentucky Baptists.
Rather than charging faithful missionaries with questionable generalities, Rankin should lead the way in calling on trustees to affirm the ongoing ministry of long-term mission workers unless there are specific violations of doctrinal or moral issues.
Some IMB trustees have voiced concern that I’ve been too tough on Rankin in recent editorials. I don’t think so. However, in the interest of balance, I invited him to participate in a pro-con dialogue on the issue to be published in the Western Recorder. He declined, noting that IMB officials “feel that we have adequately and clearly expressed the need for missionaries to be doctrinally accountable to the Southern Baptist Convention and the rationale for asking them to affirm the current BF&M, and there is no need to try to give further justification to that.”
The fact remains that Rankin and IMB trustees still have the opportunity to avoid unleashing one of the SBC’s darkest days. If they are willing to waive Rankin’s ultimatum and find a way to keep dedicated missionaries on the field, that will be a mark of true denominational leadership.
|