Just plain dumb

By Jim Smith

Politicians do some really dumb things.

But when Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., condemned her colleague, she said, “This offense is just the latest example of the culture of corruption that pervades the Republican-controlled Congress.” Pelosi went on say, by implication, that electing Democrats would restore high ethical standards to the congress. Now that’s dumb. Is my memory failing me or have Democrats also had their ethical problems?

Even religious people can do dumb things. Like last June when the national CBF thought to revise its bylaws and the language they proposed left Jesus out. That was dumb; but when they chose not to reword the proposal to put him back in when they voted on changes, that was double dumb. To their credit, they are recommending corrective wording that once again refers to Jesus by name.

But dumb is not limited to moderates. At their Nov. 15 meeting, the IMB trustees displayed a surprising level of dumbness by voting to disqualify any Southern Baptist who used a prayer language in private personal devotionals from serving as an IMB missionary.

Ironically, IMB President Jerry Rankin is one of those Southern Baptists who at one time used such a “prayer language” devotionally. So am I. I can’t tell Dr. Rankin’s story, but speaking for myself, there was a period of time in my life when my soul was so burdened that I resorted to “groanings which cannot be uttered” to express my inner feelings. In my passion for knowing Christ, when I had difficulty finding the words to express what was in my heart, I resorted to “prayer language.” Gradually, I ceased using it, until now I can’t remember the last time I prayed in that form. Not surprisingly, Southern Baptists would have different opinions about whether this is good or bad.

I would like to believe about the IMB that if God called me, the Spirit gifted me, a seminary equipped me and the church prepared and affirmed me, that the foreign missions agency of the convention would send me unless there were psychological or moral problems! My disappointment in the trustee’s action spans several levels.

First, the rationale behind the policy is “the majority of Southern Baptists do not accept what is referred to as 'private prayer language.’ ” Is it right to establish IMB policy on the basis of popular opinion? Is it right to disqualify the minority from serving as Southern Baptist missionaries simply because the majority does not agree with them? Would we then refuse to send tithers? Are we now establishing majority rule theology?

Second, those who wrote and proposed the policy appeal to Paul’s “clear statement that prayer should be made with understanding.” Paul’s statement is clear enough, but it supports rather than condemns a prayer language. The reference must be to 1 Corinthians 14:19: “Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue” (KJV).

There are two problems. First, Paul is speaking of a church meeting rather than the private devotionals of a Christian’s personal prayer life. Second, a reading of the entire chapter reveals a host of clear contradictions to the conclusion reached by the policy’s proponents. In the verses prior to “Paul’s clear teaching,” he says “[15] I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also …. [18] I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all” (KJV).

In Paul’s mind, it is not an either/or proposition. Rather, it is both prayer language and understanding. Does anybody but me think it is more than a little ironic that the Apostle Paul could not be appointed a missionary by our International Mission Board? Listen to what else Paul says in this chapter. “[5] I would that ye all spake with tongues” (KJV). He concludes his discussion by saying, “[39] Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.” Perhaps the trustees interpret these passages differently than the minority of Southern Baptists. That is their right as Baptists. But I am alarmed by trustees who profess a particular set of beliefs about the Bible but who are unwilling to grant to anyone but themselves the right to interpret what those Scriptures mean. In this case, a Southern Baptist who believes the Bible and accepts it just as it is written is disqualified from mission service. This doesn’t seem right to me.

I am not advocating speaking in tongues because I have seen how destructive this issue has been in some churches. I have also seen the spiritual arrogance that sometimes develops among those who imagine themselves spiritually superior to others because of their “gift.” But to say that a prayer lantuage is theologically wrong because most Southern Baptists don’t do it is arrogant. To disqualify one from mission service because he or she interprets these verses literally is … well, dumb.

Third, if this practice is so serious that it would keep a person from being appointed as a missionary, why does it apply only to those who seek appointment rather than to all missionaries? Why does it not apply to IMB staff?

My fourth and greatest disappointment is that it makes policy a greater priority than people. From June to November of this year the number of unengaged people groups increased from 511 to 630. In the same meeting in which the trustees took their action to disqualify prayer language Baptists, Rankin spoke from his heart: “We realize that even with the cooperative efforts of the major mission agencies in the evangelical world, we will not do it alone. Only as we facilitate, mobilize and enable all of God’s people called Southern Baptists to be engaged in our Great Commission task can we hope to reach a lost world. We have to train, equip and facilitate more Southern Baptist churches to join the task and accelerate reaching the unreached people groups.”

To those who spend eternity in hell because the IMB would not allow a prayer-language Baptist to go to them, the reasoning of the trustees will seem ridiculous indeed. Some may call it small-minded. Others may add Pharisaical. I just call it dumb.