The Danger of Baptist Isolationism on the Mission Field
Posted by David Rogers in Baptist Life
For the past couple of years, one of the main issues that has driven the “Baptist blogosphere” has been the famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) IMB guidelines on baptism and “private prayer language.” As most who read this will already be aware, I have taken a public stand opposing both guidelines. I still believe it is important that the guidelines be reversed, and encourage anyone who has not yet done so to sign the Time to Change document (read an important update here).
However, for me, the guidelines, in and of themselves, are not the main issue. They are, rather, symptomatic and symbolic of an underlying issue that I think is of much greater import for us as Southern Baptists as we set our sights for the future on a Great Commission Resurgence. That issue is the danger of Baptist isolationism on the mission field.
Around 10 years ago when “New Directions” at the IMB (now called “Strategic Directions for the 21st Century”) was launched, a number of missiological principles were systematically communicated to leadership and field workers by means of various conferences, training events, and in-house documents. One of the main ideas was that, if we are going to complete the task of reaching all the people groups of the world with the gospel, it is going to take something bigger than our personal ministry efforts alone. It is also going to take something bigger than the combined resources of the IMB and the SBC. It is a God-sized task. And the accomplishment of a God-sized task, in addition to the sovereign, wonder-working power of God, implies the combined efforts of all of the Body of Christ, whether back home in the United States, on the “mission field” itself, or around the world. The Lausanne Movement has captured well the idea behind this sentiment with the watch-phrase “The Whole Church taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World.”
The Bible itself bears witness to this idea in passages such as 1 Corinthians 12, where it talks about the hand needing the foot, the eye needing the ear, etc. in the Body of Christ. I don’t know what part of the Body corresponds to us as Southern Baptists. But, when you look at the data, I believe it is clear we are only a part, and not the whole.
Statistically, Southern Baptists, whether 6 million or 16 million, make up less than 1% of professed Christians in the world. If you only count those who among the sub-group “Evangelicals-Pentecostals-Charismatics” have been termed “Great Commission Christians” (e.g. those, who, according to our understanding of the gospel, we could likely assume to be truly “born again”), we still make up less than 3% of the total. If you add in members of other Baptist unions and conventions around the world (estimated at 50 million), the total is still less than 8% of all “Great Commission Christians.” Throw in the approximately 30 million Independent Baptists, and the number comes up to a little more than 12%. The point is, no matter how you slice it, we, as Baptists, are still just a small piece of the pie.
In spite of this, there is a movement afoot that would have us narrow our cooperation with other Great Commission Christians, in favor of working strictly with other Baptist groups who dot their “i’s” and cross their “t’s” just like we do. I think it is a good thing that we, as Southern Baptists, have biblical parameters to guide the way we frame our own cooperation at a denominational level. Theological liberalism, in particular, is a spiritual cancer that eats at the heart of the world missions enterprise. However, at the same time, I believe we must remain cognizant of the fact that we are still just a small minority in the Body of Christ, and respond accordingly in the way we relate to other believers around the world
Although I publicly endorsed Bill Wagner for president of the SBC, I am convinced that Johnny Hunt will do an excellent job. I am pleased to see that in the international missions ministry of First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Georgia, where Hunt is pastor, they strategically and intentionally cooperate with several different “Great Commission” groups (see here). It appears they have a balanced emphasis of supporting both specifically Southern Baptist missions as well as cooperating with the broader Body of Christ. I am also hopeful that Hunt will pay attention to the voices of people like Wagner and Avery Willis, who have both spoken out in favor of doing more to cooperate in world missions with other like-minded believers (see here and here).
I am also hopeful that SBC Global Evangelical Relations Strategist Bobby Welch will continue to give an appropriate emphasis in Southern Baptist life to expanding our Great Commission partnerships around the world. I am encouraged by what Welch said in his recent report to the convention. Here are few choice snippets…
We have said it over and over as a convention, that in no way, no form, no fashion is the Southern Baptist Convention entertaining any idea of being isolationist. We intend to stay on the cutting edge, as long as God gives us breath, to reach more people in this world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ…It will take more of the entire body of Christ who are connected and cooperating to share the Gospel around the world. The Great Commission for the lost requires what I call the ‘Great Connection’ of the saved. The Great Commission will not happen without this Great Connection. When the Great Commission is accomplished — and I believe before any of us in this room die — it will be done through what will clearly be seen by history and eternity as the Great Connection of likeminded men and women who carry the Gospel to all the world.
Since being named to his post by the SBC’s Executive Committee in 2007, Welch said he has had over 1,000 meetings with people all around the world “on this subject of our broadening our commitment to global evangelical relationships.”
Personally, I think this is a great start. I commend the work of Welch, and the enthusiasm and commitment with which he appears to have embraced his new position. But the truth is, the task of relating to and cooperating with Great Commission partners will always be primarily the responsibility of IMB field workers spread out across the globe, who have the opportunity to interact on a daily basis, and form deeper and more significant relationships, with those who live and work in their particular area of the world.
I think it is crucial that IMB workers continue to sense the “green light” from Southern Baptists at large to move forward in this task. It is for this reason that, when I hear reports of Landmarkism making a comeback within the SBC, I get concerned. It is not that I hold a personal grudge, or anything like that, against those who, for whatever reason, hold to this particular interpretation of biblical ecclesiology. It is because I am concerned about how Southern Baptist efforts to join with the Body of Christ around the world may be affected. Though some in the so-called “Baptist Identity” or “Baptist Renaissance” movement have insisted they are not truly Landmarkist in their views, I am still concerned that the particular emphases they are defending may indeed tend to move us towards an increasingly isolationist approach on the mission field.
I realize I am just one voice among many. But this is a major part of what has motivated me in the past several years to get actively involved in denominational issues, and to express my ideas on the blogosphere. I believe God still wants to use us as Southern Baptists to make a major contribution to the evangelization of the world. And, I am hopeful we do not get sidetracked on our way to a true Great Commission Resurgence.



David,
I can’t believe no one wants to come out and play.
The silence in the SBC blogosphere is deafening.
David,
I agree with you completely. I think that there is another missing ingredient as well: We need to begin highlighting the work of our global partners when we tell our stories. We tell our stories as though everything that we are connected to is what we are doing. We do this to keep the CP and Lottie Moon gifts up, I believe. For example, of the 609,000 baptisms reported by the IMB last year, the vast majority of those were performed by “partners”. That is great, and IMB missionaries report them that way, but that is not how it is reported back to us in the States. We just see 609,000 baptisms reported by the IMB. Plus, how many of those baptisms came from groups that do not abide by the policies on baptism and PPL? How many came from CPM’s in Asia? The vast, vast majority. So, why don’t we tell our stories more accurately? Could part of our isolationism derive from the fact that we tell the stories about what God is doing around the world as though we are the ones doing it all?
Just some thoughts. Excellent essay.
David,
Ths is an excellent post and you are right on. I have a new post on the one True Church
IMB missionaries definitely have and will always have the green light from this Southern Baptist and I agree with Alan Cross and Wayne.
I won’t do a post here, but I will anxiously await your thoughts on what Alan has stated.
I would like to invite you all to read a post on the Great Commission Resurgence that might shed some light on this subject.
go to:
http://fromthehillsandhollers.blogspot.com
I look forward to seeing you there.
Geoff and all at SBC Impact, I’m a little bit sorry…just a little…for promoting my blog here. But, my answer was too long to post here. I felt that it needed a life of it’s own….so, please excuse me this once.
Thanks,
David
Alan & Debbie,
The matter of reporting statistics on the mission field can be somewhat tricky. Our objective, as missionaries, is not to personally baptize as many people as we ourselves are able, or plant as many churches, all on our own, as we are able. We are, rather, aiming, in everything we do, to facilitate the advance of God’s kingdom. Actually, as I see it, the more successful we are at doing this, the greater will be percentage of the results which come through the efforts of our national partners.
It is admittedly hard to determine how much our presence and ministry efforts had to do with the ultimate statistical results of our ministry partners. I even think God may have intentionally designed it that way, so no one gets the credit for something He does through us.
Thus, Paul planted, Apollos watered, but it was God who caused the increase. Also, Paul can say he only baptized a scattered few in Corinth, and he is thankful for that.
Nonetheless, I understand the need for transparency and honesty in our reporting. In what I have heard, it is generally communicated that the IMB statistics include the efforts of our national partners. But perhaps that isn’t always communicated as clearly and as forcefully as it ought to be.
Everybody,
I have taken up David (Volfan) Worley’s invitation to read and respond to his post, which deals with some of the same issues as my post here, over at his blog. Feel free to join the discussion over there.
David,
In the States, we are told that the IMB saw 609,000 baptisms happen last year. I had no idea that that number was largely made up of what national partners did until about a month ago. The way that we tell the story is very confusing. Why are we not telling SBCer’s in America what indigenous Christians did? Why do we always say, “Look at your Lottie Moon and CP dollars at work?” We ARE taking credit, in my opinion. That is the problem. If a SBC missionary meets with a national a few times, does that mean that he should take credit for the baptisms? For the CPM? I have worked with churches extensively in our city. I do not put their baptisms in my ACP. My point is just that it would actually ADVANCE our view of what God is doing around the world if we would say that there were 609,000 baptisms among our international partners last year. That takes the focus off of us and puts it where it belongs – on God and His people. I think that we do not do that because we do not really know how to (or we don’t want to) communicate what the indigenous church is doing. But, that’s just my opinion. I very well could be wrong. I’m becoming a pretty big advocate for national churches and our partnerships with them and I think that we would be a lot healthier in America if we could comprehend what God was doing around the world.
Alan,
Not saying that it didn’t happen. But, if you could provide me with a link, or a quote from someone, that says that the IMB saw 609,000 baptisms, and doesn’t make mention anything about our national partners, that would help me in responding to what you say here. As I said before, my impression has been that the part about our national partners was being communicated. Perhaps not. I am not sure. Or, perhaps not clearly and/or strongly enough so that those who read and/or hear get the message.
David,
I don’t doubt the honesty of the missionaries in communicating data to the IMB, nor do I doubt the honesty of the IMB in communicating the data to the SBC. However, I do think that something is lost in that communication. I also did not understand that the “609,000 baptisms” counted baptisms by national partners. Here is one quote where I do not think the communication is clear:
“Think your gift to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering won’t make a difference? Every penny given to Lottie Moon is used to help support more than 5,300 Southern Baptist missionaries serving worldwide. Last year, those missionaries reported more than 25,000 new churches and 609,000 baptisms. The lost are believing because you give.”
Source: http://imb.org/main/give/page.asp?StoryID=5412
Before everyone jumps on me, again, I am not doubting the desire by the IMB to present honest numbers. I’m only saying that I did not understand those numbers as they are now being presented.
-Alan
By the way… the previous post was addressed to David Rogers… sorry if there was any confusion.
Also, I do not want my post above to be miscontrued. I am not upset that the numbers include baptisms by “national partners”. I’m happy to hear that the IMB is working closely with “national partners”.
-Alan
That is weird.
Is comment #10 from Alan Cross or Alan Knox? In context, it look like it is from Alan Cross. Does it say it is from Alan Knox on other people’s screens?
Mystery Solved…
The present comment #11, which originally showed up as comment #10, was from Alan Knox. In the meantime, Alan Knox’s present comment #10 was in “comment moderation,” presumably due to the hyper-link.
Alan Knox,
Yes, I can see how someone may have reached a mistaken conclusion on the basis of the document to which you link. It does say earlier, in the same document, however:
“Closing this gap will require a missionary force 8,000 strong – some 3,000 new missionaries – networking and partnering with stateside churches, national Baptists and like-minded Great Commission Christian organizations.”
Also, it does not specifically say that missionaries baptized 609,000 people, but rather, that they reported 609,000 baptisms.
In any case, I agree that indeed it would be helpful if this were worded more clearly to reflect the reality on the field.
Alan,
I tend to agree with David that the reports usually include some kind of acknowledgment of the work of our GCC partners in the process. At least the ones I’ve heard.
David,
For how many generations to “we” (SBC) count the baptisms. Are baptisms in 3rd or 4th generation churches counted in the 600,000+ figure?
Alan K,
Okay, so the link you provided contradicts what I just wrote to Alan C. That’ll teach me to chime in after a month or so of silence…
Too many Alans and Davids up in here.
Guys, pray for me and my wife. We are off to do some of that work with our national partners. I will be doing CP training in the Pachitea Province of Peru over the next week. I’ll be training CMA, Church of God of Prophecy, and Assemblies of God church planters. Great Commission partners, one and all.
(But I doubt we’ll get to count any of THOSE statistics in the IMB report.
Stuart,
I am not exactly sure how this is calculated. I am pretty sure that Alan Cross is correct, though, when he states that some of those counted were baptized by churches or groups that do not abide by the policies on baptism and PPL.
Geoff,
I will be praying, and looking forward to hear how it goes.
David (umm… Rogers, I think… Yeah),
Yes, I agree that when the information is read closely one can infer that the baptisms include those performed by many different groups. Like I said, I don’t think anyone (the missionaries or the IMB) intended to mislead anyone, but I didn’t understand.
Also, again, I am not upset that IMB personnel are working with different believers in other countries. In fact, knowing this makes me want to give even more to the IMB. Perhaps NAMB is doing the same thing.
-Alan (Knox)
David,
I suspect Alan C is correct also. It doesn’t bother me terribly if those figures include work with folks who don’t meet the criteria in the guidelines. I know Geoff was being tongue-in-cheek above, but I suspect any results from that work will eventually be counted, and I believe they should be counted.
I asked about 3rd and 4th generation churches and beyond because it seems to me that the counting and reporting process could get absurd at some point. By a 3rd or 4th generation church, the church would have likely had very little contact with an IMB SC or church planter. But then, if we don’t count them, what happens when a CPM really takes off? I’d be surprised if SBs wouldn’t want to take “credit” for that at some level.
I just wonder if there isn’t some perceived need to justify Strategic Directions by showing the large numbers, especially since we’re still on the “left side” in so many contexts worldwide.
Stuart,
I think you have a good point about CPMs and wanting to take “credit.” As I mention above, when one person plants, and another waters, it is sometimes hard to remember it is always God who gives whatever true growth that may come as a result.
On the other hand, statistics can be helpful as a measure of effectiveness in our stewardship. They can also be a helpful tool for encouraging us, and causing us to rejoice at the marvelous things God is doing.
I wrote a post earlier that had about 5 links in it that showed a reference to national partners as well as leaving the reference out. That post never showed up and might still be in moderation. Or, it might have just gotten eaten.
I don’t know if anyone is lying. I can just tell you what I am hearing from the field. But, I do think that we are counting a lot of stuff that we don’t have much to do with. At least that is what I’m being told by missionaries on the field. Some say, who cares? I think that it matters because it creates the false impression that we are doing this alone and we don’t need others, even though our baptisms would drop dramatically if we did not count the work of others. It also shows the complete hypocrisy of the controversial guidelines when we are clearly counting numbers from groups that would not qualify as IMB missionaries.
For the record, I am also glad that we are working with others. But, as Alan Knox showed with his comment #10, we do become disingenuous when we do not give credit to the indigenous church and claim their work as our own so that we can raise money. I think that God would judge such a thing. I think that we need to stop it. Point to the 609,000, but tell the story of the vibrant, emerging, indigenous church. Tell how we are not needed everywhere. Tell the story of the indigenous church taking the gospel on without us. Those stories are part of what God is doing as well.
I agree with Alan Cross on this. If it weren’t for the controversy of the IMB guidelines, I probably would think nothing of it, but it does give the impression that we are not cooperating with other organizations, when in fact we are which is why the higher numbers.
Geoff,
I hope when you’re training those CMA, and Church of God of Prophecy, and Assembly of God leaders in Peru, that you can train them to believe in good, sound doctrine. I truly hope that you can impact their lives in such a way that they see the truth of God’s Word and start holding to sound teaching.
David
ps. When one of the Church of God of Prophecy guys starts giving you a word of knowledge about your life…take it with a grain of salt. I went to charismatic/pentecostal type church one time…to their revival meeting; and I had a Preacher tell me how I was gonna do this, and God was gonna use me to do that, and God was gonna use me to unite all the churches in that town, etc. I guess we would have been stoned in OT times, because none of what he said ever came true.
pss. My experience has been…almost always has been…that the Charismatic/Pentecostal type crowds talk a lot about tearing down denominational walls and all the denominations joining together because they want everyone to be “filled with the Holy Ghost and give evidence with the speaking in tongues.”
The sentence above that seems odd should read…”I guess we would have stoned him in OT times, because none of what he said ever came true.”
It just didnt come out right the first time I typed it. Sorry for the technical difficulties.
David
David Worley,
I have had experiences similar to yours with “Charismatic-Pentecostal type crowds.” I have also had experiences that are not like that, in which they are not seeking to convert you to their doctrine, but truly seeking unity in the Body of Christ. I have also had experiences with more moderate Charismatic-Pentecostal types in which they themselves were not so convinced about the need for everyone to speak in tongues. I guess what I am saying is we shouldn’t write people off, until we get to know them first, and find out directly from them what they really believe, and what they are really all about.
And, even if they are more extreme in their views, or are trying to proselytize for their point of view, we should still try to get to know them, and treat them as our brother (even though mistaken) in Christ.
But, I agree with you, we should be cautious about “new winds of doctrine,” and test prophecy to see if it really is of the Lord. However, Wayne Grudem makes a pretty good argument in his book, “The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today,” that those with the gift of prophecy in the NT and today are not subject to the same standards and rules (infallibility and stoning) as OT prophets.
David,
The Bible has been written. Why would we need a word of prophecy?
Also, in another town, we had a Pentecostal/Charismatic type Church that wanted all the Churches to join together in a tent revival where everyone would just preach “Jesus.” Well, of course, they wanted us to pour some money into the venture, and of course, the tent would be put up near their church. And, of course, their people would take care of the music. Well, I declined. I told some of them that I would be glad to preach at this meeting if they would call it what it was…their churches tent revival, and not get our Church mixed up in this wildness. They got mad at me. I had a Deacon and his family get mad at me, because the Deacon’s wife’s brother was the big cheese at this church, and I guess it caused some family troubles for our Church to not participate.
Anyhooo, I attended the meetings several nights just to let them know that there was no hard feelings. Well, let’s just say that it was a full blown, Pentecostal/Charismatic type meeting. They were dancing to the music and having words of knowledge and leading people to be saved again, etc. Why, I even saw the Methodist layspeaker/Deacon start dancing. He really seemed to enjoy all of it, and it influenced him to turn that way.
Thus, I guess they accomplished their purpose for having the big tent, denominational walls tearing down, revival meeting. They influenced some from other denominations to join with them in their Pentecostal/Charismatic type ways.
And, I’ve seen this same scenario play out over and over and over again.
David
Back to the baptism reporting question. Even when IMB missionaries personally conduct baptisms, it is often completely a result of national Christian evangelism and discipleship. At least in Africa, churches often desire a missionary to perform baptisms, thinking no one in the church is qualified to do so.
David Worley,
The Bible is sufficient. And God’s revelation to us is complete. And yet, God still uses the various members of the Body of Christ to encourage and exhort us, and enrich us with the spiritual gifts He sovereignly distributes to each one. All in agreement with and never contradicting what He tells me in his Word.
Regarding the tent meeting, I have observed and experienced similar things. I am no more a supporter of this type of thing than you are. I am also cautious about what I get involved with, for the very same reasons. But, at the same time, I am open to the blessings God wants to bring along in my life that don’t necessarily originate from Nashville or Fort Worth, or wherever our particular bastion of truth may be. God’s pool of blessings is wider than that. And I want to benefit from all the blessings God has to give me. I also want to do my part to bless the rest of the Body of Christ beyond just my little corner of the “Southern Baptist Zion.”
David Worley,
I curious about something. Ed Stetzer, a SBC employee, speaks at conferences at many other denominations. His blog is testimony to this fact. Do you see that as a problem?
David / Volfan007,
As I told you before, you really need to take off your Horse Blinders, so you can see right and left and get the WHOLE PICTURE for God’s Glory is out There. To walk though Life and miss it all is a Great Big Mistake.
Title: The Believers Study Bible
44:4 Ezekiel was overwhelmed with the “glory” of God. He taught the people that they, too, could behold God’s “glory” when the “BLINDERS” they imposed upon
themselves were stripped away by God’s judgments (cf. Num 9:15, note).
Wayne Smith
Les,
I have preached at several Methodist Churches. I have preached at interdenominational meetings on college campus’s. I have preached at Presbyterian Churches. Shucks, I’ve even preached on a bus, and I’ve stood on a massive central air unit to preach outside of a convention center. So, the answer to your question is no, I would have no problem with preaching at other groups churches or whatever.
If Ed wants to meet with these groups, then wonderful. I do hope that he will seek to guide them to good, clear, sound teaching and doctrine.
David
David,
When you preached at the Methodist churches, did you preach about believers baptism? If you did, do you think they would invite you back? Do you think it would have been respectful to them if you would have?
Can you believe that people from other denominations or groups that cooperate in ministry with us might have the sense, and suufficient respect, to avoid the issues that we might see as pushing our buttons?
I preached the Bible. I’m sure that they had no problem knowing that I was Baptist. But, the vast majority of the Church shook my hand and told me what a good sermon it was. They said that they were glad to hear me preach the Bible. I believe I heard several comments to the effect of…we aint heard Bible preaching around here in a long time.
David
I have preached at a number of Pent/Charis churches and been well received. I did not preach on the Holy Spirit. However, almost every time I have been present in a Baptist Church where a Pent/Charis pastor has preached it is on a topic which, we as Baptist would disagree. I am not a Pent/Charis nor do I plant churches to be Pent/Charis. However, I regularly share materials we have developed in the our indigenous language with Pent/Charis churches. I hope they will used it to lead people to a saving knowledge of Christ.
Back to the original post. Numbers are helpful in communicating that the Kingdom is growing. The problem is that if we add a disclaimer footnote to the statistics, stating the the numbers come from national partners who ordain women, practice PPL, don’t care by whom fellow members were baptized, and dont have a clue who or what is an IMB missionary, then the message might get a little muddy. And of course we (SBC) couldn’t continue to brag about all WE are doing in the world. We (IMB missionaries)are having an impact on a lost world. Lets be truthful about what we are doing.
Success shouldnt be marked by numbers. We shouldnt look upon success as large attendance and budgets and numbers of any sort. Success should be measured by how faithful to God and to His Word that we are. We ought to let God take care of the numbers and the budget and such.
David
Ron,
You ask some very good and, at times, hard to answer questions. I, apparently in contradistinction to you, believe the CR was necessary, and overall, did more good than bad. As I say in my post:
“I think it is a good thing that we, as Southern Baptists, have biblical parameters to guide the way we frame our own cooperation at a denominational level. Theological liberalism, in particular, is a spiritual cancer that eats at the heart of the world missions enterprise.”
For me, inerrancy is a watershed issue.
However, I do agree that one of the dangers inherent in any “conservative resurgence” is a tendency toward isolationism. In general, though, I was pleased that conservative evangelicals within the SBC, during the beginning years of the CR, seemed to be seeking to relate on a broader level to other conservative evangelicals on an interdenominational level. Sometimes, in my opinion, however, these cooperative relationships have focused too much on a particular social and political agenda, rather than unity in Christ and cooperation in the Great Commission.
I need to do more research on the BWA. I have not read up enough on all the ins and outs to know to what degree the charges of liberalism are true or false. The Spanish Baptist Union is a participating member of the BWA. The Spanish Baptist Union is generally conservative and solidly evangelical, though not quite so conservative overall as the SBC. There was some disappointment expressed toward the SBC, and us as IMB workers, when the decision was announced of the withdrawal. But, for the most part, Spanish Baptist leaders realize it was not the missionaries who made that decision, and are able to separate between the two.
Also, I agree with you that, since New Directions, there has been a distancing, in many cases, from our traditional Baptist partners. In my opinion, that is a shame. I do believe that, before New Directions, in many cases, we had let ourselves get too boxed in by the personal interests of bureaucratic leadership structures of many Baptist unions. However, unfortunately, the pendulum seems to have gone through a period of swinging to the other extreme. I would have hoped we could have maintained our close working relationship with the Baptist unions, but with less exclusivity, opening up to other GCCs at the same time. This would have helped in those particular situations where some Baptist union leaders were using and abusing our exclusive working agreements in unproductive and kingdom-growth stifling ways.
Whether we revisit the relationship with the BWA or not, for me, increasing isolationism is not the answer. I, like you, would love to know more details of exactly what Bobby Welch and his ministry are doing. But, for the time being, I choose to give him a vote of confidence.
As I say in the post, though, the most important relationship building will need to be through IMB field workers. And for this to happen in any meaningful way, they will need to sense the “green light” from Southern Baptists to move forward. I believe this includes relationships with local Baptist unions, as well as with other GCCs.
As far as IMB reporting of statistics is concerned, I have pretty much already given my opinion in earlier comments in this comment string. Hopefully the message will be communicated more and more clearly about the importance of our working relationships with national believers, and how that plays a major part in the statistics reported.
David,
Thank you for your comments. I am glad we can disagree as co-workers and as friends if we ever meet on the necessity and the results of the CR but agree completely on “Theological liberalism, in particular, is a spiritual cancer that eats at the heart of the world missions enterprise.” and “For me, inerrancy is a watershed issue.”
You make an important point when you say that relationship building will need to be done at the field worker level. Unfortunately under New Directions in our part of the world relationships and strategy were decided far above the field worker level and dictated down to the field worker.
Ron W
Ron,
Thank you for the dialogue, your friendship, and your partnership in the gospel. Hopefully, we will get the chance to meet.