Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 2): Resistance Was Futile

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 1): A Tragic History

Part 2 – In this post, we continue the story of the fundamentalist take-over of the IMB, specifically the decision to require all missionaries to sign in affirmation of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. We will see the consequences, and we will see just how honest Rankin was about the rationale and consequences of this move.
Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 3): Politics Over Purpose
Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 4): Gender, Missions, and OBU

Now of course it’s not a bad idea to have general standards of doctrine for those who are employed by the IMB and sent across the world for the purpose of sharing their beliefs. However, these individuals already go through a litany of other procedures during the process to become missionaries with the IMB: documenting their own life journeys, writing confessions of faith, multiple interviews, training, etc. Not only that, but the requirement to sign any document like the one affirming the 2000 BF&M did not exist until 2002. Former IMB president Keith Parks (1981-1992) explained how Rankin’s policy is different from previous precedent. Parks told the Baptist Standard that, “Previously, SBC missionaries were asked in the interview process if they were in ‘substantial agreement’ with the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message.”

Now missionaries are being asked to sign in affirmation of the document. Furthermore, they are also being asked, Rankin told the Baptist Standard, to conduct their ministry work “‘in accordance with’ the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message.”

Tom Daniel, a former IMB missionary who refused to sign the 2000 BF&M wrote this:

In the Spring of 2002, the International Mission Board asked personnel to respond to 2 related issues: belief consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message; and signing an affidavit binding one's future ministry to its contents. The issues differ, as one is related to content of BFM and the other is related to freedom to interpret the leadership of the Holy Spirit (whether according to the whole counsel of God or the SBC-approved statement of faith).

The more I learn about this, I’m not only upset but baffled by this change in policy. These devoted missionaries already go through a litany of application and confirmation procedures, take leaps of faith to devote their lives to ministry, and many of them put their lives at risk. Why in addition ask our missionaries to sign the 2000 BF&M when their selection process is already so careful, intimate, and involved? Many missionaries, especially now in the day of the church-planting movement, are themselves pastors of international churches – so how can they be required to affirm this confession when no pastors stateside are? Rankin could argue all he wanted that this new policy was not a doctrinal litmus test for the IMB’s missionaries in an effort to further the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. However, the effect of the policy is still to actualize the controversial 2000 BF&M with all its political baggage in the ministries of each of these missionaries and at the same time to purify the IMB from missionaries who do not conform to the fundamentalist-crafted creed-like document.

In February of 2002, Rankin had told the press that it was only “pure speculation” that missionaries who refused to sign it would be terminated. But Rankin turned their speculation into reality (which he and the IMB board of trustees probably intended from the outset). The Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT) recognized the new policy for what it was, even creating a transition fund to help support missionaries who might lose their jobs because they could not sign it.

A year and four months later, the IMB then issued a May 5, 2003 deadline for missionaries to affirm the BF&M, according to a 2003 Christianity Today article from that month.

Tragically, missionaries were indeed terminated for their refusal to sign in affirmation of the 2000 BF&M. Christianity Today reported that by May 2003 thirteen missionaries had been fired and thirty missionaries had resigned or retired early. These numbers would rise.

Rankin’s response was brutal: “These missionaries are supported by Southern Baptist churches and should at least be willing to conduct their work in basic agreement with what Southern Baptists confess they believe.” Really? Is the 2000 BF&M really what all churches who freely affiliate with the SBC and who send funds to support missionaries “confess they believe”? Such a proposition is preposterous. The BF&M in any version has never a rallying point or a unifying creed for SBC churches. And far from being a document solely highlighting Baptist distinctive and beliefs, the 2000 BF&M was a controversial document to begin with which, as noted previously, the Baptist General Convention of Texas had actually rejected altogether.

Many of these terminated or resigned missionaries raised poignant and legitimate questions to Rankin and his of the board of trustees, such as:

§  How can the elite group of people at a convention of who crafted the 2000 BF&M claim to represent all Southern Baptists? Furthermore, how can that one document be the measure of our devotion to missions and common Baptist ideals?

§  Are not our consciences free before God and not subject to human beings?

§  How can they ask us to sign a document written by humans and revised already three times in the lifetime of some of these missionaries?

§  What gives SBC powerfuls the notion that they can use us as pawns in their political games?

Rankin wrote one missionary couple, the Dixons, that they were being terminated. He wrote that it was because of their “unwillingness to be accountable to Southern Baptists who send and support.” The Dixons responded in an open letter:  “Does the Holy Spirit Himself act always ‘in accordance with and not contrary to the current Baptist Faith and Message?’…We need only witness events in China to discover that He does not: women serving as pastors, evangelists, church planters!”  You can read the rest of their open response to Rankin here: You also can find a list of the missionaries who were terminated or resigned early and read more of their stories, including open letters to Rankin and IMB trustees here [1].

Those missionaries who have signed in affirmation of the 2000 BF&M of course should not be judged. They acted as their consciences and faith permitted.

 I also respect the right of fundamentalists to hold their beliefs – but not their militancy. I think I understand their beliefs and where they’re coming from. But fundamentalism, similar to the 2000 BF&M itself, was constructed in terms of very American issues, a century old knee-jerk reaction to liberal theology and the perceived threat of modernism. As a missionary couple who refused to sign it noted, the BF&M is “culturally biased” and “culturally constructed” document! Many missionaries wanted to know how they can be expected to sign, much less conduct their future ministries according to such a document.

 But the militancy of leaders like those in the IMB lust after conformity and drive them to push for doctrinal rigidity especially in what should be non-essentials. This ideological warfare against traditional Baptist freedoms and against moderates (and really against even non-fundamentalist conservatives too) must stop.

What do these tragic bits of recent history have to do with us? I think the connections are drawn easily enough by our readership – those same militant leaders are gaining increasing control over OBU. As we’ve seen in the last couple years at OBU and through the documentation of this blog, this ideological warfare against non-fundamentalists is not merely a distant threat. It’s knocking down the doors on Bison Hill, which is why we’re trying to learn from history and be an advocate for OBU excellence before it’s too late for academic freedom and liberal arts high education.

For additional reading about this event, scroll to the bottom of this page for a list of articles.

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 1): A Tragic History

In this series, I will take us through a story documenting the conservative resurgence/fundamentalist takeover of SBC missions. As a story these posts are not intended to stand alone, so I hope you will stick with me this week and follow along.

Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 2): Resistance Was Futile
Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 3): Politics Over Purpose
Post-Takeover SBC Missions (Part 4): Gender, Missions, and OBU

In 2002, then-president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board (IMB) Jerry Rankin sent a letter to all IMB missionaries worldwide (some 5,100 individuals at that time) “requesting” they sign a document. What was this document and to what did it ask missionaries to commit? Why were missionaries being asked to sign it? Was it really a request? What would the consequences be of signing it or not signing it? And what do these decade-old events have to do with OBU now in 2012?

  In the next several posts we’re going to look at the history of this event and its consequences. During my research, I’ve discovered these events to be yet another tragic chapter in the development of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. I hope you’ll bear with me through these next posts through which we will see what the actions taken in January 2002 and forward by Rankin and the IMB have to do with our effort to Save OBU.

Having been involved in multiple opportunities to volunteer with and work alongside of dozens of Southern Baptist-affiliated missionaries, both overseas and here in the US, I can attest that these are in general courageous and devoted people. Many risk their lives on a daily basis to serve others around the world in places that are hostile or dangerous. All choose to forsake a “normal” American life near to family and friends and a familiar culture. In my experience, my friends who are missionaries, even those who may have doctrinally fundamentalist leanings, seem freer often than Southern Baptists at home from the embattlements of SBC politics – it’s my personal thought that they are more focused on the real center of Christianity, and not as much on peripherals or non-essentials. However, unfortunately they have not been unaffected by these political games nor by the fundamentalist take-over of the SBC, as we will see.

The SBC does not - well, cannot - require autonomous individual churches, associations, or state conventions to adopt the BFM as their statement of faith. Nor do all congregations agree with the statement in its entirety themselves.

Nevertheless, administrators of Southern Baptist missions organizations, specifically the IMB, now require their personnel to sign a document which affirms the 2000 BF&M [1]. But what of traditional Baptist beliefs such as freedom of conscience before God and the priesthood of all believers?

In January of 2002, then IMB president Jerry Rankin wrote a letter “requesting” that all IMB missionaries sign a document affirming the 2000 BF&M. Such a move was unprecedented in IMB policy, as we will explore in the next post. Missionaries were allowed to note points of disagreement with the 2000 BF&M, but were still expected to sign the document. If a missionary noted disagreements, according to Rankin they would be “counseled” by regional IMB leaders. Mark Wingfield (Baptist Standard) summarized the situation concisely in March of 2002:

Rankin recently wrote to IMB missionaries around the world, asking them to sign a statement indicating their agreement with the controversial 2000 Baptist Faith & Message crafted by SBC leadership but rejected by the [Baptist General Convention of Texas] as an un-Baptist creed. Missionaries who do not agree with every part of the SBC's faith statement will be allowed to note areas of disagreement and then will be ‘counseled’ by regional leadership, Rankin has said. While Rankin has not publicly said what will happen to missionaries who do not sign, numerous reports from missionaries on the field indicate they perceive the mandate as threatening their employment (emphasis added).

A month after this new policy’s implementation, Rankin told the press that it was “pure speculation” that those missionaries who do not sign will be fired. The Baptist Standard paraphrased IMB trustee, Rev. Tim McCoy, who said, ‘“employee policies also forbid missionaries from repeatedly advocating views that are contrary to those outlined in the Baptist Faith & Message’” (emphasis added). So, ostensibly, if an IMB missionary believes that women can be ordained ministers and admits as much on multiple occasions, s/he will face consequences. Or, if an IMB missionary simply cannot sign the document to begin with, s/he will also face consequences. However, Rankin and the trustees had not yet publically declared what these consequences would be, even after the policy was implemented. Rankin admitted as of February 2002 that, “‘We haven't talked about the consequences,’ [Rankin] said. ‘We may have to deal with that in the future.’”

Surely they must have something in mind? It is difficult to believe that Rankin and his board never collectively thought through what they will do to missionaries who cannot sign the document before implementing this policy in January.

Rankin further commented that he "hopes no ‘minor detail of disagreement’ would prevent someone called by God from fulfilling his or her missionary assignment…‘To me [Rankin], it is untenable that a person would be disobedient to their call.’”

Rankin’s comments highlight an interesting picture. For Rankin it is “untenable” that missionaries would be “disobedient to their call” to missions, but it is not untenable that they would be disobedient to their God-given conscience and spirit freedom in signing the document. Such is the nature of militant fundamentalism. It’s obvious that Rankin’s comments blatantly demonstrate his hope that some missionaries’ commitment to their divine call to ministry will override their individual consciences and concerns with the 2000 BF&M, in strapping them in their work with a document many will not be able to agree with either in principal or in particular. They were trapped because if they refused to sign, they no longer have the organizational apparatus or funding to support their ministry overseas, effectively grounding them stateside and ending their overseas ministry.

But extreme consequences were just “pure speculation,” right? These missionaries wouldn’t really be terminated from the IMB for conscientiously refusing to sign this document? To do so would be an un-Baptist violation of freedom of conscience, right?

Many missionaries did not feel comforted by Rankin’s words. To Rankin’s and the IMB board of trustees’ chagrin, the Baptist General Convention of Texas was already forming a safety net for missionaries they anticipated would be terminated for not signing or who would resign early rather than violate conscience:

 “More than 60 IMB missionary couples already have indicated to a BGCT missions study committee that they will not sign the faith statement and fear for their jobs. Excerpts from some of their comments were read to [BGCT] Executive Board members [on] Feb. 26 [2002],” Wingfield further reported in February.

Tomorrow, we continue the sad story of how politics and fundamentalism won out over mission priorities and engagement.
_____________

[1] The IMB’s domestic counterpart, the North American Mission Board, also now requires all missionaries who receive 100% of their support through NAMB to sign in affirmation of the 2000 BF&M. However, this amounted to only 50 or so personnel, since most NAMB missionaries are also funded through state conventions and local associations who freely affiliate with the SBC. The documentation and journalism mainly covered the events surrounding the IMB, so that’s where we will focus for these posts.

OBU's 2012 Commencement: Beneath the Surface

Congratulations to the OBU Class of 2012!  The Green Book lists 23 regulations pertaining to "College Citizenship," and I hope the graduates went out and broke 1 or 2 of them last night.  God loves a joyful celebration!

I understand it was cloudy yesterday -- perhaps an apt metaphor for the storm clouds of conflict looming over the campus.  I saw part of the ceremony, which was streamed on Shawnee Live and is also available "on demand" through OBU's website.  It was hard to believe a decade has passed since I walked across that stage!  But I was so happy and proud for all the students and their families.  I have to credit last fall's alumni petition for providing the impetus to start Save OBU.  And I credit Contributing Editor Veronica Pistone for helping make sure the movement survived its infancy.  But the truth is, we wouldn't be this far without the hundreds of OBU students who have expressed interest in our movement, read our blog, and kept the issues salient on campus.  I'm especially grateful to the several dozen students -- mostly seniors -- who actively helped out by providing information, context, and nuance on a number of fronts.  We invite you to even more active participation in Save OBU now that you are alumni!  And we trust that the torch of student leadership is passing to students who may not remember OBU under Brister or Parrish, but who nonetheless revere academic freedom, Baptist freedom, and OBU's great liberal arts heritage.

While it was entirely appropriate for the university to pull itself together to honor the 246 graduating seniors, there are a handful of relevant tidbits that curiously didn't make it into the official press release.

Speakers

Commencement Address/Honorary Degree
OBU conferred an honorary doctorate on the Rev. Dr. Tom Elliff, a former missionary, Oklahoma Baptist minister, and current president of the SBC's International Mission Board.  Of course, no opportunity is wasted to remind everyone that OBU sends more missionaries to the IMB than any other college.  And we will not waste an opportunity to a) courteously remind everyone that correlation does not imply causality and b) reiterate our view that Oklahoma's contribution to the mission field owes as much to Falls Creek as to OBU, and that as with all BGCO ministry and mission priorities, funding for Falls Creek suffers because of the BGGO's $2.5 million annual subsidy to OBU.

After hearing Dr. Elliff's rather innocuous homily, I almost felt bad for highlighting his role in the Fundamentalist Takeover (and aftermath) of the SBC.  It's amazing how downright likable fundamentalists can be when they're not waging ideological warfare and destroying our treasured institutions.  The bondservant/slave and kamikaze illustrations seemed a little strange at first, but do indeed point to important servant/surrender aspects of the Christian life.  But given his open disdain for moderates in the SBC and the fact that OBU gave him an award less than a year ago, I continue to feel that honoring him in this way was insulting, particularly to faculty.  Still, they politely applauded the man who likened moderates in Southern Baptist life to "barnacles and parasites" that he himself proudly "removed from the Ship of Zion."

Awards/Acknowledgments

Retiring Faculty
We certainly join OBU in commending the service of six very fine retirees.  At least two of them have been courageously and openly opposed to some of the bad policy and personnel changes we've seen in recent years.  One of the retirees, interviewed in The Bison last fall, said she doubts she would be hired by OBU today.  What a tragedy.  Still, we must thank these very fine folks for their service and leadership over the years.  We wish them all the best as they begin exciting new chapters in their lives.

Faculty Awards
There is widespread suspicion among the faculty that politics played a role in the Promising Teacher Award this year.  Many faculty had assumed the award would go to an effective and well-loved professor who just finished his sixth year -- his last year of eligibility for the award.  Of course, being an Episcopalian may have been the kiss of death, given a certain administrator's recent obsession with church affiliation politics.  OBU may be saying to young professors, "We may not be able to fire you or deny you tenure 'in a winsome way,' but don't think you're getting any extra awards unless you a down-the-line fundamentalist Baptist."  Many were surprised that the promising teacher honor went to a relatively newer hire who is demonstrably more in line with the fundamentalist party line.  As one insider explains:

It's clear that the administration chose him for the award to make a statement, especially in light of Veronica's Save OBU blog post.

This awkward situation underscores the problems created when faculty search committee recommendations are ignored and when politics and ideology figure so prominently in OBU administrators' decisions about who to hire, honor, and reward.  Many faculty suspect this move is administrators' way to try to justify their decision to overrule the faculty search committee, which unanimously preferred another candidate.  Anyone want to take bets that the Christian apologetics professor wins the award next year?

Student Awards
Last year, when our own Veronica Pistone won the Outstanding Religion student award, the OBU website featured a nice writeup and a picture of Dean Mark McClellan giving her the award.  We're told that Dean McClellan was not too happy that one of last year's most decorated graduates (a woman now studying for the ministry at a non-SBC seminary) has become a prominent figure in the growing opposition to the BGCO's mutually draining stranglehold on OBU.  This year, another woman won the Outstanding Religion award.  But Dean McClellan told the religion professors that "we need to be careful who we choose for this award because we don't want someone getting the award and then using it as platform against OBU."  Thankfully, the faculty convinced the dean that their choice would not "turn" on OBU after she graduated and she won the award she so richly deserved.  However, just to be safe, there is no photograph or press release this year.  (EDIT: Yes, there is: here.)

Oh, and just for the record, perhaps Dean McClellan should consider that maybe his bosses in Thurman and friends in the Baptist Building are the ones who are using their positions as platforms against OBU.  And maybe rather than thinking that some of these "gals" (his term for female religion and ministry students) turned on OBU, he might consider that it is OBU that has turned on women, particularly strong, bright women who reject the fundamentalist vision of "biblical womanhood."

We will continue to monitor the distribution of student and faculty awards in the months and years to come.

Music
Just a quick shout-out to the organist, whoever s/he was.  "How Firm a Foundation" is a wonderfully appropriate graduation prelude and I enjoyed the rendition immensely, as well as the rest of the medley.  Speaking of music, we wish the University Chorale a safe and successful tour this week!  And in the coming weeks, we'll be blogging about changes in the College of Fine Arts under the new regime.

--

So there you have it.  OBU may not be in the throes of a full-on faculty rebellion or a dramatic fundamentalist takeover (yet).  But this week's celebrations definitely papered over a number of important conflicts that exist as a result of OBU's relationship with the BGCO.  We'll continue to keep you informed of progress and changes.

Again, our very best wishes to the OBU Class of 2012!  "May thy spirit guide thy sons, keep thy daughters true!"

OBU Shows True Colors in Commencement Speaker Choice

The current leadership of OBU knows it's stuck in the middle of two constituencies whose interests are irreconcilable.  One the one side are almost all faculty, most students and many alumni -- people who cherish historic Baptist freedoms, liberty of the conscience, and academic freedom in particular.  On the other, you have fundamentalist pastors, BGCO power brokers, some students, and many alumni -- people who support the SBC's headlong descent into fundamentalism and authoritarianism, and who would like to see those trends accelerate at OBU.

Invariably, these two camps are going to be in perpetual conflict over the governance and administration of our beloved university.  Administrators have to appease both sides.  Our side has gotten steamrolled the past two years, sustaining blow after blow.  But recently, we realized that the various protests have had a collective impact, and we claimed a minor victory.

But one recent high-profile decision illustrates very clearly who's side OBU's power players are really on. We didn't hear until two days ago, but obviously it's been in the works for some time for the Rev. Dr. Tom Elliff to give the commencement address on Friday and receive an honorary degree from OBU.

As a former missionary, retired large church pastor, past SBC president, and current International Mission Board president, Dr. Elliff is without question a distinguished and significant figure in Baptist life -- particularly Oklahoma Baptist life -- and the school has every right to honor his achievements.

Still, Elliff's presence will upset many, and we feel he was a very controversial choice.  If the president truly values and honors his faculty and is serious about his commitment to do right by them in the future, I do not know how he could have made this insulting choice.  Dr. Elliff's career spanned the entirety of the Fundamentalist Takeover and its aftermath, and Elliff has been relentless in his faithfulness to the fundamentalists' agenda in SBC life.  Like SBC presidents before and after him, Elliff used his two terms in office (1996-1998) to ensure that only fundamentalists were appointed to SBC boards and agencies, gleefully making moderate Baptists exiles and outcasts in their own denomination.

I truly do not understand the current administration's obsession with praising Elliff.  Less than a year ago, they gave him the first annual "Herschel H. Hobbs Award for Distinguished Denominational Service" at last year's Southern Baptist Convention.  This new award, besides demeaning Hobbs's distinguished legacy (many of today's SBC leaders booed Hobbs at the 1980 Southern Baptist Convention), seems like it was designed to ingratiate SBC fundamentalist power brokers to OBU.

Now, a packed Raley Chapel commencement audience will have to abide OBU conferring an honorary degree on someone who believes moderates in the SBC are "barnacles" and "parasites."  That's right.  In his final address as president of the SBC in 1998, Elliff boasted to incoming President Paige Patterson that "all barnacles and parasites had been removed from the Ship of Zion."  The reference was to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and other moderate Baptist groups.  How awkward it will be as Elliff is speaking to know that he holds such vehement disdain for the overwhelming majority of the hooded and robed professors sitting behind him.

He may as well turn around and call them parasites to their faces.  Which unfortunately is the nice version of what the BGCO thinks of some of these very fine people, who at least for the moment are safe because President Whitlock has learned that it's hard to dismiss faculty "in a winsome way."  Without question, Elliff was instrumental in the saving of many souls and the maintenance of many institutions.  But a lot of Baptists -- good, faithful Baptists -- have suffered because of him.  In addition to the 35 year veteran of the Southern Seminary library who lost his job because he dared correct inaccuracies in one of Elliff's speeches, a lot of clergy and lay investors were screwed out of their savings when Elliff, as pastor of First Baptist Church of Del City, asked bondholers to forgive the church's debts.

Having Dr. Elliff speak wouldn't be so offensive if OBU invited one of the "parasites" once in a while, too.  But the fact that they have chosen to honor Elliff with not only the insultingly named Hobbs Award, but also with an honorary degree, unfortunately shows their true colors.  At the graduation, few students and hardly any parents will have any idea just what a controversial figure Elliff is.  But most OBU professors will be disappointed and feel dishonored.  And you can bet that Anthony Jordan will be sitting the platform with a huge smile on his face.  As long as the BGCO calls the shots at OBU, this dynamic will always be the same.  Administration will always ultimately side with them over us.

As for President Whitlock, he may as well stand up and give the middle finger to the assembled faculty he's supposedly been trying to win over this academic year after a disastrous start to his tenure.  Very few of them will be impressed that he wanted to honor such an vociferous advocate of fundamentalism's advance in BGCO and SBC life.

If I was graduating Friday, I would write "Parasite" in bold on the top of my graduation cap and encourage all my friends to do likewise.  But even if students wanted to protest having to hear from such a hater of moderates on their big day, I'm sure OBU is still conformist and authoritarian enough to find or create a rule against such protests.

I'm especially sad for faculty, many of whom are either moderate Baptists or stand in solidarity with moderate Baptists.  It's unfortunate that they have to hear from someone who so openly loathes them and all they hold dear.