Narrowing Doctrinal Parameters

I would say that to remove ANY Christian from "power" (I use quotes because they have neither spiritual nor ecclessiastical power) or any position the person (leader or not) the reason must be because of 1) Sin, 2) Incompetence, or 3) Budgetary.
However, in the case of the narrowing of doctrinal parameters, those wishing to do so are in no way arguing that those who should not be in power due to their doctrinal positions are in anyway sinning. Far from it!

Recall how the current SBC leaders removed all of the seminary professors, agency presidents, and various agency workers AND all of the IMB and NAMB missionaries who would not sign the 2000 BFM. None of those people sinned.

Furthermore, no one is denying that there needs to be doctrinal parameters. The question is what those parameters should be. Should we narrow the existing doctrinal parameters for leadership and service to exclude those who are already leading and serving in various positions within the convention?

"Narrow parameters." That is very abstract and less than specific. Really - what are the parameters that are wanting to be narrowed?

1) Individuals who practice glossolia (tongues, "prayer language") privately (not in church or worship but on their own without anyone else around) can not work for the IMB.

2) Individuals who drink alcohol cannot work for the SBC.

3) Individuals must have been baptized in SBC-affiliated churches or have received believer's baptism by immersion. Individuals who receive baptism in another tradition, it must be viewed as symbolic rather than sacramental or regenerative.

4) The church or denomination in which the baptism took place must adhere to the doctrine of the "security of the believer," or the belief that one cannot lose one's salvation.

Are these "doctrinal" issues considered so important that we cannot allow them to be practiced? If this is indeed the case, then should we not just simply prevent people who practice glossolia from working in the IMB, should we not prevent people who believe glossolia is okay from being in the IMB? Why stop there if this is so important that we must prevent such people from serving God in the IMB? Should we not prevent those people who may not practice glossolia, who may thinks it's undoctrinal, but do not mind other Christians practicing it?

Paul could not be allowed as an IMB missionary because he practiced glossolia. Jesus could not work for the SBC because He drank alcohol.

We claim to believe that baptism is symbolic and represents the coming to faith of the individual believing Christian. Yet, Baptist believers who do not receive a symbolic immersion cannot be SBC missionaries because they did not get the right kind of symbolic baptism. We say that the NT practiced symbolic immersion but a symbolic pouring cannot be allowed because it isn't the right kind of symbolism. Yet, the NT practiced the symbolic Lord's Supper with wine and not grape juice. We might as well be saying that we want to ban all missionaries who attend the Lord's Supper at a church that doesn't practice the Scriptural symbolic Lord's Supper with wine. Ludicrous!

And the "church in which the baptism took place must adhere to the doctrine of the "security of the believer," or the belief that one cannot lose one's salvation." Who in their right mind would exclude a person from missionary service not because they do not believe in the "security of the believer" (a belief which by itself should not be banned), but exclude a person from missionary service because they were baptized in a church that did not believe in the "security of the believer"? This is completely insane, yet these are the parameters which are being pushed.

I believe that as time goes by more people will begin to question the thought process of those who want to narrow these doctrinal parameters.