June 3, 2002

Statement from Ineko Jordan
___Following is the text of a statement written by IMB missionary Eniko Jordan regarding the request for missionaries to sign an affirmation of the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message.

___Why I Can't Sign the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement

___In January 2002, Dr Jerry Rankin, President of the International Mission Board, asked all missionaries presently serving with the Board to sign the2000 Baptist Faith and Message. I am writing this letter to explain why I cannot comply with such a mandate. After much thought and prayer I must respectfully refuse to put my signature to the 2000 BF&M. The basis of my refusal covers three points: wrong words, wrong motivations, and wrong reasons.

___1.) WRONG WORDS. The 2000 BF&M statement is a creed and therefore it is an act against my conscience to sign it. Why do I think the 2000 BF&M is a creed? Because the document itself says so. The document identifies itself as an "instrument of doctrinal accountability " (Preamble 2000 BF&M). That is a perfect definition of a creed. A creed by definition is an instrument of doctrinal accountability, (that is, the standard by which one is held accountable ) ergo, the inescapable conclusion is that the 2000 BF&M is a creed. But a Baptist should have no other standard than the Bible itself. Therefore, as a matter of conscience, I cannot sign it; it would be wrong for me to sign it.

___But someone might say that I am not asked to sign the document, rather I am asked to sign an affirmation of it, and therefore I may sign in good conscience since I would not really be signing a creed. Here I must respectfully disagree and quote an axiom used in geometry: things that are equal to the same thing are also equal to each other. In my opinion, signing something that affirms a creed is, in essence, the same thing as saying its ok to sign a creed. Signing an affirmation of a creed, and then trying to claim I haven't really signed a creed is just a loophole, designed to allow me to crawl out from under my spiritual responsibility with a "clear conscience." But, it is NOT ok to sign a creed, or an affirmation of a creed. It goes against all I know of scripture, and the tenets our Baptist forbears fought and died for. I must take my spiritual responsibility seriously and not seek to circumvent it by convenient loopholes. Therefore, as a matter of my spiritual convictions and conscience, I cannot sign. Should I sign, excusing myself on the basis of such a relativistic loophole? I think not. If I sign on this basis I would be doubly wrong.

___ 2.) WRONG MOTIVATIONS. The motivations that might otherwise compel me to sign it would be completely improper. In light of what was stated above, there is one possible motivation to sign the creed: in order to keep my job. Now I must ask, who in the world would want a missionary who would perform such an act against their conscience for the sole motivation of keeping their paycheck? Would the supporters at home really want such a missionary, a missionary that would deliberately disobey their understanding of scripture just to maintain employment? I don't think so. In my opinion the supporters at home should feel completely at ease in supporting a missionary who, regardless of the consequences, refused to sign a creed on ethical grounds. A missionary with such courage of convictions is very unlikely to fall victim to relativism or heresy. In fact, such a missionary should be commended for sticking to their spiritual and biblical convictions, rather than be vilified or reprimanded. Should I sign the creed just because I want to keep my job? I think not. Therefore if I sign on this basis, I am triply wrong.

___One might argue that I should sign the creed not to keep my job, but to keep my ministry. But I ask, would God condone my performing an action that goes against the spiritual convictions He gave me, in order to "save" my ministry? Should I sign the creed on the basis of this nonsensical argument? I think not. If I sign the creed on this basis, then I am 4 times wrong.

___It might be argued that requiring a missionary to sign the 2000 BF&M is simply a policy matter of employer/employee relations. In other words, I have my obligations as an employee. True enough, but if this argument applies to the employee, then it must also apply to the employer. The employer (IE the IMB) also has obligations. In a matter of compliance with policy one of those obligations is to fully inform the employee regarding any consequences of non-compliance. So far I have not seen or heard any mention of what consequences await an IMB employee who refuses to sign on grounds of spiritual convictions. As an employee, I have the right to know what happens to my employment status if I don't sign the creed. I have not been informed about this, therefore I can only assume one thing: non-compliance will result in termination. Not only is it wrong and eminently unfair to keep missionaries in the dark about this, it is not an effective way to lead. In my family as a mother of two, I have learned that leadership by threat is unhealthy and counter-productive. I don't think it's very effective in the mission family either. Should I sign the creed motivated by fear and assumption, without being fully informed in writing of employment matters about which I have a right to know? I think not. Signing on this basis would put me 5 times in the wrong.

___ 3.) WRONG REASONS. Furthermore, the reasons we are being mandated to sign the creed are all the wrong reasons. Let me explain myself. It has been said that I should sign the creed in order to prevent division and controversy, but this argument is illogical. The very mandate to sign is itself the cause of further division and strife. Should I reward such division by signing the creed? I think not. Therefore if I sign for this reason then I am 6 times wrong.

___I have also been told that I am required to sign in order to prevent "charges of heresy behind my back." To use this argument as a reason to sign is utterly fallacious. If any so-called supporter back home seriously believes that our present missionaries deserve the charge of heresy, I respectfully suggest those supporters give their money to some other mission organization they feel more comfortable with. Donating money does not give any supporter the right to demand absolute conformity. To sign the creed would empower those who mistakenly believe their donations should purchase my soul competency and freedom. Should I sign a creed simply to cow-tow to nameless, faceless "others" who question my spiritual loyalty, and seek control rather than cooperation? I think not. Signing on this basis would put me 7 times in the wrong.

___Furthermore, it is obvious that the reasons for being mandated to sign are not doctrinal, but political. Yes, a missionary should be accountable to those whose support sends them out, and I have been faithfully accountable for 11 years now. To have been hired by the FMB in 1991 I have already passed all the required doctrinal tests. I have signed affirmation and commitment to the 1963 BF&M, which I did gladly and without reservation. I could sign an affirmation of that statement because it does not identify itself as a creed. Besides, Dr. Rankin stated in his letter to the missionaries that the differences between the 1963 and 2000 statements are not "major". If true, then there can be no "major" reason for me to sign again now, at least not for doctrinal reasons. Therefore, there must be some other reason for being required to sign now, and that reason is denominational politics. We are all aware of the current political circumstances in the SBC , and there is no need to describe them here. Suffice it to say that my signature is required in order to identify my position as regards what is considered by some to be the proper political camp. Should I sign away my conscience and Baptist heritage of freedom merely for political expediency? I think not. Therefore to sign on this basis would put me 8 times in the wrong.

___ To conclude, I have stated clear and logical reasons why I would be wrong 8 times over to sign the 2000 BF&M. My hope is that the IMB would value my firm convictions in this matter, but for all the reasons stated above I must respectfully decline as a matter of spiritual conviction and conscience, to comply with this mandate.

___Here I stand.

___Eniko Jordan
___2002 March 4
___Szeged, Hungary



Get printer-friendly version of this story


Send this story to a friend