Parableman takes issue with my use of the word "Hypocrisy" to describe the IMBs decision to ban only new missionaries from speaking in tongues.

I used the word hypocrisy because-

Either tongues can be from God or it is dangerous folly

Clearly the SBC seem to take the second position here. Therefore it is in my view hypocritical to act inconsistently with that belief. If tongues is wrong, then it is wrong for ALL missionaries, and apparently even some senior missionaries would have to be asked to leave. It would clearly be too costly for the SBC IMB to act in a way totally consistent with their beliefs in purging existing missionaries in some kind of charismatics under the bed witch-hunt.

I can see the rational of either banning or allowing tongues or indeed the previous policy of allowing it in private provided you are willing to admit that the answer to question 1 is not 100% clear. As soon as we believe we have a clear answer to that question, we should either be encouraging people to speak in tongues as the Apostle Paul does or telling them not to as many cessationists do.