SWBTS & Tongues

Gotta love the SBC.  Dude shows up at Southwestern Seminary to preach at their chapel service.  He drops the prayer language (tongues) bomb on Paige Patterson and the bunch.  Hilarious man.  Who could have called this one?  So Paige "rebukes" him and refuses to make the video of the message public like other chapel sermons.

Southwestern Seminary President Paige Patterson has issued an extraordinary rebuke to the Rev. Dwight McKissic, a seminary trustee and prominent Arlington pastor, for acknowledging during a chapel service that he sometimes speaks in tongues when he prays.

Burleson responds,

Private prayer language is not the issue. The issue to me is that a man who holds a position that is well within the bounds of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement is being silenced and censored.

We’ve got to create a climate within the Southern Baptist Convention where dissent is welcome, where dialogue is open and where disagreements can be accepted.

Comments

[Bobby]

Steve, I'm a long-time reader but a first-time commentor. I'm currently a student at Southwestern and you're the first I've heard about this. I was at chapel on Tuesday, heard the comments and nothing was said or done during the chapel service itself. The seminary posted a comment on its website about the reason why they are not going to webcast the sermon, but it doesn't say anything negative about Pastor McKissik. I'm not an "SBC-er" per se and I'm with Pastor Burleson on this one, but I think the paper blew this one way out of proportion.

[Robert]

Something about this makes me laugh. Growing up in the PCA this anti-tounges view was obviously prevelant. However, I have found a home now in the Anglican Mission in America where the view is much different; sort of what Driscoll calls "charistmatic with a seat belt."

[Baptist Believer]

WFAA-TV (Dallas) has posted a story which includes a video link containing excerpts of an interview with Dr. McKissic:

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa060831_mo_prayingintongues.5582fdae.html

[Larry]

Why would McKissic do this? It seems pretty unethical to accept a speaking invitation and then directly speak for something that you know your host is opposed to, unless you were asked to. I would never do such a thing, and would expect any guest speaker at my church to respect my views, even if we disagree.

The issue of prayer language aside, this seems cut and dried to me. McKissic should have chosen another forum for this.

[Isaac]

Larry,

I'm not sure that speaking truth to power is particularly unethical, at least not in this case. A little ecclesiastical civil disobedience isn't a bad thing.

[Kipp Wilson]

Larry,

I had thought of that too, but I have some questions first: was that the central point (or even a main point) of his message? Or was it a side comment? Was he promoting and it to others and arguing for its acceptance at SWBTS or simply saying that he practices it himself? And what is SWBTS's stand on the issue? Do they forbid people from praying in tongues? If not, do they forbid people from stating in public that they speak in tongues? Is this the equivalent of "Don't ask, don't tell"?

[Matthew Westerholm]

In his response letter, he claims he didn't know this was out of bounds... then backs up the claim with two quotes from Patterson :

"What do we conclude? The apostle Paul clearly said 'Do not forbid to speak in tongues'. " "It would be a mistake for evangelicals to forbid others to speak in tongues."

In a chapel service Dr. Paige Patterson stated there are two major approaches to the tongues doctrine. The first option is to hold that the concept of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is the same as that in Acts 2. The second option is to say that the Corinthian text refers to tongues as a "rush of indeterminate sounds for the purpose of praising God and for self-edification."

Dr. Paige Patterson. Chapel Service at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; April 4, 2006

[Larry]

I don't think speaking truth to power is unethical. To me, it is about the context in which it is done.

I believe McKissic to be wrong on this issue, based on what he said. I know nothing about him apart from this, and don't know much about the particulars at SWBTS.

But again, to me, it is about the context in which it was done. Do it from your own pulpit, or with the permission of hte person who has invited you to speak.

Surely McKissic knows this is a controversial issue, and I think it should have been handled differently.

[Joe Martino]

It's because of reasons like this and the latest "baptist life" articles with our former fearless leader that I am thinking about pulling out of the SBC altogether. How sad.

[Larry]

Just curious Joe, do you believe this is an essential? If you do, and you pull out of the SBC over it, wouldn't you be guilty of separating over a non-essential? How do you put these things together in your mind?

[Larry]

I wish I could edit. My reason for my last question to Joe is just to try to figure out where some of you guys stand on this. It seems like you want more flexibility on some of these issues, but then at the same time are threatening to pull out from the SBC if you don't get it, which seems to be inflexibility. So I am just trying to undertand your thinking on it.

[Brian W]

My comments are as a "baptist", but as non-SBCer. Larry, I'll address my comments to your concern. You seem to be saying you find it unfortunate that some would pull out of the SBC over a non-essential. I would agree. But why try to censor someone on a non-essential? Shouldn't you be as discouraged with Patterson for trying to silence people he himself would call a brother than with others leaving the SBC over a non-essential? It seems that the problem cuts both ways.

This illustrates the difficulty I have in participating in larger movements/denominations. I'm just so glad what can be done together out weighs things like this because this kind of stuff is stupid to me. SBC has many positive qualities without a doubt, but movement in the last several years should discouraging (i.e. legalism, combative spirit, restricting prayer languages)

[Bobby]

"was that the central point (or even a main point) of his message? Or was it a side comment? Was he promoting and it to others and arguing for its acceptance at SWBTS or simply saying that he practices it himself?"

Kipp, I was there. His sermon was phenominal and was on the Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact, Dr. Patterson was nodding his head in agreement and saying such things as, "That's right" and "Amen." That is, up until the side comment of the tongues. It flew over most people's heads and nothing was ever said in chapel about it. I'd have to agree that Pastor McKissic should have respected another's pulpit and chosen a better setting to voice his concerns (i.e. the Southern Baptist Convention in Austin, TX next year?).

[Alan Cross]

Larry,

It's not that anyone would pull out if people said they disagreed with tongues or taught against it. Others can do whatever they want. But, when they say that it is forbidden for missionaries, or they call the teaching dangerous to churches, then they have gone from stating their view to enforcing their view over mine. While it is not a non-essential in the sense that everyone has to agree, it becomes an essential when those in power forbid me to believe what I believe. At that point, I either have to try and change things or leave, because in good conscience I cannot lie about how I read Scripture. That seems to be where we are headed on this, I fear.

[cavman]

As an outsider looking in, this could be one of the final straws that breaks the camel's back. I'm not charismatic, but that much of the leadership is taking such a firm stance on a non-essential is surely cause for concern for many of the younger pastors.
The reason they would pull out is not that they are as dogmatic as the people like Patterson seem to be, but that they don't want to be associated with such dogmatism. It is just another example of the struggle with legalism the SBC is currently engaged in.

[Joe]

Larry,
I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get back here. I am really torn about this. I agree with you I don't want to just pull out because we disagree over something. But let me share a story with you to illustrate where I'm coming from. I am a bi-vocational pastor and the only big concern some of the guys had was that I might have to serve alcohol at my job as a server. I have to agree with caveman that this is just one of many issues. I really struggled with Bobby Welch as our leader and the fact that he brought nothing but conflict that has nothing to do with the gospel to our association. Perhaps, the biggest reason I'm thinking about pulling out is that when people find out you're SBC that brings with it a huge backlash. People then have in their mind the right to marginalize anything I say b/c I'm part of those nut job, anti-drinking, anti-public schools group. On top of that, the leadership of the association seems to be going a direction I don't want to go. By my saying, "I'm thinking about pulling out" that doesn't mean I'm separating. I would still have good men who are SBC come to my church and preach and if they'd have me I'd go to theirs. I've done that with Church of God guys, non-denom guys and a lot of guys that I don't agree with strait down the line. I have a feeling tha if I stopped being officially associated with the SBC there are those who might say, "God help me..." at least to quote a former fearless leader.

[Fred]

Yeah there are a lot of us who talk about throwing up our hands and walking away from the SBC. At a certain point you just have to think its more of a hindrance to mission and a burden. We get tired of saying, "We're not all like that." We get tired of saying Disney is OK and there's nothing inherently wrong with a nice glass of Riesling. We get tired of the denominational machine, the tired bureacracies, and the old-boy network dictating what's what and telling us poor plebians what we should think. We get tired of atheological labeling, preferring substantive theological discussion. Yeah many of us are reformed, and frankly we're tired of being maligned for it.

Beyond all of that, however, we get tired of an approach to evangelism that has more to do with an encounter with a used-car salesman than an encounter with living Truth. We get tired of obsessing over numbers, preferring to focus on discipleship. We want substance over style, (especially cheesy style.)

That's just off the top of my head. Others could probably say it better, but hopefully you get a flavor for the reason at least one of us is on the way out.

[Jeremy Weart]

It seems to me that the current "powers that be" look the part but don't have much to say. And that is sad because they could be doing so much more for the Kingdom.

To borrow a quote from Bono - "To be relevant is a lot harder than to be successful." The SBC conservatives have certainly found success in many ways but have become, of late, irrelevant.

One of my old proffesors used to tell us that a "movement becomes a monster" if it doesnt' adapt and change. I think we have this problem with this leadership. I pray we learn from their mistakes and do not follow in these steps.

[John]

To me, the biggest deal (regardless of the issue at hand) is that no president of any SBC seminary gets to decide the doctrinal statement of the school. They are paid by and formed from SBC churches. SBC churches have come together and agreed on their doctrine (a.k.a. BF&M 2000), so if it ain't in the statement of faith, you ain't aloud to comment on it AS SEMINARY PRESIDENT. DR. P. can say whatever he wants as an individual, but to in any way act on this issue FROM HIS OFFICE would be inappropriate (regardless of convictions). Personal note: no NT text leads me to believe this gift has stopped and at the same time the Ante-Nicene Fathers make it pretty clear that speaking in tongues did stop. They never said why, just that it did. I'm not dogmatic in terms of biblical assurance of tongues ceasing, but I'm also extremely skeptical of a practice in contrast to the vast history of the church until most recently. I'm not too happy with either side to speak with such assurance...