"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

There Is Nothing to Fear From Information: Information is Power

I am so grateful that the Lord allowed me to live in the Information Age. The introduction of the internet has enabled all of us to have the world at our literal fingertips.

When Christ came God orchestrated the western world to speak the common language of Greek. When the Reformation began to occur, God orchestrated the invention of the printing press. I believe the days ahead are filled with revival because of the manner in which we can spread the good news of Jesus Christ.

I was excited to hear that Southwestern Seminary was making available the Chapel Services for live internet broadcasting.

Today's message was delivered by Pastor Dwight McKissic, the Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas. Dwight is also a graduate of Southwestern Seminary and currently serves as a trustee of the seminary.

I was unable to hear all of Dwight's message because of a staff meeting I had this morning, but I have learned that the message spoke directly to some very important issues we face as a convention. I did not hear enough to know whether or not I agreed with Dwight's premise, but when I went later to hear the archived message, it was not up on the Seminary's website.

The person responsible for the internet at SWBTS said that all Chapel messages are immediately archived and placed on the web. But he received a call from the administrative office of SWBTS saying that the message was not to be posted until it was "reviewed" by administration.

The audio message may be up soon, but my point is simply this:

We do not need to fear information in the SBC. We do not need to worry about what others will think if they hear opinions that are different than the status quo. Truth has no enemies, and we are not harmed by an environment where people can speak their convictions freely without fear of reprisal or censure. In fact, in that kind of environment, we will prosper.

I look forward to hearing Pastor McKissic's message in the near future.

The issue is not whether or not we agree with him ---

The issue is whether or not we have the ability to hear him.

In His Grace,


Wade

UPDATE: 5:00 p.m. I guess I will not be able to hear the message via the internet. The administrative staff of SWBTS has issued a statement. worth your reading.

153 comments:

Glen Woods said...

Is it just me, or does it seem curious that they would apparently feel the need to "review" the message before it is posted to the archives? After all, this is one of their own trustees whom they invited to speak, right? Also, if they are so uncertain about the content of his message, why invite him to speak in the first place?

Blessings,

Glen Woods

Kevin Bussey said...

Who is in charge of communication @ SWBTS, Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf? info minister

Jeff Repass said...

I heard Dwight Mckissick's message. Quite an amazing event to witness. I am not surprised that it is not up.

ColinM said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wade Burleson said...

Colinm,

I agree. Let's be patient.

However, it is unusual for the archivist and internet director to be ready to go and the word comes down to hold off.

Unless something vulgar or profane occurred, which I'm positive it did not, I have a hard time understanding the delay in order for it to be "reviewed".

Reviewed for what?

Wade Burleson said...

Jeff Repass,

Could you give us your perspective on the message and why you are not surprised it is not up?

Roger Simpson said...

Wade:

I agree with you that the information age generally and the BLOGS specifically are having more than just a marginal effect on the SBC.

I think democracy requires information and things such as streaming video of the convention and also these BLOGS help put the full "light-of-day" on what is going on. It makes it harder for a select clan to monopolize knowledge and power.

I am just a layman but I have learned a ton just by lurking around here on your BLOG. I get a sense of current issues which will define the SBC for decades to come.

Here are some of the things that your BLOG (and comments on it) have brought into focus for me.

(1) I believe is your overarching point is that there is a undercurrent against wider cooperation on secondary issues. While I think that undercurrent is sizable it is not the majority anymore. I think there is an unstoppable force of "fresh air" blowing that is going to lead to more cooperation. Your BLOG is one agent that is at work to effect this change.

2) It seems to me that there is anecidotal evidence that some of the paradigms being used by the IMB in some overseas areas need review and possibly changing. One size may not fit all in terms of strategy.

The above two items are the real "take away" things I have gleaned by being more "institutionally aware" over the last six months -- precipitated by your BLOG.

Can someone give me at least the general subject matter of what
Dwight McKissick's talking was about?

Alycelee said...

Should we really be surprised people and ideas are silenced, edited, that Trustees anywhere are censured?
Trustees have full tenture only when they are "yes" and "amen". In the history of the church who were yes men?
Peter wasn't, Paul wasn't. Luther wasn't. And praise God, Jesus certainly wasn't.
I believe the dissent working in the fabric of the very establishment of seminaries and churches is a good and godly thing, even of His own design.
I see men everywhere standing up saying, NO, this is NOT the way. It may have been the way we've always done it, but where is the fruit of that old way? I read them on this blog.

Call it reformation, revival, outpouring of the Holy Spirit, we need it all and can't you hear it, see it coming? In the midst of all this mess, it's still coming.

I'm encouraged... for who can thwart the purposes and plans of God?
Agape

Wade Burleson said...

Roger,

You have given me a great deal of hope today in that a layman clearly understands, and clearly articulates, the themes of my blog.

It is not troubling to me, at all, that some in the SBC would not agree with my premises on this blog, but what does seem a bit disconcerting is that some try to make this blog out to be something it is not. It is not about condemning or shaming anyone.

It is about calling our convention to more openness, transparency, cooperation, and a Christ-like attitude toward one another.

I get confused why some get upset over this effort.

Wade

Alycelee said...

Watch next week. Mark Howell is speaking. See how quickly it goes up.
Should be interesting

Alycelee said...

Statement regarding Aug. 29 chapel

by Staff

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is honored to have Rev. W. Dwight McKissic as a trustee. We were also honored to have him in chapel this morning. All messages preached in Southwestern’s chapel are available for purchase by contacting Audio-Visual Learning Center at Roberts Library 817-923-1921 ext. 2920.

On the other hand, while Southwestern does not instruct its chapel speakers about what they can or cannot say, neither do we feel that there is wisdom in posting materials online which could place us in a position of appearing to be critical of actions of the Board of Trustees of a sister agency. Any trustee or faculty member is free to communicate his concerns to the boards of sister agencies, but it is difficult to imagine a circumstance that would merit public criticism of the actions of a sister board.

Furthermore, though most of Rev. McKissic’s message represented a position with which most people at Southwestern would be comfortable, Rev. McKissic’s interpretation of tongues as “ecstatic utterance” is not a position that we suspect would be advocated by most faculty or trustees. In keeping with Baptist convictions regarding religious liberty, we affirm Rev. McKissic’s right to believe and advocate his position. Equally in keeping with our emphasis of religious liberty we reserve the right not to disseminate openly views which we fear may be harmful to the churches.

For these two reasons stated above the President made the decision not to continue the video-streaming of this message lest uninformed people believe that Pastor McKissic’s view on the gift of tongues as “ecstatic utterance” is the view of the majority of our people at Southwestern.

Those who wish to read further in this area are welcome to contact Southwestern for resources on either side of the issue including the President’s message on the subject of tongues delivered last Spring and the book A Search for Charismatic Reality written by a former charismatic pastor who presents a view we commend to our students.

You guys may have already seen this statement, if so sorry.

TheMDude said...

Review, edit? We visited an SB megachurch on Sunday and in the SS class the topic was Acts 2. The regular teachers were away (are we surprised) and the replacement just preached about what Baptists believe and never paused for any questions or comments. Baptists are very worried about the work of the Holy Spirit - especially today. No control. We have tamed God. In another vein I have been reading about how a friend of mine has been storying the Bible with 27 Buddhist monks in a temple. The key monk there has been having dreams and visions and related that a figure came to him and said he was to become a missionary to his people in a neighboring country! Then he asked what a missionary was! My friend is praying for a New Testement church right there in the temple! What if we prayed for a NT church right here in the States?

Wade Burleson said...

Sherlock Holmes: "Eureka Watson"

Gomer Pyle: "Jeebers'!

My favorite Oklahoma University Radio Broadcaster: "Geemineee Christmas!"

Wade Burleson: "I can think of a lot more things that are harmful to my church than a message preached at Southwestern's Chapel."

:)

Alycelee said...

Know what censure does to me?
I called an ordered the dvd! :)

Mac McFatter said...

Gee, you guys didn't know all this before today? Many of us who lived through the "resurgance" learned this lesson long ago. Even some of us laymen. Not curious or strange or different in any way to those of us who have dared speak our disagreements in the past.
Mac McFatter

Roger Simpson said...

Alycelee:

Thanks for getting shedding some light on the topic of McKissic's talk.

You are just like Clark Kent when it comes to getting the scoup. As a result of the Internet, I don't think even kryptonite can slow down today's crack reporters.

BSC said...

We affirm the right of Dwight McKissic to speak freely.

We just won't tell you what he said or let you hear it for yourself.

One question:

What would Paige Patterson have done to Russell Dilday if the latter had tried to keep the former from hearing the recording of a chapel service during the mid-80s?

Better yet:

What would Paige Patterson do to Ken Hemphill if the latter had allowed a woman to speak/preach in chapel...and what if her name was Karen Bullock? I wonder if Patterson received/reviewed a copy of Karen Bullock's infamous message/sermon?

Whatever the case, I'm certain Paige supports Bullock's religious liberty and such...

Does every chapel service/sermon that is archived and available for public review have to represent a majoritarian view of the faculty/administration?

Joseph Stalin would be so proud.

swbts student said...

See http://www.swbts.edu/ for the press release including the President's opinion of the chapel. Enough said. Call and order your copies now.

Jeff Repass said...

Wade,

The reason I was not surprised by the administration's decision not to upload the chapel message was because certain comments made by Dr. Mckissick seemed, at some level to be an affront to the school's president.

Dr. Mckissick's sermon on the baptism of the Holy Spirit primarily conveyed views that I believe the President, faculty and most orthodox believers would agree with. He taught that the baptism of the Spirit occurs at the point of salvation, and that there are fillings subsequent to that. He noted all believers are baptized in the Holy Spirit, but not all have the gift of tongues.

The sermon became more intriguing when Dr. Mckissick revealed that he received a private prayer language while living in the men's dorm at Southwestern 25 years ago. He claimed that he did not seek out such a gift and apparently had been under the impression at one point that said gift no longer existed.

The rub came when he stated that he believed it was wrong for us to exclude people from service because they pray in tongues privately. Some students clapped and gave verbal feedback, while most students sat in awkward silence.

It was a chapel to remember.

Alycelee said...

And to the exclusion, I say amen

Wade Burleson said...

Thanks Jeff for the update.

I do not speak in tongues publicly or privately, have never spoken in tongues in my life, and do believe that there are abuses associated with the gift.

But here we have an orthodox, conservative evangelical Southern Baptist who is offering an interpretation of the Bible and his own personal experience with God that may be different from others views on the subject.

I have been advocating long and hard on this blog that there is room in the SBC for such people.

There has always been room in the SBC for such people --- why are we now excluding them, and for what purpose?

But more importantly, why will we not even let them be heard?

Alycelee said...

Wade, it is with great respect for you that I say, there is more abuse in Baptist churches to quench the Spirt for fear of "these gifts" than from hearing of abuses (most have probably never seen anything other than tv). For that matter, not just this gift, but many others, for the scripture says.. what is it brothers when you come together....

It amazes me that "fundamentalist" jot and tiddle every line of the scripture that suits their doctrines, but move particularly far away from this one, because it's gone away, erased from their black and white, very literal world.

So much so that not only do we not fellowship with people who exercise the gifts, we look at them as spiritually inferior and "they will not be brought into the fold in any leadership capacity, speak in my pulpit or steam their video! I ask you, how many times have we heard this on this blog?

I know you have been advocating this for some time.
I appreciate that, I do. Either we will hear, or the spiritual cloud will move on.
The question is, will we be under it.
My husband says, " as for me and my house ...
Going home. As usual, you have provoked me to thinking kingdom thoughts. Thanks all.
Agape.

Bob Cleveland said...

Wade:

I absolutely stand on what the bible says. And we all know what is said about unknown tongues, and the prohibition thereof.

Anyone can see how sad the situation is, but as one who's been given the gift of unknown tongues, I assure you it is sadder than you know. I am not an "untie my bowtie" guy, but I assure you the gift is valid and uplifting. For a seminary to wage obvious war against even its possibility is sad, sad, sad.

Unthinkably so.

My comment at the convention relative to the Spirit departing may have been in the wrong tense.

Jack Maddox said...

Well this just really stinks! Dwight is held in very high esteem in SBTC circles...

it will be interesting to see what happens on that end of the spectrum.

Jack

Bro. Robin said...

Bro. Wade

Frankly I am a little disappointed at the giddyness of everyone on this comment section. Kevin Bussey's comment was absolutley shameful and represents the demeaning remarks that I have commented about in the past.

If someone invites me to preach at the church he pastor's or seminary he is president of, I would respect the differences between me and him and would not bring up those issues. I know that Dr. Patterson does not agree with you or I concerning the doctrines of grace, but I would not use chapel to usurp his authority. If I cannot find anything to preach that would not run contrary to the beliefs of the pastor or president I would refuse the invitation out of respect for the person.

I don't blame Dr. Patterson for approving the chapel services if this is the level of trust we will have between pastors.

Greg Cloud said...

You have to admit, it took a great deal of intestinal fortitude on Bro. McKissick's part to preach a message like that in a venue likely to be hostile.

SWBTS's response to the message was a product of a flaw we all are susceptable to: spiritual arrogance. I define that as the idea that I know all there is to know or is worth knowing about a relationship with Christ. If I know everything, then anyone else's ideas or experiences which differ from mine must, of course, be heresy, and should be suppressed. After all, if someone disagrees with me, in order to accept them I must admit that I might be wrong...therefore my ego and self esteem is at stake. I can't be wrong.

Is Christianity a scholastic faith (one that has to be learned) or an experiential faith (one that requires no intelligence, only an experience with the One in whom the faith is based)? If we hold Biblical Christianity to be experiential, we must be open to the fact that the experience of others may be different than our own.

If we can't be open to this, then our position must be that Christianity is a purely scholastic exercise--one must learn it, and there is only one correct interpretation of the facts, and one way to express one's faith. Experience is quashed in favor of conformity.

Okay, I've run on again. But that's my take on things.

Greg

Winning Truth w/Tim Guthrie said...

bro robin, you are so right on with your comment. One of the things that has so bothered me about this blog and many comments printed concerning our convention is the seemingly arrogant demands to maintain personal liberty's and interpretations while avoiding the simple issues of trust and order. There must be a balance and violating it under the appearance of "spiritual liberty" is more wrong than even the doctrines and practices we are discussing. You may not agree and you may call some of these secondary issues, but respect and surrender of personal rights are far more important. Again I will state - there is a wrong spirit in existance when one os applauded for deliberately not respecting order. Come on guys, think about it!

farmboy said...

"If someone invites me to preach at the church he pastor's or seminary he is president of, I would respect the differences between me and him and would not bring up those issues."

Following the logic of the above quote, all Sunday school teachers in a given church should "respect the differences" between themselves and the pastor of the church and therefore should "not bring up those issues" during Sunday school.

At the seminary level all professors at a given seminary should "respect the differences" between themselves and the president of the seminary and therefore should "not bring up those issues" during class lectures.

Effectively, then, the doctrinal positions of the pastor and/or president become the creedal boundaries of the church and/or seminary.

Is that a good idea? Is that what we want?

Wade Burleson said...

Robin and Tim,

I took Kevin's comment as tongue in cheek.

I can assure you it is far more disconcerting to me when people, using official media, say dishonorable and unethical things about a brother in Christ without ever approaching him privately.

I know Kevin. He is a great guy who loves people like the dickens and has a very dry sense of humor. I think that Kevin can speak for himself about the comment, but when people get more upset with a tongue in cheek comment made on an obscure blog than an intentional, and very personal character assassination made in the mainstream press in an attempt to marginalize, silence, and possibly remove from service a principled dissenter, then we need may be in deeper trouble as a convention than I thought.

Greg Cloud said...

Like a lot of controversies, both sides of this latest SWBTS controversy have a share of the "blame".

We all have our share of "spiritual arrogance". Let's focus on the issues, not who was the most out of line.

Everyone pops off when something upsets them. We can gently remind each other of proper behavior without making generalizations about all those who converse on this blog.

The only person we are fit to judge is ourselves. Let's look at things this way: What lessons can I learn from all this and how can I apply those lessons to my life to make me a more productive Christian witness?

Greg

For His Glory said...

Tim,

I agree that humility and respect for authority are central and key to having God's blessing on our lives and ministry...

And I don't know what the response was like in chapel today, so obviously I can't condone it.

But my brother, when did the SBC come down officially and declare itself to be a cessationist denomination? Is it really wrong for this pastor to propose a different view? Could it be that the IMB trustees were dead wrong in adding to the BF&M and thus not trusting nor relying upon field leadership to deal with errors and abuses?

The response of some SWBTS students may have not been appropriate, as well as some bloggers response as well...but I certainly don't think it was wrong for this pastor to speak to the issue. I'll hold my full approval until I can hear his message, but I suspect that I will be grateful for his courage.

Kevin Bussey said...

I was speaking tongue in cheek. Man, we need to lighten up!

If I offened, I'm sorry, but this is the way I always am. I try to lighten up tense situations. I thought it was funny.

ColinM said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
davidinflorida said...

Pastor Wade, Just as your blog shines light on darkness, so does Pastor McKissic. There are some that are so proud of their doctrines, that any truth that might contradict or give a different view on what they believe, makes them angry...... As with Stephen in Acts 6:8 through 7:60 , he was met with total resistance. Acts 7:51 tells why, the uncircumcised in heart.... Resisting the Holy Spirit and putting God in a box

Jack Maddox said...

I would ask everyone to please understand that you can disagree with SWBTS and the President without maligning him. Be careful that we show the same grace and truth that we claim to hold others to.

I believe Dr. P is wrong on this issue. I will not however compare him to those who wish to resist the Holy Spirit ala the book of Acts.

Keep it real folks...keep it real!

Blessings
Jack

Bro. Robin said...

Bro. Kevin

It may have been tongue in cheek, but alluding that anyone at SWBTS might be comparable to the Information Minister of a regime that practiced mass murder is not appropriate or funny. I can take a joke just as much as the next guy, but that was pushing it too far. I trust that you are a good guy, but even good guys make mistakes. BTW, I am more lighter than most people, but I am not willing to be that light.

Farmboy,

Your analagy about S.S. does not work in this situation. It is totally different to address hot issues like this as a guest while behind the pulpit of a church or seminary. As much as anyone wants to say that tongues is a secondary issue, it has been moved to the front. In our already tense situation, addressing this the way he did was not appropriate.

I don't believe that Bro. Wade is premillennial as I am concerning eschatology, but if I was ever to have the honor of addressing the congregation he serves, I would never bring up that difference. There are other avenues in addressing our differences and I would respect the authority that he has concerning the preaching ministry of the church.

Again it is a matter of respect and appropriateness.

sbc pastor said...

Wade,

SWBTS broadcasted McKissick’s sermon via live video streaming on the web and it will be made available for purchase. However, they did not deem it appropriate to publish the sermon on their website because of a comment that was critical of a decision made by the IMB’s Board of Trustees – the IMB is an entity of the SBC.

Thus, their public statement: “While Southwestern does not instruct its chapel speakers about what they can or cannot say, neither do we feel that there is wisdom in posting materials online which could place us in a position of appearing to be critical of actions of the Board of Trustees of a sister agency.”

I personally believe that SWBTS made a very wise decision. Do you personally believe that it would be appropriate for SWBTS to post any material whatsoever on its official seminary website that directly criticizes another SBC entity?

I look forward to your answer and God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

davidinflorida said...

Im sorry, but I see that some feel that there are people who are sooooo Holy , because of a position that they hold, that they would never resist the Holy Spirit . I believe that I resist the Holy Spirit at times , every day. When I am aware of this , I ask God for forgivness and repent.....Does anyone really believe that there is not a problem here ?

irreverend fox said...

what a statement!

here's a suggestion, why not just simply place a disclaimer, either in print or on the audio stating the views expressed in this message does not nes. represent those of SWBTS?

SWBTS made a mistake here. Oh well. I'm sure it is not symptomatic of any deeper issues.

John Fariss said...

Two issues weigh heavily on my mind in this instance. First, and I have seen few mentions of it yet, is the issue of CONTROL. SWBTS is calling it a matter of liberty--the liberty of Rev. McKissic to believe as he believes, in other words, his rights of conscience; and of SWBTS/Pres. Patterson to have the liberty to not disseminate views contrary to their conscience. However, I point out one very revealing phrase in the SWBTS statement, that this is a view "which we fear may be harmful to the churches." In my mind, this totally destroys the rights-of-conscience argument. Ask any counselor, and Christian counselor, and I believe they will affirm that this is a statement about CONTROL. I think one could argue that it means that there is a climate of CONTROL assumed in the SWBTS (and possibly in the SBC)culture. But even more, it suggests to me that SWBTS and/or Dr. Patterson feel it necessary to control what is disseminated, which usually means there is a perceived threat making control necessary. Those who so act rarely articulate the process, because it is not cerebral, but rather emotional. And I believe that this perceived need to control is behind what is happening at the IMB with the policies on baptism and prayer language.

The other issue, and it is related, is the rights of Rev. McKissic to speak on a subject that (presumably) he knows Dr. Patterson and others at SWBTS disagree with. Several comments have suggested that it is rude or worse on his part. But does not that assume the chapel is Dr. Patterson's private domain? Of course, those who are drive to CONTROL would say yes, and then manufacture reasons to justify their emotional decision. But I would sugest that if someone's system of belief is so frail that a single speaker threatens to "harm" it, it will fall eventually anyway, and probably sooner rather than later. This is a chapel in an institution of higher learning. Present ideas and concepts which challenge the intellect of those in attendance, and then trust the Holy Spirit to do His work!

Like Kevin Bussey says: sometimes we just need to lighten up!

Elizabeth said...

John Fariss,
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
It also seems pretty insulting to me that by listening to this sermon I or my church might be "harmed." It bothers me greatly that it appears to be assumed that we are all such spiritual weaklings that we won't search the Scriptures for ourselves.

Paul said...

John Farris has hit the nail on the head. To make an analogy between a Southern Baptist seminary and a local church is erroneous. That Seminary is entirely owned by the Southern Baptist Convention. If your church gives to the Cooperative Program then that makes you part owner. If Bro. McKissick's church gives to the CP and he gives to his church then he is part owner. He has every right to express his views in a chapel service as Paige Patterson does. Paige Patterson is actually a servant of the local churches (which includes Bro. McKissick's church), not the other way around. If we can't have open discussion and divergent theological perspectives expressed and published from a school of theological learning then where are we to have such a discussion and perspective expressed?

The academic thing to do is not suppress the debate, but to offer a more compelling argument along side the one given. To suppress the point of view is not only a matter of control but a sign of weakness.

Jerry said...

James Beattie, an eighteenth century Scottish academic and professor of moral philosophy, is known for the saying, “The aim of education, should be rather to teach us how to think, than what to think.”

Although the obviously cloistered SWBTS holds itself out (on its website) to be a place of theological learning and education, it clearly places more emphasis on the latter value than the former.

Bro. Robin said...

Bro. Paul

Technically, we are only stewards of what God provides for us. We don't own anything, it all belongs to God. Paige Patterson has been put in the position of president of the seminary and does answer to the SBC. He is responsible for the activities of the seminary. When someone inappropriately uses the chapel service for his personal agenda, Dr. Patterson has the authority to correct the problem. If the SBC doesn't like his actions, they can remove him as stewards of God's blessings at SWBTS.

If you want to view this as ownership, then a tithing member of your church could get up in the middle of your church service, disrupt it by proclaiming a doctrine that is not in line with yours and say that it was his right since he is part owner of the church. If he has an issue with something you preach, there are appropriate avenues to talk about this. Doing this in such a way that causes disruption with in the church and disrespect for pastoral or presidential authority shows a lack of respect for the position of pastor or president.

It is about appropriateness! That was not an appropriate place to address his concerns.

RM said...

This is so typical of Paige Patterson. Where do we call to order the DVD. I want one (or two)!

IN HIS NAME said...

This is P.P. way of handling these matters, when one speaks ill of a sister org. in the SBC. Copy and paste
http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2003/11_5_2003/ne051103patterson.shtml

A Brother for Truth

Paul said...

Bro. Robin,

[snide comment warning!] I must have missed the verse in the Bible where Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build my seminary." The church is a divine institution and God owns every last one of them, not the pastor and not the people. A seminary is a human institution built by men to the glory of God. If the difference is subtle I still believe it is important.

The purpose of the church is worship and witness. In that context the church does things that promote worship and witness and disrupting that is spoken of at length in the Scriptures. The nature of worship does not inherently involve competing ideas. The purpose of a seminary is theological education. The very nature of education often involves competing ideas. It is not disruptive to advocate a competing idea (and one that is not expressly addressed in our adopted statement of faith) in an institution of learning. I was a philosophy minor in college. There is a world of difference between Plato, Descartes and Hume. To examine the differences isn't inherently divisive. It is the very nature of that institution of learning to do so. Do theology students at SWBTS never read or examine differing interpretations on tongues or any other issue? How is being challenged in a chapel service in such an institution all that different? Students know that chapel ofen involves a lecture rather than a sermon. This isn't about a church worship service. This is the appropriate place for such a message!

If his position is weak and the seminary's position is so strong in comparison the PhDs should have no trouble presenting a stronger case.

Brandon said...

Lest you think that I am some crazy posting that which I do not know about, I was on the 3rd row of chapel today, am a 2nd year MDiv student at SWBTS and I stand for the inerrancy of scripture with the best of them. Rev. McKissick's was a watershed moment at SWBTS. I am quite positive that no one saw this message coming, but it is about time that someone said something from the other side of the fence.

Last semester Dr. Patterson preached a 10 sermon series on the ‘Work of the Holy Spirit,’ in which he conveniently preached a sermon on the issue of speaking in tongues while the trustees were present. In this message there was a drama that I would classify as borderline at heresy at best. I find it very interesting that as a seminary we are so book smart that we are deathly afraid of anything that we can not explain away.

I believe that Rev. McKissick's message was spot on and I believe fully that what he said was the truth. No matter what SWBTS and its leaders say, I am confident that what a man does in his private prayer time with the Lord is none of anyone else’s business. And He even said that (paraphrase), “praying in tongues does not make me of even more or less spiritual stature than anyone else.”

I would just like to go on record and say that this pervasive ‘anti-Holy Spirit movement’ is not held by every person at SWBTS. I for one was ecstatic at what happened in chapel today and I even shook Rev. McKissick's hand and told him so after chapel.

Should SWBTS play the sermon online? ABSOLUTELY, and if someone thought that was actually the view at SWBTS, it just might help recruiting. However, if we as a seminary and a denomination are going to part company and split hairs, let’s pick a better subject.

cameron said...

Wade,

Correct me if I am mistaken, but you have claimed to have a rule for your blog, which you have enforced on occasion, that any comments containing what you feel to be inappropriate criticism, I believe "personal attacks" was the way you specified it, would not be tolerated, and would hence be deleted.

SWBTS has stated that they feel this chapel message contains inappropriate criticism, and have chosen not to post it to their website as a result.

Do you feel that your own actions are materially different from those of SWBTS? Would you deny them the same right of censorship over their own website that you have claimed for yours?

Alycelee said...

Brandon, when you graduate and pastor, let me know where, I'm going to come and visit. Bless you!

For those of you who think a dissenting voice can't speak at any seminary because the powers that be are in opposition to what is being spoken, what if God gave McKissic what to speak? Consider perhaps, he prayed and God said, I want you to speak this?
Would dissent be ok then?
Would there ever be a time that dissent is ok?
Or are we forever beholding, to the President, the pastor, the pope to ask them what to think, how to believe and before we speak get the ok first.

Kevin Bussey said...

Robin,

I'm sorry you can't be that light. Sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying. I still think we need to lighten up. Laugh and enjoy life!

Alycelee said...

Cameron,
Where do you see this?
"SWBTS has stated that they feel this chapel message contains inappropriate criticism"
I can't find that anywhere?

Alan Cross said...

John Fariss and Paul, I agree with you fully.

bro. robin, you said:

"He is responsible for the activities of the seminary. When someone inappropriately uses the chapel service for his personal agenda, Dr. Patterson has the authority to correct the problem. If the SBC doesn't like his actions, they can remove him as stewards of God's blessings at SWBTS."

It seems to me that Paige Patterson is using all of SWBTS for his personal agenda! Since when does the chapel service become the private domain of a seminary president? I would understand if heresy were being presented. Unless Patterson wants to declare McKissick's position heresy, he should let it air. Actually, I guess he did declare it heresy. So, we are in the position where one man is able to interpret the Bible for all of us? How Catholic have we become?

This is worse than the IMB policies in a sense. It means that we cannot even talk about differing views. Just a few questions:

Did McKissick speak in tongues in chapel?

Did he prophesy?

Did he engage in any strange behavior?

The answer is no. All he did was present a different opinion from the status quo. For all of you who are defending Patterson in this, I am shocked.

And let it be noted, that I have never criticized Paige Patterson on my blog on in any comments. I have had little opinion on the man. But this is shocking to me. He is condemned by his own actions, not innuendo. Bro. Robin's solution is that we either shut up and take what Patterson does or we remove him. Well, if we have only two choices, shutting up is not going to be one of them.

mark sims said...

I was there. And I agree with Jeff's assessment. I didn't feel there was anything in Dr. McKissick's message that was inflamatory, disrespectful, unnecessarily pointed, rude, out of place, or anything of the sort. So some don't like the fact that he claims a private prayer language (an occurence of which is not at his discretion), I don't like a lot of what I hear in chapel services. He wasn't blasting the president or the school; he was relating his personal experiences to his message topic (personally, I would have been ticked off if he had not mentioned the fact and later learned that he held such a claim). He was biblical in his approach.
His comment (in passing, and in no way a major point in his message) about blocking some from leadership/service because of such a view received a very light smattering of applause and "Amen". I'm not convinced those attending were aware of the referant. His stated objective was to incite a passion w/i his hearers for the experiential and powerful personal ministry of the Holy Spirit (ecstatic utterances deemed non-normative, and non-necessary), thus empowering Kingdom ministry.
What's all the fuss?

mark sims

missionary meg said...

From an anonymous missionary in a country that controls the mindset of its population through this very sort of "information control" and squelching of opposing ideas, I'm appalled! I can't believe this is happening at my home sem!

Surely they could do the usual "the views represented in this audio do not necessarily represent the views of SWBTS" and thus subtly inform the "uninformed churches" that they're so worried about of their dissent with the material presented.

And surely they can be respectful enough of other opinions about non-essential doctrines by a TRUSTEE. You'd think they'd have been careful enough to choose trustees who absolutely conform to every idea the sem deems important, since they're going to exercise this kind of information control on anyone who doesn't! Apparently not, eh?

Alycelee said...

Anyone else find it interesting that we are having this conversation today (tonight) and Wade's post yesterday was the "Cult of SBC personality"
Chance perhaps?

Arkansas Razorbaptist said...

What is up with this comment from Guthrie:

"Again I will state - there is a wrong spirit in existance when one os applauded for deliberately not respecting order. "

Respecting order? What the heck?

Jonathan K. said...

I'm surprised about this for several reasons. Although I am not a Southern Baptist...

(1) This sounds more like censorship to me, in terms of "disseminating" Pastor McKissic's view.

(2) Pastor McKissic is African-American... perhaps there is a race bias involved here.

(3) This sounds like another opportunity to take a controversial issue and slide it "under the carpet," rather than encourage discussion about the issue.

Greg P said...

I think it's safe to say that SWBTS has accomplished its purpose: everyone here is quite sure that the seminary does not agree with what Dr. McKissick said.

Perhaps an application of the recent "triage test" is in order, but SWBTS thought it to be important enough of an issue to keep the file out of public domain.

Instead of attacking him, let's be gracious and give the seminary's president a little bit of room to be the leader he was selected to be. Grace doesn't run out after the offensive is over and the counter-offensive begins, and we ought to be as gracious to Dr. Patterson as we are to Dr. McKissick (not as we think Dr. Patterson was to Dr. McKissick - if we think it's wrong, why imitate it?). Having such an attitude would follow with the usual standard of humility and graciousness promoted by most who post here.

TruthOfActs said...

Wade,
Boy oh Boy! You guys write faster than I have time to read. I’m already 59 comments behind. But that gives me an advantage—it’s like being on “Who wants to make a Million Dollars” and the audience tells you to vote for McKissic and only 5 for Patterson (Robin, Colinm, Cameron, Guthrie, and Greg).
Wade, I’d like to make a subtitle to “There is Nothing to Fear From Information: Information is Power”, which would be: The Control of Information is Power.
John Fariss brought this out in his excellent insight on CONTROL, and I believe most have agreed with him.
The ‘struggle’ for control among Christians is seen in their first church counsel on the issue how men were saved.
This is also an example that ‘Patterson sympathizers’ should study in seeing that Peter and Paul went to a preacher’s church and spoke strongly against Jewish thinking which was inline with their pastor’s as shown in (Acts 21: 20) “You see, brother [Paul], how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law.”
The pastor wasn’t complaining about these words—he had won over Peter’s (McKissic) ‘All are saved by the gift of Christ.’
Why do Baptist ‘control’ the information that early Christians disagreed? How many of you have heard or preached a sermon on Acts 15? What about a SS lesson? The same about ‘tongues.’ We avoid it like it was a plague.
When the IMB ‘ruled’ against a ‘private prayer language’, they, in essence, were ruling it is NOT of God. That’s scary!
If it is of the Holy Spirit, they are blaspheming Him which is UNPARDONABLE. Who would take a chance of that sin? Apparently, the egos of some men are not afraid.
Thank you, Wade, for another great post.
Rex Ray

Nomad said...

Wade,
Some time ago you asked if missionaries were demoralized or discouraged by blogs/blogging. I can honestly say that the answer is "no" until I read about events like this and the Flockhart fiasco. Hearing about them isn't the demoralizing or discouraging part; knowing that the leaders in the convention are doing this kind of stuff is the discouraging part. The discouraging thing about the SWBTS thing is that they won't publish the chapel service; not that McKissic said what he said.

I am well aware that we are all fallible and are subject to our own weaknesses. I am too aware of that. But it seems to me, that while we are over here in a strange land, trying our best to live out our lives before men in order to bring them to God, folks in the US are just "playing church." I know that this is a blanket generality, therefore invalid, but, Boy! It sure seems that way at times.

BTW, I have earnestly prayed for the gift of tongues many, many times. Of course, it isn't probably the kind of tongues you are thinking of; it's the kind that would get me out of language school. That kind of tongues I could CERTAINLY use!

The Sullivans said...

I am a graduate of SWBTS and an IMB missionary now in Russia. I would love to hear what the guy said. I am accustomed to things like this happening around here as the carried over communist mindset of the government moves them to filter information they don't think people can handle properly. I think we are all halfway mature capitalist adults. Give us a break!
Keith

jthomas899 said...

I for one support SWBTS decision to do this because it is their right, and because Mckissick's position has no biblical support.

RM said...

The best solution I have for airing your feelings on this issue is to write the Chairman of the Trustees at SWBTS. Their addresses are unavailable on the SWBTS website (big surprise)so you can write Dr. Patterson's office and request it. Please note that they will usually call you if you make a request to ask if you are a Southern Baptist before sending you information. His address is: presidentsoffice@swbts.edu

Remember that trustees respond to emails...

cameron said...

Alycelee,

To qoute the SWBTS statement:

On the other hand, while Southwestern does not instruct its chapel speakers about what they can or cannot say, neither do we feel that there is wisdom in posting materials online which could place us in a position of appearing to be critical of actions of the Board of Trustees of a sister agency. Any trustee or faculty member is free to communicate his concerns to the boards of sister agencies, but it is difficult to imagine a circumstance that would merit public criticism of the actions of a sister board.

That is what I'm refering to as "inappropriate criticism".

Wade Burleson said...

All righty folks,

Let's not allow anyone to confuse the issues for us.

This is not about whether or not anyone believes the gift of tongues continues to this day.

This is about whether or not in the SBC there is room for dialogue, disagreement, principled dissent ---- while at the same time respect for the other side, cooperation, and fellowship around the fundamentals of the faith.

I for one get a little nervous when people in charge seek to discredit, marginalize and silence dissenters. That will say a great deal about us all if we allow that to CONTINUE to happen in the SBC.

Robert Hutchinson said...

it won't happen but wouldn't it be something if a large majority of students at swbts boycotted chapel services until mckissick's message was made available for public viewing.

they might hold signs that read...let my people think!

Alycelee said...

Chairman of Trustees

Van McClain
Associate Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew
Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary
Northeast Branch
2810 Curry Rd.
Schenectady, New York 12303
Phone:518-355-4000
email: dshepherd@mabtsne.edu

Wade Burleson said...

Mid-America Seminary employees serve as the Chairs of the Board of trustees at SWBTS and the IMB. Anybody know anywhere else?

davidinflorida said...

Dear jtthomas, What Bible do you read ? Mine has all of the pages in it , and it supports McKissicks position.

David R. Mills said...

Someone wrote that the Holy Spirit is a "non-essential" doctrine. That's interesting coming from a missionary no less.

tim rogers said...

Brother Wade,

I agree with this statment that you made; "I for one get a little nervous when people in charge seek to discredit, marginalize and silence dissenters."

With that said, please tell me where SWBTS has discredited, marginalized or silenced Dr. McKissic. They allowed the video stream, they posted a statement as to the reason they were not archiving it, and they made it available for sale to those that desire it. Where is the censorship? Where is the discrediting? Where is the marginalization? Where is the silencing?

Blessings,
Tim

RM said...

The best thing is get a DVD of the message and see for yourself. You can order one by sending a check for $9.85 to:

Roberts Library
Attn: Alexis Rowland
Box 22490
Ft. Worth, Texas 76122

Good price for a collector's item DVD... By the way, Alexis is great to work with and will help you quickly!

davidinflorida said...

Pastor Wade , Do you think that Billy Graham would have gotten the same treatment ? This may answer some of these questions.

Wade Burleson said...

Tim,

From SWBTS official statement.

Discrediting --- "we reserve the right not to disseminate openly views which we fear may be harmful to the churches.

All righty then -- Cornerstone Baptist Church, your Pastor's views on Scripture are harming you --- Brother Tim, is that not discrediting a pastor?

Censorship and Silencing--- we reserve the right not to disseminate (Pastor McKissic's sermon)

All righty then --- an unprecedented act in the history of SWBTS. Every other message from chapel is archived and available on the net. Bro. Tim, if that is not censorship I don't know what to call it.

Marginalization --- Several students who were present at the service emailed me and said how the service ended, and what was said (or not said) about the speaker. It clearly was an attempt (from their view) to dismiss without any affirmation of Dr. McKissic. However, Bro. Tim, I will give you a year on this one. Let's see which committee at Southwestern he is appointed to next. If he is Chairman of Personnel, Budget or Long Range Planning, I will freely admit I am wrong on the marginalization. I take that back --- if he is even on one of those committees as a member I will apologize. But don't hold your breath.

I'm on my way to Oklahoma City for some meetings. Unable to answer any more questions.

Blessings to all.

wade

Pastor Brad said...

I know Van McClain personally and live near the NE Branch of MABTS. In the past, I know MABTS employees have served as trustees at SEBTS and Guidestone. Why is that an issue?

Wade Burleson said...

DavidinFlorida,

Touche!

Wade Burleson said...

Pastor Brad,

Well Brad, it would be like two people from my church --- one serving as Chairman of the International Mission Board, and the other serving as Chairman of Southwestern.

That would be unusual. Not necessarily wrong, just unusual.

Wade Burleson said...

Off to OKC!

missionary meg said...

Surely there's someone who used an mp3 recorder to get it taped or someway it will turn up on the internet?

Any idea if this is in the works?

I'll bet this chapel speech will get even more play simply BECAUSE they tried to stop it from getting out. What a reverse-psychology thing to do! Now I WANT to hear it, simply because I can't! :)

stephanietx said...

Robert states:

"it won't happen but wouldn't it be something if a large majority of students at swbts boycotted chapel services until mckissick's message was made available for public viewing."

You're right, it won't happen. Why? Because contrary to when most of us who are graduates of SWBTS, chapel is now required for all students in Spiritual Formations class, 3 days a week, for one whole semester. Another Patterson control tactic and a way to justify the "need" for a new chapel. (That's a whole 'nother issue!)

The whole issue is one control and censorship. I didn't know I couldn't think for myself or rely on the Holy Spirit to guide me in the Truth. I'm so glad someone has enlightened me!

Tim said...

I really don't understand why people are so suprised by this. Dr. Patterson has been pulling reigns like this for a long time. Why should he stop now? Remember at this years convention how he modified his seminary address so that he wouldn't have to take questions? He lead the takeover by missinformation/control of information. Why should he stop now? He's been doing it for years.

Tim

craig from Georgia said...

TruthOfActs said “When the IMB ‘ruled’ against a ‘private prayer language’, they, in essence, were ruling it is NOT of God. That’s scary! If it is of the Holy Spirit, they are blaspheming Him which is UNPARDONABLE.”

Where is a private prayer language in the Bible? That’s how you tell if it is God or not. If our sins have been forgiven through the blood of Jesus, how could they commit the unpardonable sin?

Rob said...

Quote from the press release:

"All messages preached in Southwestern’s chapel are available for purchase by contacting Audio-Visual Learning Center at Roberts Library 817-923-1921 ext. 2920."

So, what is stopping Wade or Marty Duren from getting a CD of the message and hosting it on their website(s) for the world to hear?

Or if that isn't possible, why don't we just order the CD's for ourselves to hear?

For His Glory said...

I love this insight by another poster on another blog...

The apostle Paul said, "Do not forbid anyone to speak in tongues."

Dr. Patterson basically says I forbid anyone at Southwestern to even talk about tongues!

Modern day censorship in one of our SBC seminaries...brother!

jthomas899 said...

There is no censorship. I have seen Wade censor comments on this blog, where the outrage. Now comes the excuses for why he censor someone. We all have excuses. SWBTS, has the right to do what it wants in regards to the speakers. If they did censor that is their right to censor.

swbts student said...

Has anyone considered that Dr. Patterson is actually accountable to Dr. McKissic? After all, Dr. McKissic is a trustee of the seminary and Dr. Patterson is the President.

Alycelee commented above:
"...what if God gave McKissic what to speak? Consider perhaps, he prayed and God said, I want you to speak this?"
I would hope that Dr. McKissic prayed before speaking in Chapel. From his reputation, I would be inclined to think that he did. Good insight alycelee. Enjoy your DVD.

davidinflorida said...

Dear Craig from up in georgia, I have not been to seminary but I can read the Bible, From what I read and from conviction from The Holy Spirit , private prayer language is described in 1 Cor 14: 1-5, 14+15 and Jude 20 to mention a few. Notice in 1 Cor 14:19 how Paul doesnt demand that you speak in tongues........ This is how we all should be, if one does have a prayer language then thats great, if you dont then thats O.K. too. It should not be a big WEDGE that divides the SBC....

johnMark said...

Blogs, the 21st Century printing press.

It's a good thing.

Mark

tim rogers said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bro. Robin said...

Bro. Wade

Maybe there was an electronical error, but my last comment is missing on your blog. I saved it so here it is. Thanks.

Bro. Wade

The Memphis Declaration states:

"4. We publicly repent of having forsaken opportunities to reason together with those who share our commitment to gospel proclamation yet differ with us on articles of the faith that are not essential to Christian orthodoxy.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to building bridges where there have been none, in listening more and talking less, and in extending the hand of fellowship to all who share our confession of Christ and our commitment to extend His Kingdom.

5. We publicly repent of having turned a blind eye to wickedness in our convention, especially when that evil has taken the form of slanderous, unsubstantiated accusations and malicious character assassination against our Christian brothers.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to confront lovingly any person in our denomination, regardless of the office or title that person holds, who disparages the name of our Lord by appropriating venomous epithets against our brothers and sisters in Christ, and thus divides our fellowship by careless and unchaste speech."


I have yet to see this lived out in your post from the majority of comments given. I am not going to comment any further on this because I believe there is no bridge building concerning this issue from many of the comments given.

I can agree that things have not been handled in a Christ honoring way from all sides. Can anyone agree that Dr. McKissic's actions did not lead to bridge building in our convention.

Furthermore can anyone else agree that this issue has not been confronted lovingly without giving venomous epitheths. There has been careless and unchaste speech, not only from Dr. McKissic, but also commentors on this blog.

If many of you agree with the Memphis Declaration, please live it out in its entirety.

Disappointed,

Bro. Robin

craig from Georgia said...

I didn't go to seminary either which is probably a blessing for the both of us.

Biblical tongues are known languages (see Acts 2). 1 Corinthians 14 has to do with public worship, not private devotion.

Pray for interpretation instead of for tongues, it is beneficial. (1 Corinthians 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.) Prayer in an unknown tongue is unfruitful even to oneself. (1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.) Understanding is the thing to be desired. (1 Corinthians 14:15-16 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?)

Jude 20 says nothing about any kind of prayer language, public or private. Praying in the Holy Ghost simply means you pray in the power of and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There’s no mention whatsoever about any kind of language.

T. D. Webb said...

jthomas 899 said, "There is no censorship. I have seen Wade censor comments on this blog, where the outrage. Now comes the excuses for why he censor someone. We all have excuses. SWBTS, has the right to do what it wants in regards to the speakers. If they did censor that is their right to censor."

The distinct difference is that this is Wade Burleson's blog. Conversely, Dr. Paige Patterson and company do not "own" the SWBTS . . .or do they?

Rather than specifically refuting the points that Pastor Mckissic made in his Chapel message on August 29, 2006, as the self-appointed guardian of Southern Baptist theology at SWBTS, Dr. Patterson made the “executive” decision to prevent Southern Baptists from having internet access to a recording of the aforementioned message. Apparently, Dr. Patterson has little or no faith in rank and file Southern Baptists to decide for themselves as to whether or not there is validity in Pastor McKissic’s position regarding “tongues” being defined as an “ecstatic utterance”. The result is that this is a sad day for the freedom of information within the SBC and, more telling, a signal of what is becoming an all to prevalent stratagem of political power players in the SBC. . .sounding very “Roman Catholic” to this Baptist.

In His Grace and Peace,
T. D. Webb

Elizabeth said...

Tim Rogers,
We have had a few exchanges on SBC Outpost and in all of your responses to me you call me "Sister." Since you asked that question of Wade at the end of your post, I can't help but wonder now if you weren't using this in a sarcastic manner. At first, I thought it was being kind, now I'm not so sure.

tim rogers said...

Brother Wade,

Censorship? The video is available and easily accesible just by calling SWBTS and requesting a copy.

Discredit? If Cornerstone Baptist believes what Rev. McKissic teaches, no. However, if Cornerstone Baptist does not believe that and the Pastor has never taught that before, then, yes it is harmful to the church.

Marginalization? This is a quote from an ABP interview that Rev. McKissic gave. "He has not in any way indicated that he has issues with what I have to say," he said.

He noted that he had lunch with Patterson and his wife, Dorothy, following the chapel service. "I love Dr. Patterson, Dr. Patterson loves me, we had rich fellowship today," he said. "If they had a problem with it [the sermon], they didn't utter it to me at all."

How many speakers have you had at Emmanuel speak about how 5-point calvinisism could be the theological twin of fatalism? (Disclaimer--I do not believe this!) My point is when a speaker fills a pulpit, any opposing Biblical interpretations that are level two or three in the triage system, should never be spoken about. If you feel the Holy Spirit's leading to go in that direction, it should be spoken about with the host. Excuse me, but this is hospitality, plain and simple.

Wade, if I were to ask you to come and speak for me I would not expect you to come in speaking about how you believe the Bible teaches against drunkenness but not against abstainence. This is just respect for the host plain and simple.

While Rev. McKissic is free to believe what he taught and is free to preach it in his pulpit, he openly disrespected Dr. Patterson and the Professors at SWBTS.

IMHO,

Blessings,
Tim

ps I give the benefit of the doubt that you were not using Bro. in a sarcastic tone with me. I know we disagree, but let's not be disagreeable.

foxofbama said...

Here is more information for you Wade. Please inform Marty Duren
Barry Hankins Uneasy in Babylon and the testimony of Newman and Gushee on the Firm at SBTS which I read to be Pressler's Council for National Policy.
The www.faithinpubliclife.org blog and the exchange between Flick, Webb and Gourley's friend Prescott and my friend Randall Balmer.
Current American Prospect article by Peter STeinfels
I think it safe to say Mark Noll and Randall Balmer have found the SBC weighed in the balance and found wanting.
CBF and Alliance, all groups have their flaws, but you guys bringing up the rear of the aftermath of the Civil War--read Pearl's testimony in the great Doctorow's The March; yall got a Lost Cause if ever there was one.
But I do find some nobility in the wranglings of some of you and suffer a little in your struggle to Pilgrim out.
Have Mercy on Us All, as Eliza Gilkyson's prayer goes.

Matt Snowden said...

Wade,
Thanks for keeping us posted. This is all really sad to me.

davidinflorida said...

Dear Craig from georgia,.... I disagree with some of your interpretation of the Scripture. I guess this means that I will cut you down, call you a heretic and limit anything you say at my house off of streaming video......My main point was the WEDGE issue....Thanks for the reply

tim rogers said...

Sister Elizabeth,

Read Wade's comments to others, then to me. With all others he clearly states his point, with me it is "alrighty then" and in the middle of a statement it is "Bro. Tim". Read my comments, each one begins with either Brother or Sister.

By no means am I being sarcastic with the statement. I do have reasons for stating that to Brother Wade. However, you will notice that I give him the benefit of the doubt, I just wanted to make sure, thus the statement.

Blessings,
Tim

Elizabeth said...

Tim Rogers,
Thank you for your clarification.

swbts student said...

t.d. webb said:
"The distinct difference is that this is Wade Burleson's blog. Conversely, Dr. Paige Patterson and company do not "own" the SWBTS . . .or do they?"

Dr. Patterson himself has said many times in chapel that the Seminary belongs to all members of Southern Baptist Churches.

Les Puryear said...

Wade,

It sounds like this strikes too "close to home" for you. I guess you do have that filter that you said you didn't have.

Why do you think McKissick took that occasion to address a "hot topic" issue? Was he trying to embarrass Page? I wonder what he thought would happen? I can't believe that he honestly thought criticizing the IMB board would be edifying. There are proper times and places for criticism and chapel service is not it.

A former SWBTSer,

Les

jthomas899 said...

TD you are correct that Dr. Patterson doesn't own the SWBTS, but he is the President, and He has been given authority to overseer it. So, he does have the right to do what he things is best. In essence it is his "blog."

If he brought in a stripper for chapel, people would be outrage and hold him accountable. The difference is the same.

Jeff

Roger Simpson said...

Setting aside the argument on whether the decision to not put the streaming video of the chapel address up on the internet is right or wrong, I have a question regarding Rev. McKissic's intrepretation of tongues as "ecstatic utterance".

I don't know much about "speaking in tongues". I have never "spoken in tongues".

However, to me "tongues" as commonly understood and "ecstatic utterance" are saying the same thing. If "tongues" is not an "ecstatic utterance" then what is it, a "non-esctatic utterance?"

Regardless of a person's position on "tongues" I think most would agree that "tongues" and "ecstatic utterance" is using different words for the same thing.

So what's the big deal!

davidinflorida said...

Dear jthomas899, Let me get this right, your saying that having Pastor McKissic as a guest speaker at the SWBTS is the same as having a stripper as a guest speaker? HUH ???

RM said...

Writing the trustees is the only thing that will work when it comes to SWBTS and Paige Patterson. I just heard from the President's office and here is the Chairman of the Trustees email:

Dr. T. Van McClain
vmcclain@nycap.rr.com

Send him an email and share your opinions with him--I guarantee it will get results.

Wade Burleson said...

Disappointed Robin,

My computer says the author of the previous comment, you, removed it yourself. Innuendo is not good and I just needed to clarify that you removed it and nobody else which your statement seems to imply.

Thank you for reminding us of the Memphis Declaration.

Unlike you, I believe Article 5 is being lived out in a very gracious manner by confronting wrong doing without disparaging the wrong doers.

Blessings to you. Believing you to be a man who longs for personal integrity we will miss your comments on this blog.

However, if you choose to change your mind, I remind you that you are always welcome here, as long as you do not personally disparage individuals, and I believe that everyone who disagrees with is written on this blog ADDS to the conversation, and does not detract.

By the way, you come close to disparaging Dr. McKissic yourself by questioning his motives, but I trust your heart is in the right place.

In His Grace,


Wade

Wade Burleson said...

Les,

You are speaking in riddles that I don't understand.

Comment moderation is turned off.

I am in a cafe in OKC waiting for my next appointment.

It would help if you could be more specific and I would answer you directly.

irreverend fox said...

I can't believe that SWBTS is having a guest stripper in chapel next week!

Wade Burleson said...

Tim,

I appreciate your giving me the benefit of the doubt. I do not intend to offend you by calling you Bro. Tim and will not do that again.

Wade

jthomas899 said...

Davidinflorida, I didn't say it was the same. reread it again. Read the context. Read TD's post.

The point was Dr. Patterson's rigth to do what he desires to do because he has been given authority to run the Seminary.

Jeff

Wade Burleson said...

Well, off to my next appointment.

No more responses from me till tonight.

However, I leave you with the following comment about the SWBTS chapel service.

It comes from my father who made this comment on another blog --- I wish I had half his brains:

"Whether or not you call it censorship, you have to call it bad judgement IMHO. And maybe even a caution flag to to all of us.

In my 40 years of pastoring I’ve had numerous preachers make statements about lessor theological issues [not speaking here of salvific issues] with which I disagreed. But since I had NOT given him a list of can/cannot positions he would assume he was free to share what he saw as truth. A correct assumption I might add.

Now, granted I might want a different position to be weighted in the balance of things, so, there is nothing wrong in saying…”we hold a little different position and encourage you to search the Sciptures to see what they say about it.”

Or, “the view heard today about one little point of theology does not represent the position of most on the faculty [in church context, staff] here. I’m not sure how he could say ALL, surely not, how could he know?

Or even, have a chapel service to present the other side. That is what I usually did. A service some time later would be devoted to presenting the other position. [Mine]

But I would NEVER make a judgement that what I believed differently than the speaker should be said to “harm” churches. That would make a Calvinist unable to use the word “election” or an Arminian unable to use the word “freewill” or an Kingdom /Church guy unable to use the phrase The Church” or the Landmark unable to use the phrase “the churches” [I believe in both] all for fear of overstepping a line of accepted truth and the message not being treated as others and judged “harmful”. Add to that all the other areas where we might not see eye-to-eye. That, in my opinion, is the knee-jerk reaction.

I may be wrong here, but something troubles me about this. I know it is a Seminary [I pastored 3 minutes from that Seminary for seven years and know the responsibility of teaching the scriptures to a student body] but I would be troubled by this even in a local church.

Thanks for hearing my thoughts on it. This is not a personal issue or offense with me, otherwise I would, of necessity, write an e-mail to SWBTS before conversing. It is just a public action with which I disagree and response to words spoken by you about it.


Paul

Kevin Bussey said...

Wade,

There is a lot of wisdom in your family!

Elizabeth said...

We have to deal with same kind of "group think" in the media all of the time in our country. If we want both sides of the story, we must go search for it (online or through other news sources). Maybe not necessarily total censorship, yet still a group of people who "will decide what we need to hear."

Yes, the sermon will be available for ordering for a price. But all of the "approved" sermons can be listened to immediately, I assume, for free. We have someone deciding what is "harmful" for our churches to hear. Are we so spiritually ignorant that we can't trust the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth?

sbc pastor said...

Wade,

I assume that you missed my earlier comment and question:

SWBTS broadcasted McKissick’s sermon via live video streaming on the web and it will be made available for purchase. However, they did not deem it appropriate to publish the sermon on their website because of a comment that was critical of a decision made by the IMB’s Board of Trustees – the IMB is an entity of the SBC.

Thus, their public statement: “While Southwestern does not instruct its chapel speakers about what they can or cannot say, neither do we feel that there is wisdom in posting materials online which could place us in a position of appearing to be critical of actions of the Board of Trustees of a sister agency.”

I personally believe that SWBTS made a very wise decision. Do you personally believe that it would be appropriate for SWBTS to post any material whatsoever on its official seminary website that directly criticizes another SBC entity?

Thanks in advance for your answer and God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

Alycelee said...

Talk about "filters" and agenda's, I wish we could speak on the topic at hand.
Reading regular bloggers, there are some who blog here who wouldn't agree with Wade no matter what he said. In fact, they have blog sites devoted entirely to attacking him and what he is attempting to do.
Even to the less than regular reader here, it is obvious and therefore makes these post less than reliable since they are so obviously biased.

Do things need to be shaken up regardless of SBC protocol? Is God the author of the shaking or are we to sit in our sterile little churches and nod and agree with everything we here that come down the pike from the SBC powers that be?
Who tells me what to think, what to believe, and now what I can listen to and more importantly, (what I believe Wade is working toward) who I can accept in real "koinonia"? ( and thus who can be involved in leadership areas in SBC life)
There is only one in power, in the church, in the seminaries, in the world. We answer to Him alone.
This wind that is blowing is by the power of the Holy Spirit, resist it if you dare, but it's coming in all power and glory.
How marvelous is God!

SBC Layman said...

Back to Wade's initial reason for posting. The persons and subject involved are immaterial and better left out of the responses.

The question is about information and biblical opinions and should we fear those that are in disagreement with our own. Furthermore, should we censure what members in our church hear regarding biblical interpretation.

The answer is no. Divergent and diverse opinions provide the encouragement and motivation for believers to study the Word of God for themselves with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then to determine what and why we believe what we do.

Many rant about the lack of biblical literacy in our churches. Maybe that's because we as teachers don't provide both sides of an issue and allow our brothers and sisters to wrestle with God's Word on their own

Grace to all,
Troy

Bro. Robin said...

Bro. Wade

Let me clarify what you thought I ment in my last comment.

First, my statement about an electronical mishap was not an inuuendo concerning you removing the post. I know you did not have access to the internet since you reported you were traveling to OKC. I was only giving the benefit of the doubt. I pray you can do the same with me and understand that I was not alluding to you removing the comment. Frankly, I don't even know how I can remove my comments. I feel you have been always fair in the past and did not believe you were being unfair now.

Second, When I stated that, "I am not going to comment any further on this." I meant on this subject concerning SWBTS, Pastor McKissic, and the decision to hold the video from the internet.

You can't get rid of me that easy. LOL

Again, I do feel disappointed about the way things have turned out on this issue, but I appreciate your insight and hope to hear from you again. I hold you in high regard as a brother in Christ. For a further explanation of why I am disappointed visit my post,
http://fromthehill.wordpress.com/2006/08/28/what-we-are-facing/ .

BTW, I understand your dilemma, so many meetings, so little time.

God Bless

Bro. Robin

craig from Georgia said...

"Dear Craig from georgia,.... I disagree with some of your interpretation of the Scripture."

I didn't give any interpretation. I just told you what the Bible says. Rule number one is you've got to believe the Bible is the Word of God. Rule number two is what does the Bible say (What saith the scripture?...Romans 4:3)
You'll never know what the Bible means until you know what it says. This is so elementary yet we all stumble at this point. Meaning and interpretation is irrelevant until you know what the Bible says. Often the Bible "means" just exactly what it "says". Once you know what it says, and you still don't know what it means then you start looking at things like studying the the context and comparing scripture with scripture. Don't read your theology into the Bible; let the Bible dictate theology to you. The Bible says much about prayer, but nothing about private prayer language. In the light of the whole of NT teaching, particularly the Pauline epistles there is no more reason for tongues and there never were private prayer languages.

Signs were for the Jews. (1 Corinthians 1:22)

davidinflorida said...

Dear Craig from Georgia, For a while there I thought you were different, but now I see. If someone agrees exactly with your interpretation of the Bible then they are OK.....If they dont agree with you, then they arent reading the Bible correctly.....Where have I heard this before???.....So then, is our new SBC president reading the Bible correctly or incorrectly when he says that Calvinism is a false teaching????

psmpastor said...

I will bet that you will find that censorship was not imposed when the criticism was agreed with by Dr. Paterson.

v domus said...

Craig form Gorgia

Where does the Bible declare itself as the only rule for faith and doctrine? Shouldn't it somewhere say this so that all faith matters can be made clear?

GeneMBridges said...

I personally believe that SWBTS made a very wise decision. Do you personally believe that it would be appropriate for SWBTS to post any material whatsoever on its official seminary website that directly criticizes another SBC entity?

They are free to post or not post what they see fit to post or not post. On this, I agree with SWBTS.

However, if this is their reasoning, then it is problematic, because this reason is a two-way street, and they've only sent up a red flag that many will keep filed away for future reference.

If the shoe is one day on the other foot, and another speaker criticizes, say, Calvinism and then discusses "certain seminaries" (which is codespeak for SBTS when that issue arises), and they then post that material, then they'll have posted criticism of a sister instituition on their website. That's just one issue. Any issue and any SBC entity could be in view.

Likewise, sister institutions can become corrupt for whatever reasons, theological or otherwise. If this logic had been followed in the days when the current majority party was in the minority in the SBC, then somehow, I don't think those in that minority would be very happy with this line of reasoning.

When we do this, it sets a precedent that if you don't agree with every jot and tittle, and we perceive it to be "damaging" to the churches, then we can censor it. But who, pray tell, gets to set that standard? This is, incidentally, the same sort of thing that the Reformers faced from Rome. In those days, they just burned the books. One is reminded of the days of Emperor Decius and Emperor Valerian. They and their lackeys burned the Scriptures themselves.

In both instances, it did not quell the problem. It only made it worse for those doing the censoring. If you want to keep something underground, you do not censor it. That only makes martyrs. The blood of the martyrs cements the foundation of the church.

Why do you think McKissick took that occasion to address a "hot topic" issue? Was he trying to embarrass Page? I wonder what he thought would happen? Before I even asked these questions, I'd take a long look at 1 Cor. 4:4 - 5.

I can't believe that he honestly thought criticizing the IMB board would be edifying. There are proper times and places for criticism and chapel service is not it.

Why is it that when these sorts of things happen, that folks talk about "proper times and places" but then never tell us what they are, and when they do tell us the lists never match? Oh well.

Incidentally, we have to admire Brother McKissick for calling something out from the pulpit in a specific manner. At least nobody can lay Proverbs 27:5-6 at his feet. We know where he stands, and, whether we agree with him or not, he should be commended for sticking to his convictions.

How many speakers have you had at Emmanuel speak about how 5-point calvinisism could be the theological twin of fatalism? (Disclaimer--I do not believe this!) My point is when a speaker fills a pulpit, any opposing Biblical interpretations that are level two or three in the triage system, should never be spoken about. If you feel the Holy Spirit's leading to go in that direction, it should be spoken about with the host. Excuse me, but this is hospitality, plain and simple.

I can't speak for Emmanuel, but I can speak for my church. I can assure you that he would actually be questioned by the audience on these matters after his sermon during question and answer. Perhaps what is required isn't a chat with the host but interaction with the audience. If a man is going to contradict the doctrine of a local church, or in this case argue a position on a controversial issue from the pulpit of a chapel, then he and his audience should be given the chance to interact after his presentation. Incidentally, that's what a seminary ought to be doing, since that's one of the purposes of the academic envirnonment. Speaking for my church, every person that occupies the pulpit or the lecturn is also required to answer questions and comments from those in attendance, resident pastor, teacher or guest. It keeps them all accountable to the Word of God and to each other. Perhaps we would do less service to the cult of personality (see the other thread) in the SBC if the churches of the SBC held their pastors and teachers accountable for their lessons through such regularinteraction. Likewise, we use this as an opportunity to examine the congregation to see what they understood from the sermons and lessons, so it's a two way street, and we are an elder led congregation to boot. In this respect, it strikes me as far more "congregational" than most churches.

GeneMBridges said...

Where does the Bible declare itself as the only rule for faith and doctrine? Shouldn't it somewhere say this so that all faith matters can be made clear?

The definition of Sola Scriptura is that the Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith (doctrine/orthodoxy) and practice (orthopraxy), not that it is the only rule of faith and practice. We may hold to other sources but they are not infallible and must be subjected to Scripture. So, it strikes me that before you go further, we need to be clear on this much.

The typical Protestant response to your question is 2 Tim 3:16 - 17.

Of course, what will follow from that is that this text does not teach sufficiency, a classic Romanist view. There is, of course, a vast apologetic set of works on this. See here: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold
/articles/topic/scripture.html

You have two choices: Sola Scriptura or Sola Ecclesia. Take your pick.

craig from Georgia said...

"davidinflorida said...
Dear Craig from Georgia, For a while there I thought you were different, but now I see. If someone agrees exactly with your interpretation"

David
I must be missing something here. As I stated earlier I didn't give my interpretation. I simply relayed to you what the Bible says did I not? You don't have an issue with me, you have an issue with the Bible. It's not about me and my opinions and interpretations versus yours. The Bible gives much instruction about prayer, but says nothing about a private prayer language. Anything that causes a person to disengage their mind whether it be gibberish (popularly called speaking in tongues), private prayer languages, contemplative prayer...etc are unscriptural and dangerous. Our minds are to be actively engaged in the truth of the Word. Private prayer language is a major issue that must be addressed because it is not spoken of in Scripture so why would anyone want to engage in it?

"is our new SBC president reading the Bible correctly or incorrectly when he says that Calvinism is a false teaching????"

Go back and read my post. I said first you see what the Bible says, then if you still do not understand the passage you study the context and compare scripture with scripture. There's certainly nothing wrong with consulting commentaries and such but in the end its up to each person to be a Berean (Acts 17:11). The Bible doesn't say or teach anything about private prayer languages. BTW I would agree with Dr. Page.

"Where does the Bible declare itself as the only rule for faith and doctrine?"

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

What authority would be higher than Scripture? God has inspired and preserved His Word so that anyone, even the most common ordinary person such as myself can know Him and His will.

Pastor Brett said...

Craig,

Twice now on this blog you have accused David of not accepting what the Bible teaches, and twice you have said that you are not interpreting. I believe I am far from being in the minority in suggesting that you may want to rethink your wording.

On the one hand you write...

I didn't give any interpretation. I just told you what the Bible says. Rule number one is you've got to believe the Bible is the Word of God. Rule number two is what does the Bible say (What saith the scripture?...Romans 4:3)
You'll never know what the Bible means until you know what it says. This is so elementary yet we all stumble at this point. Meaning and interpretation is irrelevant until you know what the Bible says.


And then on the other hand...

The Bible says much about prayer, but nothing about private prayer language. In the light of the whole of NT teaching, particularly the Pauline epistles there is no more reason for tongues and there never were private prayer languages.

Please practice what you are preaching by providing Scriptural references for the things you allege that the Bible says. Where does Paul say that tongues are no longer needed? I've yet to read that verse. If you think 1 Cor. 13.8-10, then I assume you think that the "perfect" refers to the closing of the canon. Maybe, but it's a interpretation. More scholars throughout church history think it refers to the Parouisa.

Concerning private prayer languages... consider 1 Cor. 14.28, "...but if there is no intepreter...let him speak to himself and to God." Sounds private to me.

Unless the Bible explicitly teaches your position, you are interpreting. If you are interpreting, please don't speak to your brothers in Christ as if they are simply ignoring what the Bible says. I hope and expect that is not what you intended.

Again, my challenge: show us clear and unambiguously where the Bible says that there are no private prayer languages and that there is no more need for tongues.

I do not speak in tongues so I'm not out to defend tongues. I simply hate to see it when a brother starts confusing textual obsevation with textual interpretation.

Sorry, Wade, for the digression from the topic at hand.

Matt Brady said...

Wade,

I can't help but wonder...Did you know ahead of time that McKissack's message would deal with this private prayer language issue? Is that why you were tuned in?

I hope that you can assure me that I am wrong, but it appears that McKissack was intentionally trying to stir the water and let others know so that they would be watching.

Again, I hope that I am misreading this, but it continues to appear to me that some of those who claim to be against divisiveness are the very ones that are looking for a fight.

davidinflorida said...

Its official, We now have in our midst someone who reads the Bible with perfect clearity that no person has had since Jesus Christ walked the earth....no more need for this blog Wade , if your not sure of your understanding of all Scripture just ask Craig from Georgia.......

Stephen Pruett said...

colinm, robin, and tim
Normally I would agree with you on respecting your host. However, please keep in mind that there is a third group out there. There is the speaker, the host, and the otherwise fully qualified and God-called missionaries who are not serving in the IMB because of their private prayer language. They have no power or influence, but they are IMO being seriously wronged as are regular SBC members like me who expect their tithes and offerings to be used to put these folks on the field. It is entirely appropriate to speak to the host when the power structures have failed and refused (thus far) to address the problem. It is a simple biblical matter of speaking up for the oppressed. I would have thought that Dr. Patterson was a grown up adult and could defend his positions well enough to not fear a single dissenting voice. Maybe I am wrong?

v domus said...

genembridges,

How about I Tim 3:15? It seems the Church's role as "pillar and foundation of the truth" should get some serious play, but it is seldom cited.

Lee said...

According to the press statement, President Patterson made a speech in chapel last spring regarding this issue and commended the students to follow the teaching in a book by a former charismatic pastor. In other words, he has spoken on the issue and it is final. I don't think the President of Southwestern Seminary would have exercized that kind of authority, and gotten away with it, when I was a student there between 1987 and 1989.

You might suggest to your father how profitable it might be for him to become a consultant to pastors and church staff and share some of the wisdom he has gathered from his ministry experience. He is very, very wise and perceptive. So, at what point did you realize that he knew exactly what he was talking about?

jthomas899 said...

Makes you wonder what Wade knows. I was big supporter of Wade's and depended him to several friends but the more I read on his blog---the more I see he is no diff than those he criticizes. I think most of the people I read on her are just moderatoes who lost the battle.

Many have forgotten how horrible they treated dissenters in the past.

Wade Burleson said...

Matt,

A very weird question.

The answer is an emphatic no.

I wonder when someone is going to allege I orchestrated the shooting of JFK --- at the age of two.

Wade Burleson said...

jthomas899,

It is because of you, my friend, that I will stay in the SBC as a conservative evangelical to hold you and others accountable for baseless, disparaging, and totally unedifying comments like yours above.

I look forward to meeting you one day, but until then, I would urge you to please be careful with your comments.

jthomas899 said...

Wade, Show me how my post was baseless?

Please proof me wrong
Jeff

Wade Burleson said...

SBC Pastor,

It is duplicitous for a statement to be made about not wanting to criticize a sister agency, when an uproar occurred two and a half years ago, with continuing repurcussions within the IMB Board of Trustees, BECAUSE the President of a sister agency criticized the IMB --- the same President who now says he does not want this type of thing to happen.

If there were an apology for his past behavior, and an affirmation of Dr. Rankin by Dr. Patterson, then I would be a little more understanding of what happened yesterday. I discussed this with Dr. Patterson via email several months ago.

I still would say censuring Dr. McKissic yesterday was a mistake, but I would at least appreciate the attempt to be consistent.

I think we should hold people accountable to be consistent and compassionate in conduct. Period.

Wade Burleson said...

jthomas899,

I think most of the people I read on her are just (sic) moderatoes who lost the battle.

Case closed.

jthomas899 said...

Wade, I don't see that as proof,that's just my opinion, and afterall my opinion is just as valid as anyother opinion. Notice you didn't come down to hard on the Florida dude who is own your side...I say that's sorta censorship. I'll drop this issue because I can see that most on here aren't interested in dialogue with diff views.

Wade Burleson said...

jthomas,

No problem. We'll see you later.

Remember, you are always welcome as long as you don't disparage individuals.

Discuss the issues, but keep the personal attacks to yourself.

Stephen Pruett said...

JThomas, I love exchanging views with people with whom I do not agree. In that spirit, what is it about the posts here that convinces you that these folks are moderates who lost the battle? Just so you will know, I am not a moderate and I cannot lose this battle because I do not work for the SBC or serve on any of its boards. Unless we get to the point where "accountability" (meaning forced adherance to a particular disputable interpretaition on non-essential doctrines) is forced on local churches, I am not worried about getting the boot because my pastor values what I do.

Wade Burleson said...

Bro. Robin,

Very gracious post.

Thank you.

Blessings to you as well.

Wade

P.S. By the way, it looks like you may have accidently posted a comment on my post previous to this one.

That may have been where your mysterious disappearing post ended up. That happens to me quite a bit.

Again, blessings to you.

Matt Brady said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sbc pastor said...

Wade,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. However, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. Drs. Patterson and Eitel stated their concerns via personal correspondence whereas Dr. McKissic stated his concerns in a very public forum. Hence, it appears that the appropriate manner for him to have addressed his concerns would have been to do so privately instead of in the chapel of SWBTS. Please know that although I disagree with your conclusion, I do appreciate your willingness to dialogue on the matter. Thanks again and God bless!!!

In Christ,
JLG

Matt Brady said...

Wade,

My apologies. I certainly did not mean to equate the situation to a conspiracy theory along the lines of the JFK assassination. I’m sorry you took it that way.

Because of the IMB controversy, many people now associate you as perhaps the most recognized and vocal proponent (or at least acceptor) of private prayer languages within the SBC. I don’t think that it was a great leap (or as you said “weird”) to think that you might have been expecting McKissic to bring up the volatile issue and thus your reason for watching.

I clearly admitted in my comment that, I could be completely misreading the situation. I was certainly assuming, but I chose to go to the source and ask. I appreciate your quick response.

Wade Burleson said...

SBC Pastor,

Thank you for your articulate post.

I respectfully disagree about the private correspondence for multiple reasons.

(1). It was mailed to at least 100 people, including all 89 trustees, hardly private.

(2). I was not on the BOT at the time, but I received a copy from someone NOT on the board when they heard I had been nominated and BEFORE I even attended my first meeting --- they were asking about the letter.

(3). The letter did not originate in a hollow environment. One must ask, "Why was the letter sent? For what purpose?" After over a year and a half of interaction with BOT members, past and present, I think I know the answer --- and it sure was not something intended to be done privately.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment, but again, I appreciate your gracious and articulate comment.

Blessings,

wade

T. D. Webb said...

Swbts student said, “Dr. Patterson himself has said many times in chapel that the Seminary belongs to all members of Southern Baptist Churches.”

Dr. Patterson’s actions speak volumes in themselves. . .which make his words in this case ring somewhat hollow. The “authority” he is given by the SBC does not include being the nucleus of an SBC Magisterium, which stifles dissent and shuns the dissenter. Pastor McKissic did not disparage anyone or any group within the IMB BoT. He did not insult or personally attack Dr. Paige Patterson. Conversely, Pastor McKissic merely expressed a dissenting view regarding a policy the IMB BoT has imposed on Missionary candidates being sent out by the SBC agency. If the expression of disagreement with any doctrine or policy of a SBC agency board of trustees or a SBC institution’s president is out of order, we should not criticize Roman Catholic doctrine that affirms the infallibility of the Pope or the Magisterium of the RCC.

Jthomas899 said, “TD you are correct that Dr. Patterson doesn't own the SWBTS, but he is the President, and He has been given authority to overseer (sic) it. So, he does have the right to do what he things (sic) is best. In essence it is his "blog."

Well, you got me there, jthomas899 . . . Until now this Okie never thought of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary being Dr. Paige Patterson’s personal “blog” to do with as he wishes. Moreover, your assertion that, as “overseer”, Dr. Patterson is “authorized” by the SBC to “do what he things (sic) is best” . . . including suppression of information which does not conform to doctrines he thinks are correct, or are incongruent with what he assesses popular SBC current thinking to be. . .very curious, indeed. In the meantime, please excuuuuse this Okie for thinking that Dr. Patterson was censoring anyone. (Eyes roll . . .)

In His Grace and Peace,
T. D. Webb

A 10-40 Window Missionary said...

JTHOMAS 899,

You said, "If he brought in a stripper for chapel, people would be outrage and hold him accountable. The difference is the same."

But, maybe if a stripper were brought in, enrollment might start to approach what it was under Dr. Dilday.

Sorry, I could not resist...

martyduren said...

Matt Brady-
That accusation is absolutely the most laughable thing I have ever read. Funnier than The Far Side even. Wade knew in advance what was going to be preached so he could blog it...man, please.

I was driving in my car when a friend called and told me about it, but I couldn't get to a computer to watch the streaming video. Maybe he, too, was tipped off by McKissic as to the content. Maybe the moon is made out of green cheese.

Maybe you ought to call Oliver Stone.

Jeff Thomas-
Good to see you resurfacing. Not good to see the position you are taking. Dr. Patterson has been given the responsibility to steward his leadership of the seminary, but he is answerable to the trustee body. It is not, or at least isn't supposed to be, and autocratic rule.

jthomas899 said...

Hi Marty, (forgive the personal note that follows) I have been "underground" for the last few months. The Lord has graciously called me to a new church which keeps me busy. I am a frequent visitor to your blog.

Marty, As you know I have been a supporter of Wade's battle with the IMB Board---In fact I had plans for the convention but I could bear the financial burden at that point.

Concerning your comments about Patterson, I don't see him as an autocratic ruler, but as the President who cannot report to the trustees concerning every single decision.

It is this type of reaction by Wade and others that have caused me to rethink my support.

It "appears" that they take great delight in nailing Patterson to the wall.

Marty, I'll try and email you off list and give a more personal update.

Jeff

martyduren said...

Jeff-
Awesome; I look forward to hearing from you again.

martyduren said...

Jeff-
Also, I don't think Dr Patterson, or any other president, should have to "report in" to the trustees on each and every decision. You and I agree there.

I was speaking in generalities to your specifities. My bad.

martyduren said...

*sigh* specificities

TruthOfActs said...

To Craig from Georgia,
(Mark 3:28-29 Old Living Bible) “I solemnly declare that any sin of man can be forgiven, even blasphemy against me; but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven. It is an eternal sin. He told them this because they were saying he did his miracles by Satan’s power [instead of acknowledging it was by the Holy Spirit’s power].”

(Holman Bible) “I assure you: People will be forgiven for all sins and whatever blasphemies they may blaspheme. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin—because they were saying, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’”

Craig, if you were like me, we were taught that ‘blaspheming against the Holy Spirit was a lifetime of rejecting Christ’, and that is true; but this Scripture says/means—there is also another way to blaspheme the Holy Spirit—right?
Christ said these men had committed a sin that would never be forgiven when they said the ability of Jesus was not of God.

What is the difference in what they did compared to the IMB declaring the ability to have a ‘private prayer language’ is not of God? I still say it is SCARY!
Craig, you asked, “Where is a private prayer language in the Bible?”
I’m sorry I responded so late, but I only read your comment today, which makes your question easy to answer as Dr. McKissic answered it better than I in Wade’s post yesterday.
Thank you for your calm honest questions.
Rex Ray