Tuesday, August 29, 2006

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,


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.


Glen Alan 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?


Glen Woods

Kevin Bussey said...

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

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
wadeburleson.org said...


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?

wadeburleson.org said...

Jeff Repass,

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

RKSOKC66 said...


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?

wadeburleson.org said...


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.


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.

MediaDude 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?

wadeburleson.org 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! :)

Charlie Mac 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

RKSOKC66 said...


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.

Alycelee said...

And to the exclusion, I say amen

wadeburleson.org 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.

Bob Cleveland said...


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.


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.


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?

wadeburleson.org 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?


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.

Unknown 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!


Jeremy Green said...


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,

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.

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.

RM said...

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

Wayne Smith said...

This is P.P. way of handling these matters, when one speaks ill of a sister org. in the SBC. Copy and paste

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.

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...


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...

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.

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?

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.

Rex Ray said...

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...

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 4 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!

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...

wadeburleson.org 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
email: dshepherd@mabtsne.edu

wadeburleson.org 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.

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?


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.

wadeburleson.org said...


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.


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?

wadeburleson.org said...



wadeburleson.org 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.

wadeburleson.org said...

Off to OKC!

Stephanie 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 Dahl 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.


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?

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....

Mark said...

Blogs, the 21st Century printing press.

It's a good thing.


Tim Rogers said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
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.



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...

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.


Writer said...


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,


RKSOKC66 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

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

wadeburleson.org 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,


wadeburleson.org said...


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!

wadeburleson.org said...


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.


wadeburleson.org 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.


Kevin Bussey said...


There is a lot of wisdom in your family!

Jeremy Green said...


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,

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,

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????

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

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

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?

SigPres 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?

wadeburleson.org said...


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.

wadeburleson.org said...


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.

wadeburleson.org 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.

wadeburleson.org said...


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

Case closed.

wadeburleson.org said...


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.

wadeburleson.org said...

Bro. Robin,

Very gracious post.

Thank you.

Blessings to you as well.


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.

Jeremy Green said...


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,

wadeburleson.org 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.



Marty Duren 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.

Marty Duren said...

Awesome; I look forward to hearing from you again.

Marty Duren said...

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.

Marty Duren said...

*sigh* specificities

Rex Ray 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