Trustee McKissic endorses prayer tongue during chapel sermon at Southwestern

Dr. Patterson and the SWBTS administration better hope they are right. If they aren't, they've come dangerously close to saying that the Holy Spirit is harmful to churches.

 

Pastor McKissic's footnotes to his letter to Paige

Attached Notes:
A. In Reference to the Gift of Tongues and a Private Prayer Language
Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
What do we conclude? The apostle Paul clearly said “Do not forbid to speak in tongues”. “It would be a mistake for evangelicals to forbid others to speak in tongues” [1]
In a chapel service Dr. Paige Patterson stated there are two major approaches to the tongues doctrine. The first option is to hold that the concept of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is the same as that in Acts 2. The second option is to say that the Corinthian text refers to tongues as a “rush of indeterminate sounds for the purpose of praising God and for self-edification.”[2]
First Corinthians 14 provides evidence for private prayer languages, Patterson said. However, Paul says that this practice leaves the mind out of prayer, and he would rather pray with the mind.[3]
Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention
“Page cited 1 Corinthians 14 as a passage which may be interpreted to permit a private prayer language, while noting that he does not personally have a private prayer language.”[4]
Billy Graham is another Southern Baptist who has recommended tongues and charismatic signs and wonders. In his 1978 book, The Holy Spirit, he “endorsed laying on of hands, divine healing and tongues.” He said: “As we approach the end of the age I believe we will see a dramatic recurrence of signs and wonders, which will demonstrate the power of God to a skeptical world.”[5]
“Speaking in tongues is Holy Spirit inspired utterance that is unintelligible apart from interpretation, which itself is an attendant gift. It is a form of ecstatic utterance. The glossolist speaks to God rather than from God.”[6]
“Here was Paul’s consistent estimate regarding the relative values of these speaking gifts: prophesy was to be desired earnestly whereas speaking in tongues was simply not to be forbidden.”[7]
“Are we now going to set a policy that says if God in his sovereignty gives someone a prayer language, we are now going to disqualify them?” says Rick White, pastor of the 6,000 member Baptist-affiliated People’s Church in Franklin, Tenn. “My concern is, who’s next?” [8]
Recently, Kenneth S. Hemphill former president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote “Paul viewed ecstatic experiences as a very personal occurrence which were of value to the individual, but not for the church as a whole.”[9]
B. In Regards to the Policies of IMB and SBC
Timothy George states “many Baptists sense a kind of ghetto-ization of the Convention: an unhealthy and occasionally bizarre isolationist and sectarian-minded tightening of the boundaries on secondary issues (i.e., the IMB and ‘private prayer languages’). Were the phrase not used ad nauseum, I might be tempted to suggest that there are a number of conflicting paradigms within the Convention and that these conflicting paradigms are evident in the struggle over these secondary issues.”[10]
Timothy George continues “Very few Southern Baptists engage in speaking in tongues or other Pentecostal practices. But the charismatic movement has influenced Baptist life in music, worship, and spirituality, including distinctive forms of prayer. Occasionally, congregations have been ousted from Baptist associations over charismatic issues. But recent efforts to exclude from missionary appointment all who have a ‘private prayer languag’Â seemed to many ordinary Baptists both intrusive and unnecessary. As one person said to me, ‘If we are serious about sharing the gospel around the world, shouldn’t we be glad that we still have missionaries who pray rather than setting up a bureau of prayer inspectors!’”[11]
Right. The overall impression I get from talking to my peers (mainly younger pastors) is outright confusion: “Why are they doing this? What are they thinking?” Furthermore, the IMB Board of Trustee’s rejection of those who practice a “private prayer language” is especially egregious given that Jerry Rankin, President of the IMB, is on record as saying that he practices a private prayer language. Furthermore, the overall dissatisfaction with this odd stance of the IMB trustees can perhaps be seen in the fact that Jerry Sutton, who favored a formal denunciation of private prayer languages, received the fewest number of votes of the three Presidential candidates in Greensboro , NC . There is a word our Convention needs to learn: adiophora.[12]
I concur with Joyce Rogers the wife of the late Adrian Rogers.
“Adrian Rogers would not have been a part of what is going on in some parts of our convention today, getting narrower and narrower about very highly interpretive issues,” “He would try to convince you of his view, but not to exclude you from service and fellowship, or to prevent you from going around the world with Southern Baptists to share the Gospel if you disagreed on these controversial issues,” Rogers said. “And I challenge you on his behalf to graciously work for unity in the body of Christ.”[13]
The seventeenth century English Nonconformist Richard Baxter is believed to have said (quoting Augustine) regarding adiaphora:
“In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity.”
Adiaphoron, pl. -a (Ancient Greek [lost font type]¡ “indifferent things”; German “Mitteldinge” “middle matters”) refers to matters not regarded as essential to faith, but are nevertheless permissible for Christians or allowed in church. What is specifically considered adiaphora depends on the specific theology in view.
New Testament examples of adiaphora are often cited from Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians. Some of this epistle was written in response to a question from the Corinthian Christians regarding whether it was permissible for a Christian to eat food offered to idols. In response, Paul replied:
… food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. (1 Corinthians 8:8-9 New International Version)
However, upon study of several other Pauline passages ones sees that Paul is not necessarily saying that there are such things as adiaphora. Elsewhere he says:
And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Colossians 3:17 New International Version)
The adiaphora are morally acceptable or unacceptable by the Christian God based upon the motive and end of the doer. In this sense there are no indifferent things.
The issue of what constituted adiaphora became a major dispute during the Protestant Reformation. In 1548, two years after the death of Martin Luther, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V tried to unite Catholics and Protestants in his realm with a law called the Augsburg Interim. This law was rejected by Philipp Melanchthon, on the account that it did not ensure justification by faith as a fundamental doctrine. Later he was persuaded to accept a compromise known as the Leipzig Interim, deciding that doctrinal differences not related to justification by faith were adiaphora or matters of indifference. Melanchthon’s compromise, however, was rejected by the majority of Lutherans led by Matthias Flacius.
In 1577, the Formula of Concord was crafted to settle the question of the nature of genuine adiaphora, which it defined as “church rites which are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God.” However, the Concord added believers should not yield even in matters of adiaphora when these are being forced upon them by the “enemies of God’s Word”.
The Lutheran Confessio Augustana (Augsburg Confession) states that the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike.
Calvinists, especially those who subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith (see WCF 1.6, 21.1), distinguish between the elements or acts of worship as such (worship proper), and those things which are circa sacra, that is, the circumstances of worship. The elements of worship must be limited to what has positive warrant in Scripture. This is known as the regulative principle.
The circumstances of worship are adiaphora, although they must be done for edification and to promote peace and order (Cf. 1 Corinthians 14: 26-33; Romans 14: 19). According to the Westminster Confession chapter 20, section 2, the conscience is left free in general belief and behavior within the realm of whatever is not “contrary to the Word”. However, specifically concerning worship and religious faith, the conscience is free from whatever is “besides” Scripture; that is, it is free to worship and believe only according to whatever has positive warrant in Scripture.
_______________________
[1] Dr. Paige Patterson. Chapel Service at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
April 4, 2006
[2] Ibid
[3] Dr. Paige Patterson. Chapel Service at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
April 4, 2006
[4] James A. Smith Sr. Frank Page discusses SBC theological issues Florida Baptist Witness
[5] Graham, Billy. The Holy Spirit
[6] J.W. MacGorman. The Gifts of the Spirit: An Exposition of I Corinthians 12-14. pg 81
[7] J.W. MacGorman. The Gifts of the Spirit: An Exposition of I Corinthians 12-14. pg 88
[8] Anita Wadhiwani, The Tennesean, Proposed Ban on “tongues Prayer” divides Baptists. USA Today. 4/5/06
[9] Spiritual Gifts: Empowering the New Testament Church, pp 93,211
[10] Timothy George Timothy George on the Southern Baptist Convention: An Analysis Christian Culture July 26, 2006 @ 11:46 am
[11] Ibid
[12] Ibid
[13] The Ghost of Adrian Rogers weighs in. Article Insight Monday Morning June 15 2006

 

OK

I've put a bunch of data up there - we can now critique Pastor McKissic's sermon and letter to our hearts content - we can deal with specifics and not generalities

 

I found nothing in McKissic's sermon or letter objectionable. In fact, I think he may have been a bit too gentle in his correspondence.

 

Noticed that line while doing quick scroll though thread.


Here is something for them to close on way out....

 

Uh oh...

The role of the seminaries nowadays is to train young minds to be like-minded, politically-reliable leaders. Examination of the history, ethics and theology of the alleged "conservative resurgence," the political/theological leadership, or SBC policies is strictly off-limits.

Anyone violating those standards is automatically a "moderate" or "liberal" and must be shunned and denegrated -- regardless of their actual theological views or moral character.

Thinking only gets people into trouble.

 

Can you point out, in Southwestern's statement of faith, where Dr. McKissic preached anything that was counter to the beliefs of the institution? Nothing he said violates any stated doctrinal position of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. If it did, then I would be advocating for Southwestern to get in line with the scripture, since Dr. McKissic clearly is.

 

what is most compelling about this latest censorship (and has been overwhelming noticeable over the past several years in the SBC)

had the conditions of repression currently forced upon students and ministers in our convention existed in the late-70s and through the 80s this conservative resurgence would never have happened.

I'm certain that Dr. Patterson et al preached a word contrary to "popular convention dogma" at the time yet was vital for the maintainence of a fine convention as we have today. Had these young, conservative preachers been censored and repressed as is happening daily in our current convention we would be at a very different place today denominationally than we are. We need equal voice and accessibility for conservation to occur. Religious liberty goes both ways.

 

Joseph,

Jack already asked the question I was going to ask.

Whether one agrees or not with McKissic's exegesis, interpretation, or position, I do not see how his statements are contrary to the institution's faith statement. He said nothing that contradicts anything in the inistitution's confessional statement, BFM2K. Nor has the seminary accused him of such.

Why do I imagine you'd have a different perspective if a chapel message was being "censored" for promoting Calvinism or amillenialism.

Folks,
Do not be misled. This isn't about continuationism vs. cessationism. Patterson himself has written books that do not claim a strict cessationist position. This is about the fact that he made a reference to the new IMB guidelines, which is...implicitly a shot at Patterson's meddling in IMB BoT affairs and his several-years-long attempt to get Rankin removed from his position as IMB president.

 

My concern is that the fight that S Baptist should have fought we did not fight.

We did not have a bunch of liberals. At least we did not in Texas. In fact, I have only met 'Southern' Baptists endorsing women as pastors since we had the takeover.

It is apparent that we had a bunch of charismatics. I do not think our churches can afford to fight another theology battle . . .

I am affraid that we fought the wrong type of fight and this will lead the Southern Baptist churches down a long road of infighting.

 

Patterson is president of Southwestern Seminary. Rankin is president of the International Mission Board. Both of those groups have their own trustees that are answerable to the SBC. What does Patterson have to do with the new IMB guidelines?

 

Then why doesn't the SBC amend the BFM to declare a cessationist position?

I long for clarity on this issue. If the SBC can be an open tent on this matter, then I'll stay, but if they are cessationist, I'll leave. I'm sick of this middle ground--we'll take your money but forget serving on the mission field or having anything to do with the convention.

These agencies need some integrity. If this issue is so "harmful to the churches," then the SBC needs to declare what it believes to be truth. If that means I cannot in good conscience remain SBC, then so be it.

P.S. I object to cessationism because I just don't see it biblically. I'm not on this quest to pentecostalize the SBC. I just don't see the biblical justification for a cessationist position.

 

I agree with your post. However, being old school SBC, I do not want to see us become bapticostal either.

But, you are correct - this should have been resolved in the BFM2k.

Wayne

 

What is the problem with someone having a private prayer languange anyway? It is none of my business how people pray and praise the Lord as long as they are worshipping the Lord. Some pray in the King James verison of languange; some prayer long prayers; others only short prayers; etc.

When Peter asked what would happen to John, Jesus answered: What is that to you? You must follow me. (John 21:20-23). If someone prays in a private prayer languange during his private devotions, what is that to me or to anyone else? Our concern should be are we following Christ.

 

That's exactly how I feel, drfuss.

 

yep yep,

seems that we've got a very small number in some SBC leadership that are constricting the definition of "good baptist" more and more. No doubt some definitions are needed; and some battles must be fought. But methinks we're crossing the line of "necessity" and meddling in the "preference" area...

Concerns me...

 

A few thoughts:

1. It is a control issue.
2. It is a smokescreen to give camouflage personality or political issues.
3. It is considered a warning sign of someone who may believe that they can experience God directly in prayer instead of only mediated through scripture.

 

Jack M,

His meddling in the affairs of other entities is fairly well known. Many IMB trustees are more loyal to him and his agenda than to Rankin. It is not a secret that he has never approved of Rankin's presidency or of "New Directions".

Why does one person fancy himself the sole arbiter of what is or isn't "good" for the convention as a whole, including its other entities over which he presumably has no control? I don't really know the answer. Perhaps it is a symptom of megalomania.

 

Southern Baptist? I never knew that man had it in him! Thank God he repented - I always did like his sermons.

OK - kidding aside - I grew up during the charismatic take overs of churches . . . and I do not want to see bapticostalism in our churches. I do not want to see our churches go through the pains they went through in the 1970's again . . . it devastated many churches . . . and left some deep scars in many church members.

Having said that, the Holy Spirit should be guiding 100% of our sermons and our churches.

And I think Pastor McKissic just has a lot more soul than most people give him credit for.