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.
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.
posted by Wade Burleson | Tuesday, August 29, 2006
153 Comments:
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
Who is in charge of communication @ SWBTS, Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf? info minister
I heard Dwight Mckissick's message. Quite an amazing event to witness. I am not surprised that it is not up.
This post has been removed by the author.
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?
Jeff Repass,
Could you give us your perspective on the message and why you are not surprised it is not up?
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?
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
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
Watch next week. Mark Howell is speaking. See how quickly it goes up.
Should be interesting
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.
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?
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."
:)
Know what censure does to me?
I called an ordered the dvd! :)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
And to the exclusion, I say amen
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?
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.
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.
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. 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.
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
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!
"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?
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.
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
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.
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.
This post has been removed by the author.
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
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. 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.
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
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 ?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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. 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.
This is so typical of Paige Patterson. Where do we call to order the DVD. I want one (or two)!
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
Cameron,
Where do you see this?
"SWBTS has stated that they feel this chapel message contains inappropriate criticism"
I can't find that anywhere?
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.
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
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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!
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
I for one support SWBTS decision to do this because it is their right, and because Mckissick's position has no biblical support.
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...
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".
All righty folks,
Let