I have not received a call back from the office of the President. Good thing I wasn’t holding my breath. ;)
SWBTS has put a statement on their website entitled, “Statement regarding Aug. 29 chapel.”
In this statement, the rational given for not releasing the video of today’s chapel service is that SWBTS did not think it wise to facilitate criticizing other SBC agencies.
Hello? Anybody at the wheel of this boat?
If SWBTS is governed by such a principle, which would indeed be a good one, the why did Dr. Patterson, as President of SWBTS, circulate to the IMB Board of Trustees Dr. Keith Eitel’s now infamous white paper called, Vision Assessment? You may recall, (if not, please click the link and read) that this paper undermines Dr. Rankin and the overall vision of the IMB as it currently stands. Talk about a violation of this policy!
You may note that the paper was written in 2003, when Dr. Eitel was at SEBTS. It was circulated, however, under the letterhead of Dr. Paige Patterson, as President of SWBTS. I am having an image of that cover letter scanned and sent to me tonight. It should be right here by tomorrow morning.
If, then, SWBTS acts on a principle of not criticizing other agencies, why is it selectively implemented by the President on others opposed to his views and not on himself? I think such a principle is a great idea. If only we could get those tauting it to abide by its dictates. I know a great many who would be happy – and more quiet – if they would.
Once again, the broad issue is Sufficiency, but the particulars have brought us back to the IMB and the PPL policy. Along with that, comes the Baptism guideline. Note that one is a policy and the other is still a guideline – but that does not change the way they are implemented. The way I understand it, both are strictly interpreted.
For those who may have thought that we have forgotten the IMB, that Wade’s pleas for us to not rise to his defense, the diverted motion at Greensboro and the rise of other issues have caused us to walk away from these two standards of non-cooperation, I assure you all: We have never forgotten them, nor will anyone else.
Frankly, the IMB is on the clock. Counting down to San Antonio, we are waiting for them to move. There is PLENTY that we can do if these things aren’t handled well, and quickly, internally.
I am going to say something here to which I have alluded during the SBC wrap up. Bobby Welch is the reason that the IMB and not the Executive Committee has Wade Burleson’s motion. He felt it important to give the IMB BOT a chance to deal with its own house. That’s fine, and I don’t begrudge that a minute. I did at first, but Wade was willing for the motion to go to the IMB and it was his motion.
While I have no personal knowledge or assurances (nor would I ask for such, nor would Dr. Page ever give such), I am confident that if the IMB does not tend to its house and tender a satisfactory report in San Antonio, Dr. Page will not stand in the way of the convention sending this to the EC.
If you don’t know what that means, you need to re-read what I have written about the EC. The poll that is up on the right of the screen? The answer, despite what many of you say, is the EC. I promise. They have the power and they execute their responsibilities. If this goes to the EC, change will be coming, as it has come this year already.
How’s that for turning the conversation back to SBC politics?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Wade Burleson
on Aug 29th, 2006
@ 6:03 pm:
Art,
Excellent analysis on consistency.
Wade
Kevin Bussey
on Aug 29th, 2006
@ 7:42 pm:
Art,
I really am disappointed to know my seminary would do this. Thanks for keeping me posted.
Wes Kenney
on Aug 29th, 2006
@ 7:43 pm:
Art,
Help me out here – perhaps I missed something. You said:
In this statement, the rational given for not releasing the video of today’s chapel service is that SWBTS has a policy of not criticizing other SBC agencies.
I do not see any reference to a policy anywhere in the statement (I read it twice, just in case). They said they believed it to be unwise to post “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.” They went on to talk about the freedom of any individual faculty member or trustee to “communicate concerns” to sister agencies. This doesn’t speak of any policy that I can see.
This pastor/trustee came to chapel and expressed views that place him outside the mainstream of SBC opinion on this issue (ecstatic utterances). If someone preached in my church and did something similar, I don’t think I’d put that sermon on the web, and I’d make sure that anyone who requested a CD understood the difference between what was said and what our church believes and teaches.
This action seems entirely prudent to me. But then, what do I know?
Dorcas
on Aug 29th, 2006
@ 8:09 pm:
A quote from the SWBTS statement: “… could place us in a position of appearing to be critical of actions of the Board of Trustees of a sister agency.”
But isn’t censoring Brother Dwight taking a position that is critical of the actions of SWBTS’s own Board of Trustees? I mean if this is all about making the SBC look good, shouldn’t you start with the entity you are connected to?
Personally I think a little dissent is healthy. But if it’s going to be all green grass and daisies, perhaps Paige Patterson would do well to water his own lawn and let Jerry Rankin handle the IMB.
Taran
on Aug 29th, 2006
@ 8:43 pm:
Art,
I must confess (much to my surprise) that I read the statement the same way Wes does. It makes no mention of a policy. What is ironic is that it states “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.” Which I read to say that private criticism of a sister board is ok, just not public criticism, a bizarre policy in my opinion.
To be clear, I disagree with Wes’ contention that a seminary context is analagous to a church context (I think that you need a wider theological range in a seminary than in a church) and I think that SWBTS should post the chapel message, but I don’t see the word policy in this statement.
Just my 2 cents.
martyduren
on Aug 29th, 2006
@ 9:01 pm:
Good stuff Arthur.
Wes-
If it’s like the IMB, then the new “guideline” has the effect of “policy.” :^)
CB Scott
on Aug 29th, 2006
@ 9:25 pm:
Wes,
The great hypocrisy is that this fellow is a trustee of SWBTS. It is not about his particular position on tongues.
Dr. Patterson said Dr. Rankin could not be a teacher at SWBTS for his position. Yet, he does have such a trustee. He also is opposed to Wade for defending Rankin. Do you think for one minute Dr. Patterson did not know about his trustee?
The issue is that Dr. Rankin has always been the target. In truth tongues and baptism has always been a strawman.
That my noble friend from Oklahoma is the oiliest of hypocrisy. It “dripped” on many people and caused wrecks all over the mission field.
cb
Paul
on Aug 29th, 2006
@ 9:31 pm:
This is a theological issue that has now been in the public realm of Southern Baptist life for nearly a year. The fact that Southern Baptist entities can now stifle free and open debate on an already public issue seems less than Baptist. It seems to me that wisdom would actually require that they post the message online. Then if they want to publicly respond they are more than welcome to do that as well.
I agree with Taran that this is not analogous to the local church. Southern Baptist entities are not autonomous bodies but are wholly owned and operated by every church that gives to the CP. The local church, on the other hand, is autonomous and unlike agencies is not “owned” by those who give.
Anonymous
on Aug 29th, 2006
@ 9:37 pm:
Wes,
The word “policy” is not in the release. It was a description used when someone else described the release to me and it is not accurate as there is no “institutional policy.” Having said that, you will not find it in quotes, so… that’s about it.
It doesn’t change the blatant hypocrisy of the reasoning: applied strictly to McKissic but not at all to the President.
The absence of the word “policy” in the release is a red herring, having no traction concerning the analysis of inconsistancy. I will look at changing the wording on the post tomorrow to more accurately describe the hypocrisy of the situation.
As you can see, I still don’t have the internet at home and blogger is still not cooperating woth my treo.
Jeff Richard Young
on Aug 29th, 2006
@ 9:44 pm:
Dear Brother Wes,
Would you quit with the facts, already?!? How are we supposed to rant and rave and carry on if you keep bringing up stuff like facts. What a party pooper!
Love in Christ,
Jeff
Bowden McElroy
on Aug 29th, 2006
@ 10:42 pm:
Art,
I didn’t have too much of a problem with the statement until this sentence: … 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.
I just hate it when our betters start looking after us great unwashed masses.
Alan Cross
on Aug 29th, 2006
@ 11:12 pm:
O.K. I’m going to stake out a position here. I’m going to write it here and on other blogs. I’m going to post on it myself: This is beyond ridiculous, and I am not overreacting or ranting and raving. I am very calm.
We had a sitting trustee of a theological institution share his position on a disputable matter of scripture, of which there is much evidence to back his position. He has been effectively censored. We aren’t talking heresy. We are talking about theological debate. Not only have we narrowed the parameters of cooperation, but we have silenced any debate whatsoever. We now can’t even talk about a position that is different from the status quo.
Do you not see where we are? In my opinion, Southwestern, on this day, has ceased to be a learning instituion. Paige Patterson should be disciplined by the Board of Trustees, if not removed. We are not talking about a heretical position! We are talking about differing views that are not tolerated.
Paul is right. Southwestern is not a local church. It is a seminary where we are to learn to study scripture and come to conclusions based on an honest wrestling with the Word of God. If you can’t even have a discussion on an issue, then how is learning to take place?Again, we are not talking about liberalism. We are talking about a difference in interpretation of the inerrant Word of God.
This is as dark a day as when the policies were adopted at the IMB. Darker even, because we have the flagship SBC seminary saying that we can’t even talk about any view but the status quo.
They should have broadcast the message and Patterson could have answered. Or, they could have had a debate. At least then people could learn and make up their own minds. Wow. Just wow.
IN HIS NAME
on Aug 29th, 2006
@ 11:28 pm:
P.P. knows how to handle these issues, go here
http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2003/11_5_2003/ne051103patterson.shtml
A Brother for Truth
IN HIS NAME
on Aug 29th, 2006
@ 11:31 pm:
Try this
http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/content/news/2003/11_5_2003/ne051103patterson.shtml
Nomad
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 6:24 am:
Art,
This is “insanity incarnate”. Don’t they realize that the “heart of man” is watching us, for we know the Living God?
We sure don’t act like it sometimes.
God help us.
John Stickley
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 7:14 am:
Alan,
You hit the nail squarely on the head, my friend.
So much for educating people about what many see as the appropriate view of Scripture on this matter… let’s just beat them over the head with the “standard” view, suppress any information which seems contrary, and hope nobody ever thinks about looking for outside information on the matter.
Yes, suppressing this hardly seems an appropriate response from an institution of higher learning… and that’s not even mentioning how much doing so fans the flames of controversy!
Wes Kenney
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 7:18 am:
My comparison to the church was not about “ownership,” but it was specifically about teaching, and it seems reasonable for me to believe that SWBTS would therefore feel a higher sense of responsibility not to be seen as teaching something that faculty and administration don’t agree with.
There is no censorship here; the recording is still available the old-fashioned way, and the substance of what was said is obviously no secret.
Dorcas asked: “But isn’t censoring Brother Dwight taking a position that is critical of the actions of SWBTS’s own Board of Trustees?” I would just point out that the words of one trustee (Brother Dwight in chapel) are not “the actions of SWBTS’s own Board of Trustees.” One trustee does not speak for the board; the board only speaks when it speaks as a board. Ask David Button.
But the larger issue is that Dr. McKissic apparently directly criticized the policies and guidelines of the IMB, and SWBTS doesn’t want to be seen as doing that in so public a forum, though they affirm the right of trustees and faculty to do it privately. I just don’t see the problem with that.
Alan Cross
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 7:36 am:
Wes, I have to confess, I cannot possibly understand your position. Patterson has been directly and publicly criticizing the direction of the IMB for several years now as has been proven. How can he then turn around and use that excuse to enforce this position? And, it is censorship when access has been limited in comparison with other chapel addresses. The reasons are obvious. It has nothing to do with criticizing another agency. It has everything to do with expressing an opinion on this issue that is different from the cessationist argument.
Do you really think that if a SWBTS trustee were to question Rankin and New Directions in this setting he would have been censored? I know this is speculation, but I really feel his views would have aired under the guise of Baptist liberty, freedom of dissent, and the right to theological inquiry. That seems to have been Patterson’s defense for the airing of the Eitel paper. And, if anyone had been upset, Patterson’s defenders would have been on his side.
I have NEVER said anything critical of Paige Patterson on the blogs through this whole thing over the past 10 months. The link between him and the IMB trustee actions were speculative to me. But, this is wrong, in my opinion.
I respect you a great deal, Wes. But, I can’t even really follow your reasoning on this. I’m trying to, but this issue REALLY troubles me. Thanks for your comments though, and I’m GLAD that we can disagree, discuss, and challenge one another and STILL be brothers.
Dorcas
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 7:47 am:
Wes -
If, as you say, the words of one Trustee is not the action of the entire Board, then how is it that in your immediate following argument you agree with Patterson that the words of one Trustee can be assumed to be the stance of all of SWBTS.
You can’t have it both ways.
Wes Kenney
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 8:10 am:
Dorcas,
I understand your point. From their perspective, with which I agree, what is spoken from the pulpit in the chapel service carries more weight than what is spoken on the front lawn, at least as far as the seminary is concerned. This is further weighted by the fact that the one speaking is a trustee of the institution, although from his perspective he was speaking only for himself.
Wes Kenney
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 8:16 am:
Alan,
You ask, “Do you really think that if a SWBTS trustee were to question Rankin and New Directions in this setting he would have been censored?”
Not only do I think so, but I would suggest that if that were to happen, you would not even be able to order the recording, as you can in this case.
There is no censorship here. Everyone who cares knows the substance of what was said, and anyone can order a recording.
While you are correct that Patterson has been critical of the IMB’s direction, I think you overreach by characterizing that criticism as direct and public. It has been direct, but I don’t find any instance of it being public. He circulated a paper to trustees, and one of their number publicized the fact. But you haven’t seen his criticisms as a First Person column in BP; it has been directed to trustees.
I love you for your passion. Keep it up.
Wade Burleson
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 8:18 am:
Touche Dorcas.
Nice one.
Your attorney instincts are on high alert.
Wade Burleson
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 8:19 am:
Wes,
I envy your naivety.
Wade Burleson
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 8:21 am:
This post has been removed by the author.
Wade Burleson
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 8:23 am:
Wes,
Who is it that circulated the Patterson paper, the person you say is “one of their number” — I assume you mean a trustee of the IMB?
I, of course, assume you know who did it since you said it happened. I don’t and would like to be informed.
Kevin Bussey
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 8:42 am:
What if, and I know this won’t happen–But what if Johnny Hunt or Ronnie Floyd had delievered the same message. Would they have been censored?
Tim Cook
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 9:15 am:
Wow. Boom indeed. What a heroic stand to take in public, in front of your Alma Mater. Even if you are a trustee (or perhaps becuase you are), this took serious guts. Speaking as someone who was reaised in a Charismatic environment, this is heartening. (I don’t speak in tongues, but know and respect many who do). Censoring the chapel service is inexcusable, but expected. After all, does anyone still retain the notion that our seminaries aren’t also political machines?
Urshë Thalór
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 9:30 am:
As an academic (assoc prof of electrical and computer engineering) at a public university rather than a private theological setting, my perspective on these events may be a bit skewed.
The opinions that follow are my own and may not represent those of my institution.
While I disagree with Dr. Patterson’s position on glossolalia, I think that a call for his dismissal on this subject is inappropriate. According to accreditation criterion by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), the trustees of an educational institution are to set policy, but not interfere with day-to-day implementation of that policy. It would certainly be appropriate for them to evaluate the justification given for withholding the web-based display, but micro-management is not good for any institution.
I am also disappointed with the reasoning given for withholding web-based distribution of the sermon. “… 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.” Here the differences between my institution and a seminary may be relevant. Here, if a speaker comes in and his position doesn’t tow the party line (if we have one …), then we just say, “There’s disagreement on this subject.” While the speaker’s credentials may give him authority to speak, it doesn’t give them a mantle of representing the institution. {We had former Soviet President Gorbachev a few years ago, for example.}
The guy is one trustee among many, giving one chapel service among many. If he’s a nut, then say so. If he’s just “outside the mainstream,” then there is no reasonable justification for the action taken.
One could simply include a disclaimer like the one at I put near the start of this comment.
Yours,
Scotte
Les Puryear
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 11:50 am:
Art,
Why do you think McKissick took that occasion to address a “hot topic” issue? Was he trying to embarrass Page? I wonder what he thought would happen? I can’t believe that he honestly thought criticizing the IMB board would be edifying. There are proper times and places for criticism and chapel service is not it.
A former SWBTSer,
Les
Wade Burleson
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 12:55 pm:
Wes,
Waiting . . . .
wade
Wade Burleson
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 12:57 pm:
Les,
How do you know he criticized the IMB?
Were you there?
Did you here it?
Do you have first hand knowledge?
Have you heard the message?
Think Les about what you are now saying about Dr. McKissic.
Are you not disparaging him without talking to him?
wade
Les Puryear
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 3:16 pm:
Wade,
You can talk about this issue and no one else can? I was asking questions, which I believe need to be asked. You’re reading an awful lot into my comments when you accuse me of disparaging Dr. McKissic.
Is this how you react during IMB board meetings? Are you really that thin-skinned? If so, how do you remain in the pastorate? Once again, my friend, you jump to conclusions which are not valid.
Feeling judged by an IMB trustee,
Les
Wade Burleson
on Aug 30th, 2006
@ 6:21 pm:
Les,
No offense intended. Please forgive me. I had no intention of upsetting you.
I was simply asking if you are doing the same thing to Dr. McKissic that you allege others are doing to Southwestern.
Blessings,
Wade
Wade Burleson
on Aug 31st, 2006
@ 7:41 am:
Wes,
Whistling Dixie as a I continue to wait . . .
:)
Wade
Wes Kenney
on Aug 31st, 2006
@ 12:51 pm:
Wade,
Sorry I haven’t answered before. I took the sloppy approach of offering an opinion, and then researching it. Ideally, those should be reversed.
I don’t have first-hand knowledge of who made Vision Assessment available to the Baptist Standard. I am positive it was not you, however, and I regret that that may have been intimated by my opinion. It could not have been you, as it was published in the Standard in the Fall of 2003, more than eighteen months before your election as a trustee.
My opinion remains unchanged by my research, however: One of the over 100 people to whom the paper was privately distributed determined that it should be publicized, and offered it for publication. I don’t know who that was, but Mark Wingfield does.
I’m concerned for you, brother. Whistling Dixie could be upsetting to uptight Yankee-types, and you’ve got enough on your plate without that kind of hassle… ;-)
art rogers
on Aug 31st, 2006
@ 1:33 pm:
Couple of things…
Les,
Chapel service is the place where theological ideas are presented to theologians. It is not a “worship service,” but a theoligical institution’s chapel service. For evidence of this, by the way, look at the schedule and see the Drumright Lecture Series scheduled for chapel. Just one of many such things and only one that stuck out by name in my memory.
Just my thoughts.
Wes,
I think that personal communication is private. Ideas of any sort, put on SBC Agency letterhead and circulated to SBC Agency Trustees is different. There must be an accountability for using your office to influence others.
For instance, Church members have asked me to link my blog from my church website and vice versa. I gently refuse. I don’t want anyone to think that I am speaking on behalf of my church or using my office and responsibility to my church to influence the direction of the SBC.
In that light, it was a public letter.
Wade Burleson
on Aug 31st, 2006
@ 1:39 pm:
Thanks Wes!
I appreciate the advice and will cease Whistling Dixie ASAP :)
Blessings to you, and I appreciate your honesty in this matter. I agree that we probably should research things before we say them.
I’m not convinced a trustee gave the Baptist Standard the letter, but I accept your opinion on the matter.
Your brother in Christ,
wade
Les Puryear
on Aug 31st, 2006
@ 2:24 pm:
Art,
Thanks for the clarification on chapel at SWBTS. Silly me. When I was there, I worshipped.
Thanks for straightening me out,
Les
art rogers
on Aug 31st, 2006
@ 9:30 pm:
Wow, Les. You went through Seminary and never got a deep theological thought in Chapel? Even during the Lecture Series?
Well, anytime you need me to explain things to you, just let me know. You are welcome. Glad to help.