Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, has joined the public conversation over his decision not to release Dwight McKissic’s sermon on Southwestern’s website after the Chapel service was over. You will recall that Dr. Patterson personally made the decision not to allow subsequent streaming video of the chapel sermon after the live feed.
In a letter to the editor of the Ft. Worth Star Telegram, Dr. Patterson takes issue with the article written by Jim Jones, entitled: Seminary leader rebukes pastor over sermon.
The letter to the editor will be available online for only a brief time, so I have reproduced its contents here:
Jim Jones’ Friday story on Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary was a disappointment.
First, I did not rebuke Pastor Dwight McKissic in any way, but rather received him warmly in every conceivable way as a brother and as a trustee.
Second, all sermons, including that of Brother McKissic, are kept in the archives and (as Jones noted, contradicting his own story) are available for purchase.
Most Baptists are not charismatics. I decided not to employ Southwestern’s resources to publicize a view contrary to our theology and critical of a sister agency. For this, I make no apology.
I will always do my best to feature to the general public those commitments of Baptists that we sincerely hold precious. Views all across the spectrum are taught in our classrooms, but not all views are endorsed, propagated or advertised. We certainly do not use our resources to promote views that we believe to be unbiblical.
Although I cannot know the reporter’s motives, I see no reason to present a story in which untruths are featured that can only mislead the public and run the risk of hurting genuine long-standing friendships. Why would a reporter deliberately report something that never happened?
Dwight McKissic is a precious friend and brother. He was rebuked by no one at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I simply chose not to continue the video streaming of this particular chapel service. Southwestern always reserves the right to decide what it will advertise or advocate with its own resources.
President Paige Patterson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth
Until it goes away, you can verify the accuracy of this letter by reading it in:
LETTERS, FAXES AND E-MAILS TO THE EDITOR
I would note four things from this letter.
1. Dr. Patterson’s description of his time with Dwight McKissic parallels McKissic’s own version of their time together. It is apparent that Dr. Patterson went out of his way to make his guest feel at home and was successful in doing so.
2. Dr. Patterson refers to the video streaming of Southwestern’s Chapel service as being seen by the general public. While such a stream may be made available to the public, it is highly unlikely that people outside the Southern Baptist Convention would be watching such a stream. The point could be made that the articles in major newspapers would draw others from outside the general public, but without the sermon being withheld, there would have been no story to print in the first place.
I don’t know what to make of this statement. Either Dr. Patterson doesn’t understand who is browsing SWBTS’ website or he is equating making something available to the general public as promotion of the view represented. The DVD of the service, however, is also available to anyone who wishes to purchase it, so if he interprets available as promotion, he is still promoting these views.
3. Dr. Patterson’s statement concerning what Southwestern will and will not advocate with its resources is telling. I quote it again, for clarity: “Southwestern always reserves the right to decide what it will advertise or advocate with its own resources.”
Yes.
Southwestern will not use its resources to promote the use of a Private Prayer Language. Southwestern will use its resources to call into question the leadership and direction of the IMB:
If you didn’t know, this is a faxed copy of the cover letter Dr. Patterson wrote that went along with Dr. Keith Eitel’s “White Paper,” simply called “Vision Assesment.” This paper was sent, with cover letter, to every Trustee on the International Mission Board. The Paper is very critical of the leadership and direction of the IMB.
If you can’t read the letter because of degrading quality, here is the exact content:
[Southwestern's seal and letterhead]
[Name & Address of Trustee blacked out]
Mr. [blacked out]
Without a doubt, the keenest thinking in missiology occurs on the staff of the International Mission Board. Southern Baptists continue to be the leader in the field of International missions, and that is exactly how we want it to be.
However, some profitable thinking and planning is done elsewhere. Dr. Keith Eitel, one of the cutting edge missiologists of our day, who is professor of missiology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has written a white paper which focuses on one of the current major discussions. The critical importance of his paper, especially in light of the conservative movement within the Southern Baptist Convention, will be apparent as you read it. Because of your strategic position as a trustee of the International Mission Board, I wanted you to have the benefit of his thinking. May God be good to you as you continue to serve our denomination in so many ways.
Until He Comes,
[signature: Paige Patterson]
Paige Patterson
PP:cv
Enclosure
4. Finally, Dr. Patterson seems to imply that Jones, the article’s author, intentionally lied about something. Specifically, he interprets the title of the article as more factual than descriptive. On the one hand, the title does lead one to believe something beyond what actually happened had occured. On the other hand, if the title and the fact that you can still purchase the DVD are the only corrections, and they seem to be, then there is not much to correct.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Kevin Bussey
on Sep 5th, 2006
@ 12:05 pm:
Chapelgate!
Let the games begin! :)
Michael Stover
on Sep 5th, 2006
@ 12:05 pm:
Thanks, Art, for keeping on top of things. I have posted some links to your blog from mine to help my readers keep on top of this.
Alan Cross
on Sep 5th, 2006
@ 12:51 pm:
Patterson says,
“I will always do my best to feature to the general public those commitments of Baptists that we sincerely hold precious. Views all across the spectrum are taught in our classrooms, but not all views are endorsed, propagated or advertised. We certainly do not use our resources to promote views that we believe to be UNBIBLICAL (emphasis mine).”
I do not have a problem with Patterson thinking that McKissic’s view is unbiblical. He can think whatever he wants. He has that right. As president of Southwestern, however, he is not the interpreter of truth for the SBC. This is why we have a confession of faith, called the Baptist Faith & Message. When debatable issues like this emerge, Patterson can speak to it, debate it, and share his opinion as president of SWBTS. But, I do not believe that he should decide what Baptists believe.
Not trying to promote my blog, Art, but I wrote a post this morning about the implications of the IMB policy and the McKissic incident here: http://www.downshoredrift.com/downshoredrift/2006/09/implications_of.html#more
Thanks for continuing to keep us up to date on this.
Alan Cross
on Sep 5th, 2006
@ 12:53 pm:
The link did not work, I don’t think. Just go to http://www.downshoredrift.com and look for the article, “Implications of the IMB Tongues Policy: The McKissic Incident.”
Bowden McElroy
on Sep 5th, 2006
@ 2:45 pm:
Isn’t it interesting the varying definitions of charismatic? I always thought a charismatic was someone who: believed the filling or indwelling of the Holy Spirit was an act separate from salvation (the Second Blessing); believed speaking in tongues was THE evidence of the Second Blessing and therefore something every Believer should aspire to; and (usually) believes one can lose one’s salvation.
McKissic, apparently, believes none of those things.
Patterson seems to believe anyone who is not a cessationist is a “charismatic”. Interesting way a dressing up a point of debatable doctrine in polarizing, inflammatory rhetoric.
Alan Cross
on Sep 5th, 2006
@ 2:54 pm:
You’re absolutely right, Bowden. Either Dr. Patterson does not know what he’s talking about, or he knows EXACTLY what he’s talking about and therefore what he is doing. History will be the judge, I guess.
For His Glory
on Sep 5th, 2006
@ 3:33 pm:
Dr. Patterson writes: “We certainly do not use our resources to promote views that we believe to be unbiblical.”
Who is the “we”? Is Dr. Patterson speaking for Southwestern? Does Southwestern believe that the continualist position is an unbiblical one? Certainly, it may not be the mainstream position within SBC life, but unbiblical?
It appears that this entire situation brought about by the new IMB policy is escalating very rapidly.
A year from now, will continualists be welcome in the SBC?
Bowden McElroy
on Sep 5th, 2006
@ 5:11 pm:
We have six seminaries and it wouldn’t bother me if each had their own stamp; i.e. if Southern was the Reformed seminary, SWBTS was the Fundamentalist seminary, Golden Gate was the “outside-the-box”, missional seminary, etc.
If Dr. Patterson had said, “we at SWBTS don’t teach…” I would have no problem with it. It’s the idea that “Baptists don’t believe” that I have a problem with.
michael
on Sep 5th, 2006
@ 6:17 pm:
“…..I don’t know what to make of this statement. Either Dr. Patterson doesn’t understand who is browsing SWBTS’ website……”
Actually, yes it is very possible that people from all around the world are looking at their website and if they had not found it would have through no doubt through one of these blogs. I had looked a detailed stats log for someone’s website showing how to see more about your visitors. There are hits from many different parts of the world and the same is probably true with Southwestern. People all over the world are watching and they see how we act and know that we call ourselves Christians. I can tell for one in the MAC region the reigns true and we are being watched closely by some. This has turned into a game for most on here and has went far from being about truth. When we get on here and do not speak in love people see it. I’m not saying this to take sides with anyone but I take issue with what this has become.
Jonathan K.
on Sep 5th, 2006
@ 6:32 pm:
I just want to respond to a few of the comments.
As a charismatic Christian myself, I wanted to respond to Bowden briefly…
First, Bowden, you are right that most, if not all, charismatics believe in the “second blessing” of the infilling of the Holy Spirit, seeing that occuring in Acts 2 with Pentecost.
Second, Bowden, most charismatics believe that having a prayer language (Mark 16, Acts 2) is the “normative” sign or evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit. From my understanding, “normative” means that this is true for most people, but not everyone. So, you can be charismatic and NOT speak in tongues. However, that is not “normative.”
Finally, NOT all charismatics believe that you can lose your salvation. There is a good number of charismatics (perhaps in the 40-60 percent range) who believe in eternal security.
Lastly, to those who have blogged here, does anyone know whether Dallas Baptist University have a seminary program, or does DBU not do that??? The reason why I ask is I know that DBU has strong ties with Christ for the Nations, which is a highly charismatic institute.
Paul
on Sep 5th, 2006
@ 8:52 pm:
I also agree with Alan. I find Patterson’s comment “We certainly do not use our resources to promote views that we believe to be unbiblical” very disturbing. I am a SWBTS graduate. I certainly have not given Patterson the authority to decide what I believe. Patterson has taken on an air of papacy. Someone may need to alert the Vatican that the Chair of Peter now seems to reside in Fort Worth.
GeneMBridges
on Sep 5th, 2006
@ 10:17 pm:
Most Baptists are not charismatics. I decided not to employ Southwestern’s resources to publicize a view contrary to our theology and critical of a sister agency. For this, I make no apology.
So, are we to assume that if John Piper comes to preach and discusses plural eldership or limited atonement, we can look forward to a similar situation? “Most Baptists” do not affirm either of these. If R.C. Sproul preaches a sermon on amillenialism, will this happen? “Most Baptists” in the SBC are, these days, premillenialists of some stripe.
The precedent this sets is astounding. If, in 5 years, the majority of the SBC is composed of Calvinists, I sincerely hope Dr. Patterson will censor the sermons of any man (Johnny Hunt for example) who preaches that election is based on foreseen faith or criticizes limited atonement. If in 30 years, the majority of the SBC has slidden into Socinianism, then I assume Dr. Patterson would, if he were living, not have a problem if a person preaching orthodox Christology was censored by SWBTS. This is what happens when you elevate tradition over Scripture or you exceed your confessional documents.
Further, based on Dr. Patterson’s logic, there are those in the Puritan tradition who would not qualify for his standards. Many of them were semi-cessationists. In fact, many of our own Baptist forefathers were semi-cessationists with respect to healings.
Dr. Patterson is not the Bishop of Ft. Worth, he has no standing in the SBC to decide what the majority of the SBC believes about matters to which that body has not themselves spoken in its confessional apparatus. Likewise, he exempts himself from his caveats about criticizing sister agences whenever it suits him.
I’d like to tag onto Jonathan K’s statements too, because it seems that Dr. Patterson is conflating Pentecostalism and charismaticism. All Pentecostals are charismatics, but not all charismatics are Pentecostals. Likewise, the difference between a cessationist and a semi-cessationist is generally one of degree. Semi-cessationists are usually not charismatics, whereas continuationists are classed in that manner. In terms of differentiating a position between Charismatics and Pentecostals, the term “Pentecostal” is sometimes more descriptive of some charismatics who do not hold to the 2nd baptism of the Holy Spirit than the term “charismatic” in that they lean closer to a Montanist view than a strictly continuationist view. It varies with the individual.
David Rogers
on Sep 6th, 2006
@ 2:19 am:
My 2-cents worth on the “labelling” question…
There appears to be no clear, set distinctions between the terms “charismatic,” “neo-pentecostal,” and “third wave.” Although the term “pentecostal” has had a more traditionally set definition, the fact that many today in groups that refer to themselves as “pentecostal” hold more to “neo-pentecostal” or “third wave” positions only serves to muddy the waters even more.
Thus, I prefer to leave off the “labelling,” and talk about specific beliefs and practices. I think it is unfortunate Dr. Patterson has chosen to take the “labelling” route.
Ron West
on Sep 6th, 2006
@ 3:05 am:
I also wonder about labeling someone a cutting edge missiologist whose entire career as a missiologist has been ridding the coattails of Paige Patterson. My contact with Eitel has been limited but his only publication I have read was the book Paradigm Wars which was anything but cutting edge. In addition the white paper referred to in Patterson’s letter was not a cutting edge evaluation. I wonder if he was an advisor to Patterson when Patterson was assisting in the start of the Genesis Commission back in the 80s. Their missiological paradigm was to go to a country, find a national you liked and then start sending him money to carry out your programs. Most cutting edge missiologists would see red flags in regard to self-support or the indigenous approach in missiology as well as the incarnational approach to missions.
johnMark
on Sep 6th, 2006
@ 5:43 am:
This post seems to more consistently address the issue at hand than here: http://sbcpastor.blogspot.com/2006/09/patterson-spots-falling-star.html
Thanks for the info.
Mark
Mark Spence
on Sep 6th, 2006
@ 11:37 am:
“We certainly do not use our resources to promote views that we believe to be unbiblical.”
I assume this is a royal we as the SBC does not have an official stance on speaking in tongues/private prayer language – only the IMB & now SWBTS does. As “we” well know the BFM 2000 does not forbid a private prayer language.
Bob Cleveland
on Sep 6th, 2006
@ 12:34 pm:
GeneMBridges:
You said “It varies with the individual.” Waytogo GENE.
I think we need to preface all our thoughts with that. Might remind us of the common mantra “Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship”.
It also reminds me of Joseph Garlingtons’ rhetorical question “Is it possible God told you to do something that somebody else doesn’t think He told you?”
Dorcas
on Sep 6th, 2006
@ 3:19 pm:
Got to love that documentary evidence. Who had access to SWBTS letterhead? Can you authenticate the signature? Was this document kept in the ordinary course of business or will we need an expert to testify that it is a true and correct representation of the original?
Oh wait … this is a blog, not a court of law, slipped into attorney mode there. :)
Jeff Richard Young
on Sep 6th, 2006
@ 4:25 pm:
Dear Friends,
I have mostly kept my mouth shut on this issue, but I guess I’ll have to chime in here.
What Dr. Patterson has done is NOT out of line. He is the President of that seminary, duly elected to that position of trust by duly elected (even if hand picked) trustees. He is the head teacher, and the head interpreter of the Bible and the BFM2000 for that seminary. He was perfectly within his rights to stop the webcast, and not post the audio for download.
I love you dear people who are arguing against these moves, but I’m not with you on this one.
Love in Christ,
Jeff
art rogers
on Sep 6th, 2006
@ 4:45 pm:
Jeff,
If you will re-read some of my earlier posts on this, you will find that I agree that Dr. Patterson was within his rights to do this.
My problem is that he cites the desire to protect the same sister institution that he previously sought to throw into upheaval.
Also, several have raised the fact that Dr. Patterson has not relied on his prerogative as President, so much as he has “spoken for” the denomination as a whole.
Just a few thoughts. Thanks for yours.
martyduren
on Sep 8th, 2006
@ 11:06 am:
Where, oh where, has my little Art gone? Where, oh where, can he be?
Todd Nelson
on Sep 8th, 2006
@ 11:27 am:
Art and all,
In one sense, Patterson is right that he did not “rebuke” McKissic — at least not directly. But what should we call it when the president labels the trustee’s view of PPL as “charismatic”, “harmful to the churches”, “unbiblical”, not Baptist, and then restricts access to the sermon? Is this not a slap in the face? Why didn’t the president bring it up at lunch?
Does Patterson have the authority to restrict the availability of chapel messages that he (and most of the faculty apparently) disagrees with? Certainly he does. Was it wise? I don’t think so. As has been pointed out, a simple disclaimer inserted at the beginning of the sermon would have been adequate. And much less fuss would have been made, I believe.
Dreaming now: What might happen if more men like Dwight McKissic (and women) would rise up and demonstrate that it is possible to have a PPL, heal the sick, cast out demons (isn’t this our commission from Jesus to do the works He did?) and still be considered Baptist, biblical, and not “charismatic”? — at least not the kind that most Southern Baptists have opposed since the movement started in the 1960s. Baptists like Jerry Rankin, Jack Taylor, James Robison, Clark Whitten, and Bertha Smith? Could there be room for us eventually in the SBC?
Bennett
on Sep 8th, 2006
@ 1:07 pm:
Why didn’t they censor the Sep. 6 chapel service? Do mainstream Baptists believe Muslims and Arabs are our enemies and modern Isreal is God’s “miracle nation”? It didn’t sit well with me at all.
Paul
on Sep 10th, 2006
@ 12:13 am:
Let me first of all say that I’m not the previous Paul, though it’s not out of the realm of possibility that I could have written some of the same things. However, I’ve never posted without a link to my profile. Just want to avoid confusion.
Jeff,
I agree that Dr. Patterson was in his rights. I also believe it was a poor move. My biggest question would be, does he use that standard with consistency? Has he ever allowed a chapel message that did not represent the general beliefs of the faculty or SBC to be posted on the seminary web site? (That’s not a set-up question because I really don’t know the answer, though I think I could venture a pretty good guess).
Art or anyone else,
Do you know if there is even one professor at SWBTS under Patterson who has ever taught anything similar to what McKissic said in chapel, or anything that it outside of the majority view held among the faculty or the SBC? I ask because if that were the case then it would seem to me that Patterson has, in those instances, been okay with using seminary resources to promote that view (resources like class rooms, class time and salary for such a professor).