Author: art rogers
A New Hill
Tuesday, October 17th, 2006 @ 11:45 am
[edit: The links below are now fixed]
The Trustees at SWBTS have just approved Dr. Paige Patterson’s letter to them, which you can find at Ben Cole’s blog. This has created a monumental shift in the fabric of the Southern Baptist Convention. Be sure, also, to read the response by Dwight McKissic. He was the lone dissenting vote when the letter was approved.
There are so many things going on in Dr. Patterson’s letter, such as some very unkind words describing Dwight McKissic, glossing of enrollment numbers, failure to mention the Fund Fiasco … All of these have become side issues, though, compared to the main issue of the letter.
Dr. Patterson has taken the “Private Prayer Language” issue from an isolated concern of one entity within the convention and turned it into the new battle for the heart and soul of the Southern Baptist Convention. By staking out this issue and calling such attention to it, we no longer have an anomaly at the IMB, but a systemic divide over the openness and ability to cooperate among conservative inerrantists that now make up the Southern Baptist Convention.
Do you think that I am mistaken in my estimation? Observe NAMB. The policy that they have governing this issue was in place well before the one at the IMB. Have they elevated it to such levels of controversy? No. Should it have been dealt with before now? Surely, but the actions of Dr. Patterson now demand that the SBC deal with this issue. Will we allow cooperation with those who practice or even affirm the practice of PPL as Biblical, or will we exclude everyone who does not openly reject any view other than the cessationist view?
Three of our entities now have the issue decided against the existence or cooperation of PPL affirming (not practicing, mind you) people or organizations within the SBC. This oversteps the BFM and reveals the issue to be, as I said before, systemic.
Dr. Patterson has done more to guarantee that the SBC address this issue definitively than anything Dwight McKissic could have done. McKissic’s letter to Frank Page and the Executive Committee opened a small line of dialogue on the issue. I doubt that the BFM would have been amended, and I am personally not for it. The more you define, the less you can cooperate and this is not an issue for alienation of cooperating brothers and sisters. Defining it, even defining it openly, will restrict us somehow. Nevertheless, we must now address it. He has made this a “New Hill On Which To Die.”
I was and am willing to fight for the authority of God’s Word. I am an inerrantist and no doubt about it. This particular interpretation of God’s Word is not something for which I am willing to fight.
Rather, I am willing to fight against it. I am not against cessationism, mind you. I affirm the right of any Christian and any Southern Baptist to believe in the cessationist viewpoint and express a desire to cooperate with them in reaching the lost world with the Gospel. If this is the new Hill, so be it. I can’t live with an SBC that is that narrow. If we lose this, I do believe that the SBC will fall away into an irrelevant, homogenous and pharisaical entity crying for the world to act and believe as they do, with the life changing and revolutionary Gospel as an afterthought.
This is a bitter day. I do not look forward to this. I approach this conflict with a broken heart, but a firm resolve.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
October 17th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Art,
Is it really worth it anymore? I’m just sick.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
If it wasn’t worth it, I’d be gone. It is worth it and I am going to stay.
The thing is, I think those who will cooperate with only cessationists are in the minority of the SBC. This is not a fight, I think, they can win.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Art,
I do hope you are right, but not ONE person oppossed Patterson’s letter?
Sadly, I think that a majority of SB’s would have done the same thing on this issue. It may be time for a new fellowship of Baptists of the “seperate baptist” heritage.
Tim
October 17th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
There are several problems with this.
a. If this is done, then why not eschatology or Calvinism? Mark my words, if this is done, one of those two issues could well come next.
b. The irony is that there is no statement in the BFM, so the SBC is going to wind up being placed in the position of amending the BFM 2000 less than 10 years from the time it was made effective.
c. Likewise, it assumes that all such issues are first or second order issues.
d. Apropos c, the objection raised most often because PPL is allegedly a violation of Sola Scriptura. The problem with that is that this conflates theological issues. It’s a category error, and an obvious one at that. PPL is not “prophecy” in the “Wayne Grudem” sense. In typical fundamentalist fashion, it drops all the caveats offered.
e. Apropos e, the battle would lie over the sufficiency of Scripture not inerrancy. So, the SBC in order to protect “the sufficiency of Scripture,” the SBC would have to stake out a particular and disputed interpretation of Scripture for a non-high order doctrine and ensconce it into the BFM.
That rather overturns the sufficiency of either one or both at some point.
f. The unkind words about Dr. McKissic strike me as quite revealing. Dr. Patterson has now proven he cannot be trusted in person. Dr. McKissic reported that Dr. Patterson had been most kind to him when all of this began. To read what’s in that letter tells us all very candidly that Dr. Patterson’s kindness is feigned and his humility is quite false. If that’s how he felt, he should have done the right thing and talked to Dr. McKissic about it candidly.
f. Notice that he is the one who is “ready to preach a ten part series on the work of the Holy Spirit” in chapel. Are there no theology professors at SWBTS capable of addressing pneumatology? Why not have a ten part debate series? Oh, that’s right, because they don’t debate theology in the SBC anymore, they declare the truth about every third tier issue they can and then call all others schismatics or worse if they disagree.
g. I certainly hope that when he gets to the parts about regeneration and inspiration, he explains how he can deny effectual grace leading to saving faith (monergism) while affirming inerrancy and at the same time libertarian free will. With all due respect to Dr. Patterson, I know undergrad students at Bible colleges that can outwit him in a theological discussion. I’ve heard him make basic theological, exegetical, and historical errors in the past several years, when addressing other issues with which he disagrees. When I hear that he is ready to preach a ten part series, which incidentally agrees with my own position on PPL itself, my confidence is not inspired.
h. SWBTS is becoming Liberty University West, and it strikes me that some of it is connected, because a great deal of what comes out of the mouths of certain persons at both institutions is strikingly similar or even the same. I’ve seen way too much mess at LU and LS lately to be confident that SWBTS will fare any better over time. The reputation of LU and LS is beginning to suffer.
i. I’m beginning to get the impression that Dr. Patterson fancies himself the modern B.H. Carroll. Well, with all due respect, the followers of Cyril of Alexandria did not ever measure up after he died. Dr. Patterson is no Carroll, but he strikes me as very like Cyril. If you don’t understand the reference, look it up.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
The question arises immediately as to what the message, for us, would be if God is orchestrating all this on purpose. Not many alternatives come to mind.
(1) God is unhappy with the fact that the SBC has allowed some folks with the gift of speaking in an unknown tongue or tongues (which is the only thing the Bible calls it) to be Southern Baptists and he wants them all thrown out. Along with all the continuationists, and the people who are willing to cooperate with fellow believers who are described as one of these several groups.
(2) God is unhappy with problems He sees in the convention among its leadership, and is moving to expose those who are the problem.
I don’t see any other reason why God would be doing all this. And if I look back 10 or 11 months and see how all this came up, I’m going to have to go with #2.
October 17th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
I have two suggestions that will put an end to all this controversy:
1. Let’s just get rid of the BFM. Since every entity establishes its own doctrinal requirements, it is really a worthless document. In practice we don’t have a statement of doctrine; we have multiple statements of doctrine.
2. Let’s quit studying the Bible ourselves. We can just let Paige Patterson, Jerry Corbaley, and Tom Hatley tell us what the proper interpretation of Scripture is, especially regarding tongues and/or PPL.
On second thought, here’s a better idea. Let’s make sure that our SBC entities do not go beyond the BFM in establishing their doctrinal requirements. Any Southern Baptist who is faithful in his or her Christian walk and who affirms the BFM should be welcome to participate in the work of any of our entities for which he or she is qualified. Also, let us make sure we do not exclude people on the basis of doctrines that are either secondary or on which there are legitimate differences of interpretation.
October 17th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Art,
An angle that has not been mentioned yet regarding ALL of this is the student angle. The ability of any president to be able to continue in his position is student enrollment. I wonder how all of this is washing with the student population. They’re not stupid. I was there when Dilday was fired in a most ungodly fashion. My wife was the secretary for the head of maintenance who loving and having great respect for Dilday was forced to change the lock on his office door while he was being fired. I was standing outside when Dilday came out of the BOT meeting with a dazed look on his face and was escorted to his house and told not to step foot on campus again. None of this washed with the students at all and I think the fallout of that event trickled into Hemphill’s administration. What if the “battle ground” (I hate using that term with fellow believers) became the transfer of students to SBTS, NOBTS, etc. Now THAT would make all this very interesting wouldn’t it?
Jeff
October 17th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Jeff,
I didn’t realize you were @ SWBTS when Art and I both were there. That whole Dilday incident has left a bad taste in my mouth to this day. But transfering wasn’t an option for me then and I can’t imagine it is for many students now. When you get a job and especially a church job like I did, I just stuck it out and grew to love Dr. Hemphill. This whole mess just sickens me.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
1. How many Southern Baptist pastors do you think believe in a private prayer language? 5%? 2%? Less than 1%? I know that there is not even one in my association and I don’t believe there was even one in your old association (Logan-Todd) This is obviously a extreme minority belief among Southern Baptists
2. It is ridiculous to say that all black Baptists believe in PPL. We have one black Southern Baptist church in our association and their pastor is strongly against the practice.
3. This is a practice has absolutely no historical precedent among Southern Baptists. There’s a reason this wasn’t addressed in the 1925, 1963, or 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. It was not an issue at that time.
4. What would B.H. Carroll or James B. Boyce do in this situation. The same thing they did to Toy, Whitsitt, and Martin. I stand with our Baptist forefathers and say that there is no place in Southern Baptist life for pastors or churches that believe in speaking in tongues, either publicly or privately.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Jeff,
As Kevin mentioned, I was there when they failed to act with integrity concerning Dr. Dilday. I just buckled down and got out of Dodge. However, so many can point to that time as the defining moment when it comes to how they feel about politics or even the convention itself. I wonder what the fallout of this move will be? Baptists in Texas, their theological education and the SBC as a whole are still feeling the ripples. I know this much, this will be much further reaching.
Speaking of enrollment, FTE numbers continue to fall. Dr. Patterson said in his letter that enrollment is up, but that is based largely on the college and ignores the FTE. Full Time Enrollment, which is the Master’s level program numbers, continues below 2,000 for the second year in a row. This had never before happened since they started counting FTE’s in the mid 70’s. This also matters because that number decides how much CP money the school receives. With CP money going down, how is it that the spending goes up so much at SWBTS?
It is a mess, and I think it will only get worse, not better.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
Ben,
1. How do you define, “Believe in?” If you are defining it as a strict cessationist view then you are wrong. I know MANY in Logan-Todd that are not cessationist. I know a few Southern Baptists in Logan County who claim to have spoken in tongues - not the private kind either. If you are defining it as practice, then you may be closer to the truth, but, as I just mentioned, there are a several around. Your perception of it being an “extreme minority” is just that - your perception, based on your experience and your predisposition - which is itself the subject of debate here. Not that we will debate it here, but that we already have and I do not, nor will I stipulate that you are correct in your evaluation of history or current make up of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Moreover, you can not possibly speak definitively for every minister in you current Association unless you have had a full conversation on this exact topic with each and every one of them. Where would you even find the time? Also, rural Kentucky is not the SBC. It is your little corner of it. I now live in Tulsa and there are a great many Southern Baptists here who believe in and several that practice PPL and some that are not so private about it. You have nothing but your perception to speak from here, so it has little weight as it is skewed by your predispositions.
Regardless, even if everything you just said were true, that doesn’t mean we can’t cooperate with those who interpret Scripture differently.
2. Nobody said all black Baptists believe in PPL. Where are you getting that?
3. I prefer to interpret Scripture without filtering it through a Landmark predisposition. Ben, honestly, you are a Landmarker, and that is fine with me. It is your right and your opinion. This is not a debate over the SBC being Landmark and you will not turn it that way here. This comment is predisposed with the supremacy of Baptist tradition as its guide and I reject all of it as I reject Landmarkism.
4. You can not possibly speak for those men here and to equate this with Whitsitt, Toy and Martin shows a pejorative bias. It is also ridiculous. How can you stand with your Baptist forefathers against tongues in the SBC when you just said they never addressed it because it was never an issue? They never addressed it: You stand with Patterson and Floyd, but not in the company of Carroll or Boyce. Not on this issue, anyway.
Nevertheless, thanks for letting us know where you stand.
October 18th, 2006 at 12:27 am
Art,
How is it that enrollment numbers at SWBTS are down (below SBTS) and yet they receive more CP dollars than any other SBC seminary? I’m at home right now, but if memory serves it appeared that they even got an increase this past year even though FTE enrollment declined. If I’m mistaken on that, though, I am not on the fact that they receive more total dollars and lots more $/per student in CP money than any of the other seminaries. I don’t get that.
October 18th, 2006 at 8:08 am
Art,
1. I should have said “practice” and not “believe in”. How many Southern Baptist pastors do you think believe in PPL? Believe it or not, I have a lot of contacts outside of “rural Kentucky” and my personal opinion is it is extremely low. I would say 1% or less. What do you think? I would like to know your opinion.
2. It was McKissic who said Southern Baptists were turning away black Baptists by taking a stand against PPL. Yet it is foolish to say that all black Baptists believe in PPL. Probably a higher percentage do thank Southern Baptists, but I know many that do not.
3. This has absolutely nothing to do with Landmarkism. I just think we need to be honest enough to admit that PPL has not been practiced in our Southern Baptist past. The Baptist Faith and Message has always been a reactionary document. In 1925 it was a reaction against evolution. In 1963 it was a reaction against neo-orthodxy. In 2000 it was a reaction against feminism in our churches.
4. I was referring to the principle of Carroll and Boyce. These men cast there vote in favor of “narrowing” what it means to be a orthodox Southern Baptist. Patterson and company are simply following the same principle.
October 18th, 2006 at 8:26 am
You’re right Kevin, there probably won’t be any mass student exodus, but it will be interesting still to see how the trend in enrollment continues. As Art has pointed out, you can only spin the numbers for so long. I know that after my experience at SWBTS that I chose to pursue my doctorate at SBTS - the spirit on that campus was much less politcal (in terms of SBC politics - it always got interesting when Moler appeared on Larry King Live!).
You know, thinking back on the whole Dilday thing, I remember that after it all went down, that a professor (who shall remained unnamed) made a comment to me and others that “we may have just seen the birth of 1800 moderates today,” referring to the students who witnessed the event. He wasn’t talking about being a theological moderate, but about being a political moderate. I realize that we must be careful when throwing around names and labels, but just listening to Art and Kevin, and considering my own thoughts on the situation, here are three pastors who, 12 years down the road have just had enough and are tired of what I can only call ungodly behavior by those who are supposed to be godly leaders. And what makes me just want to vomit is that the whole world is watching and I fear they have had enough of us too.
(I’m done venting now…)
Jeff
October 18th, 2006 at 8:50 am
Jeff,
You are right and so was that professor. I went to SWBTS because my pastor told me it was the one seminary that had the least controversy. I could have gone to Beeson in Bham, but I wanted to go to a SBC seminary. That Tuesday was horrible. I’ll never forget it. It really changed me.
October 18th, 2006 at 9:34 am
kevin,
Methinks, in 20/20 hindsight, you should’ve gone to Beeson. If I had the money, I would be there now…
On the other hand, it changed you into part of the person you are…God works all things together for our good, amen?
In Christ,
Tim Cook
October 18th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Art,
Without getting into the issues involved (yet), I just want to point out what I see as an inconsistency on your part regarding who is responsible for the current controversy. On August 29, you wrote:
Today, Tuesday, August 29, 2006, Rev. W. Dwight McKissic set off the political equivalent of nuclear device as he preached the chapel service at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
In this post, you say the following:
Dr. Patterson has taken the “Private Prayer Language” issue from an isolated concern of one entity within the convention and turned it into the new battle for the heart and soul of the Southern Baptist Convention.
I think that your first statement was closer to the truth as it concerns the assignment of responsibility. The second statement seems to be at odds with the first.
I also think your second statement is characterized by a degree of hyperbole (”battle for the heart and soul”) that is not particularly helpful in this debate.
You know I love you, though, right?
October 18th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Ben,
1. I didn’t intend to say you never got out of the back woods, so forgive me if I gave that impression. Here in Tulsa, it is a lot higher than 1%. I would not, however, say it is the majority. Frankly, I don’t know. More importantly, I don’t care. Being in the minority doesn’t make you right or wrong. We don’t govern to the minority nor to the majority. We do what is Scripturally accurate.
I would estimate that the majority of Southern Baptists today hold to a Dispensational Eschatology, but we don’t have our Seminaries or other agencies deciding who can teach or serve based on this majority view of a third tier issue. That is what PPL is, but it is being elevated to a second and even first tier issue.
2. Dwight never said that “all black Baptists” believe in tongues or PPL. That is a misrepresentation of what he said. I think he is communicating that many within the Black Baptist community are open to it if not practicing PPL or even open speaking of tongues in their congregations. I think he knows more about Black Baptist culture than you or I.
3. I understand your point but I don’t think it helps your argument. Because the BFM has never addressed something, according to your presentation, simply means that it has never before been controversial. Now, apparently, is the time for PPL and maybe even the Person, gifts, fruits and works of the Holy Spirit.
4. OK, but the way you stated it implied that Boyce and Carroll were “on your side” of this particular issue. I think you might have phrased it more accurately by saying something like this: “Like Boyce and Carroll stood for the Baptist distinctives in their day, I am proud to stand for … etc.”
By the way, I feel the exact same way about this. I feel that I am standing, diminutively, in the shadows of great Baptist men of God for what is a firm Baptist distinctive: Priesthood of the Believer.
art
October 18th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Wes,
Let me take this in reverse order, if you will.
I think that this issue has now become what will be marked in History as the SBC fight in our generation. I really believe it and think that I am accurate is saying the way I have. I am saddened by that. I think the battle to become relevant/Missional as individual churches and as a convention should have been the fight for the day. In a way, I think this is a subset of the group of issues that make up the Missional shift, but it will now be seen as the issue.
As to the responsibility, as I posted on another website last night, I think that laying this issue at the feet of any one person is like saying one kid is responsible for making the see-saw go up and down. We are in the middle of a ratcheting effect. I also think that this would have blown over, had Paige Patterson let the issue go - had he not pulled the video from the archive or had he not addressed the newspapers, or had he not made it the centerpiece of his letter to Trustees and therefore the centerpiece of this meeting. To say Dwight is responsible and Paige is not is myopic. Are you saying that?
Also, this begs the question as to who the “Prime Mover” of this issue is within the convention as a whole. I have heard many say that Dr. Patterson is behind the issue at the IMB. Is that true, or just a rumor? If it is true, then you can hardly say that Dwight is the one really responsible, because the IMB certainly influenced his sermon, etc.
Paul,
As are you, I am totally at a loss.
Jeff,
I could not have put it better myself. I did post on this in the “My Journey throught the Resurgence to Memphis” series.
art
October 18th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Ben! How could I forget Scriptural Sufficiency. This is a major part of the debate.
October 18th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Art,
I think you hit on something. I think the debate isn’t about “theology” it is about “relevance” and being “missional” because it sure is what I’m dealing with everyday in my church. People want to hang on to the past. We can’t!
October 18th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
I am confronted with some new questions. Is the SBC something I am willing to fight for? Would I be able to serve in a more fruitful manner in another group? I just don’t know if this whole thing is worth it. It is really discouraging.
October 18th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Art,
I would love to see someone commission a serious study of attitudes and beliefs among SB’s concerning spiritual gifts. Is anyone aware of any such studies already done? I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot more of us think that tongues is a valid gift for today than many want to admit. I am willing to say publicly that God has not given the gift of tongues but He has given me in one instance only, in a small group setting, an “interpretation.” It was scripture. And it was the scripture that the pastor had chosen that night to teach on. I know that anecdotal evidence proves nothing but I also know that no one has proven to me convincingly from scripture that any of the gifts should cease prior to Christ’s return.
Matt-I’ve been having some of the same thoughts you have. In fact, my wife and I had a conversation about the same subject this week. If I had wanted to be part of a Landmark church then I would have not joined and SBC congregation.
Harold M.
October 18th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
“I stand with our Baptist forefathers and say that there is no place in Southern Baptist life for pastors or churches that believe in speaking in tongues, either publicly or privately.”
Ben,
If this trend continues, you may get your wish. Then you can focus on getting rid of all the pastors and churches that believe in Calvinism, accept the validity of non-Baptist symbolic post-conversion immersions, practice open communion, are governed by elders, or do not teach that the use of alcohol is a sin. I’m just wondering if there is any issue where you would fellowship or cooperate with someone whose view differed from your own.
October 18th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Touche Tim.
October 19th, 2006 at 8:45 am
My name is Rusty Mullins and I am a pastor of a Virginia Baptist church. I am proud not to be an inerrantist, but I believe the Bible to fully contain God’s truth. I am a Moderate, not wanting to alienate people just because they do not agree with me on what you guys seem to call third tier issues, but I have always referred to them as minor issues. I believe that Baptist history has allowed for a wide range of beliefs and that as long as people didn’t try to force others to accept their views.
I am very sad to say that I graduated from SBTS. I hated every minute of it. I was there when the new President was crowned and I haven’t been the same since. One day, if God allows, I would love to turn in my SBTS degree and get a degree from BTSR.
I was taught, at a moderate Baptist church in Virginia, that the Baptist way was to be loosely joined with fellow believers based on agreeing with the big issues - Jesus is Son of God, His death and resurrection created a bridge to God, only through Him may we find eternal life, etc. It was my understanding that Baptist’s were not in the habit of limiting the little stuff, but emphasizing the things that united us as fellow regenerated believers.
That is simply not true anymore. I can’t be an active part of the SBC and this is a very clear example. Instead of seeking what God would want, or how Jesus would want us to react, the current SBC leaders want to get their way. They want everyone to jump on their bandwagon and agree with them 100% and if anyone disagrees then they are willing to tie them to a stake and burn them while the world watches. No matter how you cut it, there is nothing Biblical or Christian about this and we as Baptists should be upset.
I only attend CBF and Virginia Baptist meetings now. I would never go to a SBC sponsored meeting again. This is a sad time in the SBC so I have chosen to separate myself from the things that seem to be creating the problem. I know the CBF is imperfect, but it is better for me to meet with a group of people I can honestly disagree with and not worry about being stabbed when I turn my back in them. Rev. McKissic found that out the hard way.
October 19th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Rusty,
Thanks for your words. I really believe that Inerrancy is a first tier (major) issue.
It has been for Baptists for a long time, Spurgeon and the “Downgrade Controversy,” for instance. It’s not new to our generation.
I say this because your description of Baptists as loosely tied together and agreeing on the major things is the same as mine. It is what we consider “major” that is now dividing you and I.
However, that does not mean I can treat you with anything less than the highest Christian courtesy and integrity.
I do concede, however, that if you consider Inerrancy to be a minor issue, the way you feel is likely to be the way I feel soon if PPL is elevated to the first tier.
Blessings and thanks for stopping by.
art
October 19th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Bro. Sweatman loves to make assumptions. I have never said I would exclude Southern Baptists who “believe in Calvinism, practice open communion, are governed by elders, or do not teach that the use of alcohol is a sin, …” As a matter of fact Tim does not even know what I believe about several of these issues. I don’t believe in breaking fellowship over every issue, but I do believe baptism and the Holy Spirit are very important fundamental doctrines that are essential to fellowship between churches.
I guess I could say that Tim Sweatman is in favor of accepting Southern Baptists churches that believe and teach one can lose your salvation, have woman pastors, believe in speaking in tongues, hold there are errors in Holy Scripture, or believe sprinkling is valid baptism.
October 19th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
You guys need a bigger picture. I left the West to come out to what I call Middle Earth about eleven years ago. I was extremely discouraged about the pathetic organization that we call Church in the West. But over time many young people have come out. We have started ministering to people in places that you would be terrified to go with young men and women of whom the world is not worthy. Guess what? They were raised and discipled in Southern Baptist Churches. I know, I don’t know how that happened either.
Boys and Girls listen up. God is doing exciting things among us. We have challenged our people to believe the whole Book and many ARE believing it. When the Bible says ‘wine’ many young people foolishly read that to be ‘wine’ and when it says tongues many are foolishly reading that to mean ‘tongues’. Yes, if we cast out tongues speakers we will lose a lot of black churches. Most of you don’t know but we will lose all of the Korean churches and that would be a terrible loss. But more than that we would lose so many of the young people who would sacrifice everything for our Lord and Saviour. They are searching. They are experimenting. They could care less what our traditions are and will give everything to be in line with what God and HIS WORD says for them to be right now.
Yes old time pastor stand your ground. You will kick your own children and grandchildren out of your own house and sit in bitter loneliness while God uses them to expand His Kingdom around the world. The SBC can be the center piece of what God is doing in the world if they submit to His Lordship now. If they continue to debate the parameters of their own little kingdom then Art is right. This is a defining moment and the moment is gone.
October 19th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Ben,
I did not mean to imply that you are opposed to each of the positions I gave as examples. I listed them because according to conventional wisdom they are minority views within the SBC. In that particular instance “you” was not a reference to you as an individual but to all those who are pursuing the path of exclusion. My use of “you” in both my first and last sentences did refer directly to you as an individual. Whatever your view on each of the subjects I listed, would you fellowship with and cooperate with a Southern Baptist whose view on that issue was the opposite of yours?
In terms of cooperation within the SBC I draw pretty broad lines. For the most part these lines follow the BFM, but there are a couple of exceptions. For the examples you gave, here is where for me each one would fall:
1. Someone who believes one can lose his or her salvation would fall outside those lines.
2. Someone who believes that a woman can be a pastor would probably fall inside those lines, even though the BFM states that the pastorate is limited to men. I’m not convinced that the issue is as clearly addressed in Scripture as people on both sides think.
3. Someone who believes in speaking in tongues would fall inside those lines, provided that they followed the biblical instructions in 1 Cor. 14, did not teach that tongues are normative for all believers or a sign of greater spirituality, and did not teach that baptism of the Spirit is a separate occurrence after one is saved.
4. Someone who believes there are errors in the Bible would fall outside those lines.
5. Someone who believes sprinkling is valid baptism would fall outside those lines.
Those who fall outside of the lines I would draw for cooperation within the SBC are still brothers and sisters in Christ, and I would fellowship with them as such. I would also be willing to work with them in a number of areas.
October 19th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Art,
Thanks for being so kind. This is probably not the case to discuss this, if it isn’t and you want to respond my email is rusjen@yahoo.com. I have never understood how people could call the Bible inerrant. I am doing a study with my church on Baptist theology and I firmly believe that the Bible is God’s truth, it reveals God to mankind and its message is clear and accurate. However, I could never call t inerrant.
For example, how do people who use the word inerrant deal the the last chapter of Mark? The earliest manuscripts do not include the last 12 verses and from research I found that there were at least seven endings found for the gospel of Mark, but the one that is included in our Bible is the most common. Do you accept that as scripture? Why didn’t Mark write it?
Also, how do you deal with the resurrection story? Nobody agrees on how it happened - they just all agree it happened. One angel, two angels, Mary M.ran back and told everyone, Mary M. was afraid to tell anyone, John and Peter were the first ones to look in the tomb and they just left, Jesus first appeared to Mary M. but she thought He was a gardener, an angel told Mary M. all about the resurrection, Jesus first appeared to two disciples. So, as a thinking man, I can’t say its inerrant, but revealing of the truth which is Christ rose again. There are several others - geographical problems, OT histories that are not exact, NT time lines that don’t match up (Jesus in the temple, etc.) So, I do see scripture and being entirely true, but not inerrant. While witnessing to a very learned man he threw out, “How can you say that the Bible is inerrant when” and then he listed off several things listed above and others. My reply was that the Bible was not inerrant, but it contained the truth of God, His message to mankind. I told him that the book was never intended to be a geography book or a history book, but a holy, inspired book and that the message was the important thing. Had I tried to prove inerrantcy, he would have laughed at me. He ended up accepting Christ and being a wonderful servant and Biblical scholar in his own right.
Why do so many insist on using that word when it causes division and can’t be proven?
October 19th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Rusty,
You are quite right that the word has caused much division. However, in our current SBC climate, if anyone does anything other than scream, “I’m an Inerrantist,” they are looked at with suspicion and the general skepticism that says, “You aren’t one of us.”
I affirm the The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. [link]
That is what I mean when I say the word. I remember going in view of a call to Russellville, KY. I was asked about my view on the Bible. Wanting to be clear, I articulated them for myself with what I considered to be layman’s terms.
The lady who had asked, one who became a close friend later, cornered me after the service during a fellowship/get to know ya time and asked me again. When I say cornered, I mean I was literally backed up against a wall.
I began to repeat what I had said before and she jumped in. “Art, I want to hear the three ‘I’s. Inerrant, Infallable and Inspired!”
Not what they meant, just the words. If left to define them the way I want, then they could be anything. The Chicago Statement is the definitive explanation, in my opinion.
Thanks.
art
October 19th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Art,
That’s an interesting story. Had I used all three words in my ordination council I would have surely been rejected. They were cool with inspired, but the others would have caused a riot. They too see the Bible as God’s word, but would never attach Inerrant or Infallable. I guess I take pride in not falling in line with what the SBC expects. I do, however, think that I have a very high opinion of scripture and that my stance is as strong as most of those who so willingly and proudly spout those words before their congregations each week.
My primary problem, I suppose, is the attitude of most of the SBC leadership. Mohler and I would like agree on everything except Calvinism, but his attitude makes me want to puke, so I separate myself from him.
I think Patterson is a disgrace and he makes me regret calling myself a Baptist. Same for the man with the college in Lynchburg, Virginia. Not so many years ago most Baptists were keeping away from Jerry, but now he is seen as a modern leader.
I won’t be a part of any of that. Good luck guys in bringing the SBC back to respectability. I will pray for you.
October 19th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Rusty,
That was a job interview, not my ordination council. I was actually ordained by a council that seated more than one “moderate.” Interesting note: when I was discussing revelation, my feet were held to the fire on the canon of Scripture and its authority by a Texas Baptist “moderate.” he wanted to make sure the Bible, all of the Bible and only the Bible had authority and that I was not squiggling or dodging.
I have no fear of the word Inerrancy. Some shy away from it because of the political mess that has made with Inerrancy being used as a weapon.
Here’s an interesting note… I am unpacking books in my office today. In the boxes I find two brochures from the ICBI entitled, “INERRANCY Does It Matter?”
I’ll post the full story sometime soon.
October 20th, 2006 at 1:06 am
Art,
I am unfamiliar with the “fund fiasco” you referred to. Can you explain that situation to me please?
Kelly Reed
October 20th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Kelly,
My immediately previous post addresses it. Also, you can get the details at SBC outpost starting with this post [link] and following.
I posted on it a couple of days ago.
art
October 26th, 2006 at 7:04 am
Art,
If McKissic made it a “New Hill On Which To Die”, Patterson made it a “New Hill On Which To Kill.”
This was stolen from somewhere.
Rex Ray
October 26th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Rex,
I have heard that statement, but I must say I disagree.
Dwight engaged the issue, but Paige is the one who elevated the PPL issue from incedental to systemic. If he had not done this , it would have been nearly impossible for anyone else to address it beyond the IMB ad hoc committee report.
On the other hand, I don’t think Paige is interested in doing violence to folks. I know, the language is the inverse of the original, so not intentionally pejoritive. I just needed to point that out.
Art
October 27th, 2006 at 12:43 am
Art,
When I say “kill”, I mean kil reputation, kill truth,kill influence ets. Once, I asked Patterson if Criswell’s Study Bible answered all the debatable ‘errors’ in the Bible, and he replied in a loud voice for all to hear, “We got all of them.”
I asked about the dead girl in Matthew being alive in Mark and Luke, and he whispered, “We got all we could.”
By the way, I believe you met my brother-in-law
October 27th, 2006 at 7:52 am
Rex,
I was just trying to clarify for those who might be reading the “kill/die” language. I don’t want anyone to misunderstand. Of course, those words are symbolic. I know that you are not talking about violence just as the Judge was not actually talking about dying during the Inerrancy conflict. We use the language of war too much when talking about personal conflict.
As for the personal accounts of conversations you have had, I want to clarify for everyone that they are one perspective. I can not confirm or deny any of it. As with all such anecdotal stories, no matter from whom they come - myself included, we should take them with a grain of salt. They represent one person’s perspective of a conversation. To be fair to both Paige and Frank, we should take that into account.
As far as your brother-in-law goes, his name sounds familiar, but I have never been to a breakfast for Frank. I have spoken to him twice, one on one, and that was at the convention after standing in line along with everyone else. He seemed pretty genuine to me.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Art,
Sorry my memory got you mixed up with Ben Cole, and I hear what your saying about private conversations. Marv Knox (editor of the Baptist Standard) wrote me the same reasons for not publishing my conversation with Patterson.
Joe Deupree and thee others were ‘kicked out’ by the Leadership Board. One ousted member was a trustee, had given land for the church over 30 years ago, and was a trustee of Dallas Baptist University.
The pastor got the churh to vote to sell the church and move it 20 miles. These four got the church to reconsider, and it seems Harber got revenge. He was a professor at SWTBS after getting his Dr.’s degree in the fastest time on record. He is no longer pastor after being asked to resign.
About 30 of Joe’s SS class attend a church recomended by Marv Knox. The following is an email sent to them as Joe calls them ‘team.’
From Joe Deupree
September 14, 2006
Hi Team:
I have just returned from the offices of Tarrant Baptist Association (TBA) where a light breakfast was held this morning for Frank Page, the newly elected president of the SBC. You will remember that this “anti-estaablishment” candidate received the majority vote (50.3%) in spite of the fact that the estaablishment candidate, (who got 24.95% of the vote) had received endorsements from a host of megachurch pastors and from 3 seminary presidents.
There were about 28 to 30 people there. I may have been the only “layman” present—most were pastors or retired pastors along with about 3 TBA members.
I LIKE Dr. Page. He appears to be a humble man and a true servant. He spoke about 15 to 20 minutes about his view of what was needed within SBC.
I remember few of his direct quotes but a couple of things he said stuck with me. These are:
–We need to stress evangelism with intergrity.
–He recounted that many national figures have visted him since he was elected. As an example he mentioned RUDY GIULIANI. He said that he knows that these people are visiting him “because they think I have some control over 16 1/2 million church members (of which not even the FBI can locate 5 million of them! I took this to be reference to “inflated” church membership lists.)
Tom Law introduce me to many attendees. Almost everyone that I met was obliviously “in our corner” and many had strong comments.
Also present was Ben Cole. He asked me if I was one of the “Colleyville Four”. He then said something to the effect that Harber reminded him somewhat of Nebuchadnezzar, who spread his arms and said “Look what I have built”.
Also present was Dwight McKissic, whose SWBTS chapel sermon Paige Patterson has removed for the SWBTS web site. No one introduced us, but he saw my name tag and said, “Hmm Deupree, I have heard of that name. Billy Joe Dupree used to play for the Cowboys.” I said, “Yes, but we are not related—He spells his name different.” We both chuckled and then I told him I was from Colleyville, and he then recognized me.
I am glad I went! And I am optimistic that “the Good Old Boy Network” may have some cracks in it.
Joe
Art, if you realized the pain that these four felt, you may realize how moderats feel in the SBC.
The most effective work of the devil is not from the outside but the inside of the church.
Rex Ray