The SBTC has a had a couple of occurrences of note this week. Many preachers that spoke Monday railed against bloggers, including the last one, who was from Romania.
The other fun fact is that the SBTC passed a resolution opposing “tongues” in any form. Malcolm Yarnell was on the Resolutions Committee.
This may have been one of the most short sighted moves of the year. The PPL exclusionists, the most vocal of which reside in the SBTC, are assuming that the rest of the convention will follow their lead. I think that they may find themselves on an island when we get to San Antonio and the resolution that comes to the floor is one that affirms that we should not divide ourselves on such an issue.
[edit]
In response to a conversation in the comment thread.
The resolution is not against “tongues in any form,” but is decidedly against PPL. I refer to the comments for my reasoning behind this statement.
[/edit]
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Bob Cleveland
on Nov 15th, 2006
@ 11:04 am:
If you don’t think God does something any more, you’ll probably not ever see it yourself. Regardless of whether or not it actually jumps up and bites you.
This was addressed well in a sermon some years ago by Joseph Garlington entitled “God’s Strange Ways”. It’s my all time favorite, even if I don’t agree with all of it.
Todd Nelson
on Nov 15th, 2006
@ 11:46 am:
Maybe it’s old news now, but the sbtexas.com web site has two interesting articles on tongues from Nov 7th by Tammi Reed Ledbetter. The Criswell Theological Review is devoting an issue to the subject; and Ken Hemphill has come out against making PPL an issue to divide over.
Bart Barber
on Nov 15th, 2006
@ 1:48 pm:
Art,
I have offered a response over at my site (I wanted to offer some formatting of the response that commenting will not allow).
In Christ,
Bart
Art Rogers
on Nov 15th, 2006
@ 4:02 pm:
Bart, thanks for the heads up. An observation before I respond to the points you raise.
The mention of Malcolm Yarnell is worthy of note because of who he is and how that relates to the issue as a whole. I did not insinuate that I knew his mind (or yours) concerning division of the SBC over PPL. His presence on the Resolutions Committee is simply germane to the issue and I noted it.
I am glad to have your assurance that you do not seek to divide on this issue.
1. Saying that this should not be a test of fellowship and then saying that modern practice is not Biblical seems to be contradictory to me. Kind of like getting a kiss from Don Vito Corleone.
2. You said, “Obviously, this resolution acknowledges both the cessationist and the ‘open but cautious’ positions and opposes only ‘unscriptural teaching’ relating to speaking in tongues. The resolution also specifies that the typical Southern Baptist in Texas believes that ‘the modern practice of private prayer languages lacks a tangible foundation in Scripture.’ Thus, the resolution opposes any teaching regarding these practices that is unscriptural, and it further proffers the opinion that private prayer languages fall within that category. This is far different from ‘a resolution opposing tongues in any form.’
The resolution acknowledges only two positions: 1) against and 2) allowing for the possibility. Then it goes on to say that a theology inclusive of a Private Prayer Language lacks Scriptural foundation. The resolution does not allow for the possibility that anyone can embrace Scripture and a PPL. That means it is against it, not matter what else you say or how you say it.
I will grant you, that the “in any form” portion of the post is not entirely accurate. The resolution does not speak to the “foreign language” glossolalia. In that respect, you are quite correct. I am adding an edit to the post to clarify that point.
3. I never said it was a motion. It was a resolution as I described it. However, a resolution is more than what you describe in your post. Resolutions are intended to set a pace – to lead the way. Remember the Disney Boycott? There were a great many Southern Baptists who didn’t like it, didn’t attend the convention that year and didn’t want to support the move. I knew several in that boat, but who boycotted Disney because they felt obligated to follow the denomination’s leadership through that resolution. Resolutions set the pace. They are leadership by example. I take it that this resolution seeks to lead Southern Baptists to deny the theology of PPL. I do call that exclusionist.
I would also like to say that this description is both pejorative and reveals a predisposition contrary to to those who espouse the PPL: Some have posed the question as to whether the majority of Southern Baptists are not actually (contrary to all indicators for the past hundred years) harboring some furtive endorsement of Pentecostalism/the Charismatic movement/the Third Wave.
Still, let me clarify my thoughts, just in case you are implying that I am within the scope of your comment. I don’t think that PPL is something that has been practiced by the majority of Southern Baptists, nor do I think the majority of Southern Baptists practice it now. I don’t practice it and never have.
I believe that the majority of Southern Baptists are not inclined to exclude people who do practice PPL from leadership or missionary service. I may be wrong, but I just don’t think so.
I guess we’ll find out.
Alan Cross
on Nov 15th, 2006
@ 4:20 pm:
This is truly sad. I’ve been writing a little bit on this subject on my blog, http://downshoredrift.com. I am giving the other side of the issue and have written 3 posts of possibly a 5 or 6 post series. In short, I don’t agree with Bart, or Brad Reynolds, or the SBTC. If that makes me not Southern Baptist, then so be it. Funny, all this time, I thought I was.
I also think it’s interesting that they say that someone cannot embrace Scripture and PPL. They declare PPL to be unscriptural based on pure speculation and their own biases, and then they say that anyone who practices it, believes in it, or is alright with others practicing or believing in it, is out of step with the Bible. In other words, those people are unbiblical. Of course they cannot be in leadership. This is doctrinal violence of the worst sort and I am really beginning to question the motives of those who are engaging in this behavior.
Again, how have those who are continualists caused problems in the SBC? Where is the division? This is bordering on ridiculous.
By the way, Dwight McKissic’s church is a part of the SBTC. I wonder what they’ll do.
Bart Barber
on Nov 15th, 2006
@ 4:23 pm:
Art,
Listen, brother, “It’s not personal, Art; it’s strictly business.” :-) (Godfather fans will get the joke)
I believe that multi-campus is unbiblical, but I do not believe it is a test of fellowship. I believe that the abandonment of church discipline is unbiblical, but I do not believe it is a test of fellowship. I believe that division between lay and teaching elders is unbiblical, but I do not believe it is a test of fellowship. There’s nothing contradictory (nor Corleonesque) about that.
The “in any form” part was the part with which I was disagreeing. Your correction takes care of that. Thanks.
With regard to my “furtive” comment, I’m merely saying that, in all of the discussion, there have been plenty of statements like “I believe that the majority of Southern Baptists…” I make such statements, too. But how on earth could we even begin to substantiate such a statement? Resolutions are the answer.
Alan Cross
on Nov 15th, 2006
@ 4:29 pm:
Thanks, Bart, for posting on this. I went and read your post and it does seem a bit milder than I originally thought. I am still in disagreement with this, because I do not believe PPL, or whatever you want to call it, is unbiblical. However, I respect the rights of others to disagree. I just think that we are heading down a dangerous road when we make these types of things a litmus test for missionary service or leadership as is happening. Why can’t we just pastor people and make sure that their conduct is biblical? I guess that is difficult if you are totally against PPL to begin with.
Again, thanks.
Bart Barber
on Nov 15th, 2006
@ 4:44 pm:
Alan,
Thanks for reading what I posted. Hopefully, the actual text of the resolutions will soon become available online, and then everyone will be able to read for themselves. Also, although certainly the resolutions on glossolalia and alcohol will receive significant attention, I hope that people will also pay attention to some of our other work.
The resolution “On the Sufficiency of the Word of God for the Entire Christian Life” is absolutely gold-standard stuff. May it inspire and convict us all.
Some parts of the resolution “On Immigration” should be interesting to those who have been posting of late about the relationship between immigration and revival. I think you’ll find there a very positive note about the opportunity to reach immigrants in our midst with the gospel.
The resolution on Darfur is not particularly noteworthy (since so many others have said the same thing), but does address an issue of much greater gravity than some of these other questions.
For what it’s worth.
In Christ,
Bart
Benjamin S. Cole
on Nov 15th, 2006
@ 4:51 pm:
Alan, Art, and Bart:
I am curious. How many messengers were registered at the SBTC? How many churches do they represent? Again, I think this is an indication that the vast majority of Southern Baptists, in Texas or out of it, are not represented by these resolutions. I cannot speculate how they would vote, but I recognize the downside of our polity. That is why mobilizing messengers is the only way to address concerns about the way things are going.
I did find it interesting that a few hundred messengers from a fewer number of churches would speak on behalf of “Southern Baptists in Texas.” There are two conventions in Texas, you know? One of which did not speak to this issue at all, and it is presumptuous to assume that they would agree with SBTC on this matter. Since when did SBTC get to pass resolutions on behalf of Southern Baptists in Texas? A resolution cannot express such sentiments. It can only represent the sentiments of those messengers, registered and seated, at the time that the resolution is approved.
Was there any dissent to the vote on this resolution? Did any person speak against the resolution? Which member of the resolutions committee offered this resolution on behalf of the committee?
I suppose we can wait to see how many of these questions are answered in the next installment of Tammi Ledbetter’s series of articles on the subject.
BSC
Bart Barber
on Nov 15th, 2006
@ 5:36 pm:
Ben,
No need to wait…I’ll be glad to address them all.
The phrase “Southern Baptists in Texas” was reached after grueling work. Frankly, the terminology is in flux at this time and it is difficult to find a good phrase that is not fourteen words long. If one group can presume to speak about “Texas Baptists” all the time, then we thought that “Southern Baptists in Texas” might identify our convention without stepping on terminology that seems to have been coopted by someone else.
I do not know the messenger counts or the number of churches represented. I assume that the figure is still somewhat smaller than that of the BGCT and definitely much lower than the potential number of churches that might have attended either convention. You and I agree (STOP THE PRESSES!!!) about the weaknesses of our polity. I just don’t know a stronger one. You and I agree that resolutions are not necessarily representative because of these weaknesses in our polity. Nevertheless, my point was that there is no manner of determining Baptist opinion that is more representative.
I presented the resolution on behalf of the committee. Nobody spoke against the resolution. A few voted against this resolution, as did a few against virtually all of the resolutions (not against “On Appreciation”).
Darren
on Nov 16th, 2006
@ 6:58 am:
Unbelievable and very sad that some work to continue to divide and separate the SBC over an issue that many conservative, inerrantist scholars and theologians are in disagreement over. Sad that not only do they work to divide what the SBC currently is, but there are going to be a ton of gifted, theologically conservative young minds that will choose not to fellowship with the SBC because of the appearance that the SBC has chosen a cessationist theology. Call it whatever you want, but resolutions like this one certainly speak to a cessationist theology. Another reason this is sad is because the current form of SBC does seem to be avoid of God’s power and blessing when 73% of our churches have plateaued or are in decline.
And yet here we are with a very vocal group of leaders flat out saying that as Southern Baptists in Texas we “forbid you to speak in tongues.”
Seems I read somewhere once that you ought not to do that brothers…
Bart Barber
on Nov 16th, 2006
@ 8:30 am:
Darren,
You make me wonder why we spent so much time laboring over the wording, judging every nuance, trying to get it just right. After all, if people will ignore what we have written and make the resolution out to say whatever best fits their inflamed rhetoric, then why go to the trouble of trying to write precisely?
Bart Barber
on Nov 16th, 2006
@ 8:39 am:
By the way, Darren, the Mormons and the Moslems are apparently growing by leaps and bounds. By your argument, I guess that’s where we find “God’s power and blessing.”
Maybe if Jeremiah had looked around a little better for God’s power and blessing, he might have enjoyed a little more success.
Personally, I say we do what is right and leave the results up to God. I say that we plant and water and let God worry about the increase. Maybe it is because I have preschoolers and have been exposed to so much “Gideon: Tuba Warrior” that I hear it in my sleep, but I think it may be God’s plan to make our convention a whole lot smaller in order to bring it into His will (Attaboy, Art, for working on that ACP) and give us spiritual victory.
Brian Hatcher
on Nov 16th, 2006
@ 9:14 am:
Bart,
You made the statement that highlights exactly what much of these controversies hinge on. You said, “…there is no manner of determining Baptist opinion that is more representative.” My fascination with this is that it fully disqualifies any convention, state or national, from passing a resolution that is meant to “represent” the opinion of anyone. The diversity(within proper biblical guidelines) of our denomination is what has made us great. The ability to cooperate with others of like-minded essentials maginifies our ability to come together and impact the kingdom of God. We are not to be building the kingdom of Southern Baptists. The subtle change to “priesthood of believer(s)” should not, can not, and must not be used as a license and mandate for an individual, or small group of individuals, to determine what is representative of the entire body of believers. You yourself have just stated that there is no way to determine such a thing. They certainly should not be interpreting Scripture and blanketing it across denominational waters and expect the SBC to sail on it. All that blanket will do is sink. What a kingdom that will be.
Brian Hatcher
Wade Burleson
on Nov 16th, 2006
@ 11:03 am:
Amen Mr. Hatcher
Darren
on Nov 16th, 2006
@ 11:14 am:
Bart,
Certainly did not intend to imply that just because something is growing that it is right…your point is well taken.
My brother, all I trying to say is that I believe the umbrella of conservatism is big enough for different views on this matter.
My hope is that the convention does not have to become “smaller” as you say; and thus weed out those brothers who have a continualist position on the gifts, including tongues.
We certainly want to be a denomination that seeks to honor the Lord and His Word, and seek as you say to “do what is right,” but on this matter there are different views by some highly respected theologians on “what is right.”
The SBC should big enough to welcome those of differing views, and then may we cooperate to share the gospel and obey the Great Commission.
Tim Rogers
on Nov 16th, 2006
@ 3:01 pm:
Brother Darren,
You say; “The SBC should big enough to welcome those of differing views, and then may we cooperate to share the gospel and obey the Great Commission.” I agree! Brother Brian says; “The diversity(within proper biblical guidelines) of our denomination is what has made us great. The ability to cooperate with others of like-minded essentials maginifies our ability to come together and impact the kingdom of God.” I also agree! (From that last statement and Brother Wade Burleson’s comment it appears I agree with him also.)
I say these things in order to make a statement and ask a question. Undoubtedly it appears that this issue will come to a head in San Antonio this coming June. From the looks of things it may be in the form of a resolution. If it comes as an amendment to the BF&M it will be voted down. People that will vote against that will not be voting against PPL, but they do not believe it should be part of the BF&M. My question! If PPL is placed before the convention and the vote establishes that as SB we will allow service on our boards and by missionaries that believes the Bible allows for a PPL and either does or does not practice it, I will not leave the convention. However, if the convention votes down the establishment of allowing for a PPL, will any of you leave the convention?
Blessings,
Tim
Kevin Holmes
on Nov 16th, 2006
@ 3:23 pm:
Here’s an idea. We adopt a new “resolution protocol.” From now on when a resolution is passed in any convention, we include in the resolution the number of messengers seated at that meeting, the number of churches represented, and the vote distribution for/against the resolution. So a resolution might look something like this..
With 1000 registered and seated messengers, representing 150 churches of the SBTC, by a vote of 750 to 250, messengers of the 2006 SBTC annual meeting resolve that ….
It sounds silly, but at least it will be accurate. That beats the stuff out of an unquantifiable “the majority of Southern Baptist in Texas.” What arrogant, talking head would dare even propose a resolution with such a politically charged, presumptive and indefensible statement?
By the way, I’m in the “minority” that disagrees with the resolution that supposedly speaks for the “majority.”
Art Rogers
on Nov 16th, 2006
@ 4:06 pm:
Bart,
I understand the frustration of carefully crafting the words, only to have them glossed or parsed unfavorably. I certainly feel many have done this to the Memphis Declaration, and I am particularly fond of that work.
Tim,
There will not be a resolution to “include the PPL” as official doctrine, but any move made will be in the vein of forbidding exclusion on its basis. If that is defeated, I am unsure of the future. I really believe the vast majority of Southern Baptists would cooperate with folks advocating PPL, thus it would be hard for me to leave the SBC without seeking to expose this voice and “right the ship,” so to speak. If I am convinced, however, that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are not interested in cooperating with folks who have, what I consider to be, a tenable Biblical and conservative interpretation of God’s Inerrant Word, then I will have to consider cooperating with conservatives who are inclusive of such desires. That much, though, is speculation and perhaps it is even unwise to do that, but there you have it.
Kevin,
I never would have guessed you were in the minority on this issue. ;)
I do think, however, that your proposal has merit. It would certainly make clear who is saying what and who is not. I doubt, however, that “the powers that be” in every convention would be interested in giving away the illusion that the group that gathers speaks for everyone.
That’s not an indictment of any one side, either. Both Texas conventions do this, all other state conventions do this and the SBC does this, no matter who is “in charge,” so to speak. I think everyone feels the gravity that such resolutions make. I ate lunch Tuesday with a member of the Committee on Resolutions for the BGCO this year. The Resolutions had been passed previously and he told about having to meet with the press afterward and how they picked up on certain key language in certain resolutions. If we published that these resolutions were passed by a fraction of those actually on the rolls of our churches (ACP issues aside), then it probably wouldn’t make as much of a splash. We would, in essence lose our “collective voice.” Of course, you and I know that it is only a representative voice, and not a good one, but one that many still like to believe is accurate or represent as accurate.
David Rogers
on Nov 16th, 2006
@ 5:53 pm:
I already raised this question on Alan Cross’s blog and on Bart Barber’s (to which he gives a very interesting answer here. But I thought it would be interesting to hear anyone else’s read on this:
Do you think this resolution is a reaction to the reaction against the IMB policy? Or would there have been a reason for a resolution like this even if there had been no controversy over the IMB policy?
Alan Cross
on Nov 16th, 2006
@ 7:06 pm:
David,
Funny, you ask it on my blog and I fail to answer, so I’m answering it at Art’s place. It’s kind of like the conversation moves onto different front porches in Blog Town, eh?
I think that Bart’s answer was good (I saw his on his blog). This, in my opinion, probably came from Dr. McKissic’s actions. As Art said when it happened, that was the nuclear bomb. The IMB policies, while significant, were without recourse. Apart from Wade’s actions, nothing could be done. All we could do was complain. Dr. McKissic’s chapel address took the IMB issues and brought them further into SBC life. If he had not done that, they probably would not have done this. But, he SHOULD have done what he did, in my opinion. This is the direct fallout of the IMB BoT setting policy that goes beyond the BF&M2000. This should have happened with NAMB did it in, what 1988? Obviously, people were distracted, or didn’t care, or we didn’t have blogs, so no one knew.
I think that it’s going to get worse before it gets better. But, some things, in my opinion, are worth standing up for. My last post in my series will be up by later tonight, by the way.
Jen -imb m
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 12:27 am:
Am I surprised by this?
No.
Disappointed?
Yes.
There are a number (certainly not a majority or even close) of imb m’s that have a PPL. They don’t teach this (they’d be fired) or advocate this (they’d be fired) and it’s solely related to their private prayer time. These are Godly, loving people who are bearing good Fruit. These resolution seems to smack them in the face. Seems to imply that if you have a PPL it’s not from God. Hmmmm? If it’s not from God them where exactly do you think it came from? Satan?
Ridiculous.
I don’t have a PPL, nor am I looking for one.
I didn’t even know some of my friends had one until they began to privately tell some people because of their concerns over the IMB decisions.
How does having a PPL hurt anyone?
I pray the SBC passes a resolution that will stop limiting service within the SBC based on “rules” that fall outside the BF&M.
Art Rogers
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 10:33 am:
David, Alan and Bart,
On the issue of the origin of this resolution I have similar views as Alan and Bart, but they focus less on Dwight and more on the reaction by Dr. Patterson and others.
Of course, as Bart points out, someone outside the committee submitted the resolution and we can’t know their hearts on the issue unless they choose to speak to it. I have submitted a comment (not yet posted) on Bart’s blog asking who submitted it, by the way. Just curious.
I see a chain of events that have led us to this point. The IMB BOT make up, the sub-committee institution of PPL restrictions without vote of the Board, the press to vote by Dr. Rankin (also the baptism issue as a parallel and influencing force), Wade Burleson’s vocal opposition, Wade’s blog, the reaction to Wade’s blog (inclusive of the move to remove him from the Board, censure him, removing him from committees), Memphis, the presidential runup, Greensboro in all of its complexities, the Joshua Convergence as tangential – yet still related… Which brings us to Dwight McKissic speaking to an issue that has been embroiling the Southern Baptist Convention in conversation if not controversy for the better part of a year. After that, the censorship of the video feed.
I have said before, on this blog, that Dwight McKissic’s sermon was the equivalent of a nuclear device being set off in the convention. I stand by that. Did he have the right and responsibility to address this issue that has dominated our landscape this year? Yes. Still, the setting of the sermon is what made it so powerful. I cannot deny this and don’t seek to do so.
Nevertheless, I think that it would have become a footnote in the history of this issue among us (and Dwight would have been a noted as a minor player), had Dr. Patterson not removed the video feed. That elevated the issue to new heights and set it apart.
The reaction to the censorship prompted a move by the Seminary to defend what it believes, passing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Non-Policy Policy,” forbidding the practice or teaching PPL as a valid Biblical interpretation.
The reaction to that move, in my mind, is a move mirroring the Seminary in that it defends what the SBTC believes and the “majority position” that seems to mean so much here. Again, I can’t tell you how dangerous it is to continually appeal to the majority position instead of an honest reading of Scripture.
Upcoming points on the timeline include the roundtable on Dec. 5, the report of the ad hoc committees at the IMB BOT and San Antonio, where future resolutions and other moves will shape our future.
My conclusion is much the same as Bart’s. I think the SWBTS events became the tipping point for this resolution. They couldn’t have happened without Dwight McKissic, yet if the sermon would have gone on the web with no comment from Dr. Patterson, I think it wouldn’t have had nearly the impact it has had. Certainly, there would not have even been the need to institute the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Non-Policy Policy” were it not for the reaction to the censorship.
At this point, it is snowballing at a rapid pace.
Bart Barber
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 11:25 am:
Art,
Just a couple of things.
First of all, we have our Community Thanksgiving Service this week over at the Methodist Church. Now, if I were to go over there Sunday night and preach on infant baptism, that would pretty much be the equivalent of what Bro. McKissic did at SWBTS, in my mind. I assure you, his convictions about speaking in tongues are no stronger than mine about infant baptism. But when the Methodists invite the Baptist pastor over to their place for a combined service, there are certain unwritten points of etiquette that honorable people follow.
So, we agree that the occasion of McKissic’s sermon was the probable cause of SBTC’s desire to make a statement on this issue. We disagree (obviously) on our interpretation of those events.
Second, I thought all might want to know that the complete text of all of SBTC’s 2006 resolutions are available online here.
Third, I further agree that it is difficult to take any one event out of the broader context of our contentious times.
Bart Barber
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 11:37 am:
Brian,
Resolutions are worded carefully to state that they represent the views of the messenger body of a particular annual meeting of a particular body. This they do well without violating anyone’s autonomy. The initial statement (in my blog entry) is one that I defend: A combined group of messengers to any convention is far more representative of broader Baptist opinion than is my blog or anyone else’s. Furthermore, it is more representative than is any other mechanism of trying to divine Baptist opinion that I know about.
I use “representative” not in a formal, governmental sense. Rather, I use it in the same sense as one might wonder whether a particular poll is representative of public opinion at large. In other words, as an inductive research method, how accurately does it portray the larger population?
You’ll not find anyone more jealous of church autonomy than I.
Bart Barber
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 11:44 am:
Darren,
You will find the context of my comment about the SBC getting smaller in my “Attaboy” to Art. You have misunderstood me.
Art Rogers
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 11:46 am:
Bart,
Let me first affirm your second and third points. Thanks for the link and we obviously agree that it is an issue of a complex context. Wow. That’s some good alliteration, even if it is only two words.
As to your analogy, I would like to point out that a Baptist preacher in a Methodist church is radically different than Dr. McKissic. Here’s why:
1. Dwight McKissic is a Southern Baptist.
2. Dwight McKissic is a graduate of SWBTS.
3. Dwight McKissic is a Trustee at SWBTS.
In other words, Dwight McKissic is part and parcel of the institution that served as context for the sermon. Your analogy is that of an outsider coming in and making a mess.
I perceive it to be that of “one of us” addressing an issue on the forefront of our minds in a place where these issues are supposed to be dealt with openly and with reverence for God’s Word and each other.
He does a disservice to the platform and the host if he is an interloper. He is not. He is a part of the SBC.
Which reveals the problem. From my perspective, I have always known that this theology existed in the SBC, and while I do not practice a Private Prayer Language, I do think it is Scriptural, unlike the spontaneous public speaking in tongues without an interpreter and with much chaos, found in other places.
The opposing perspective is that this is an outside theology – and wrong. The perspective forces a view of Dwight McKissic’s sermon as one from the outside. It wasn’t.
Art Rogers
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 11:48 am:
Bart,
Thanks, by the way, for the “attaboy.’ ;)
Bart Barber
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 12:11 pm:
Art,
Your observations about my analogy are all well-taken.
So, I try to improve my work…
It would be like me being on staff at Fellowship Church, being asked by Bro. Ed Young, Jr. to preach one Sunday, and coming out against multi-site without giving Bro. Ed any indication that I was planning to do so.
Art Rogers
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 12:28 pm:
Bart,
Much better, indeed. In fact, I think I will agree with you – with one caveat.
I have personally asked Dwight about the sermon and his motivations. He told me that he was addressing an important issue that, he believed, needed attention.
When asked about Paige and his position, Dwight told me he didn’t realize that the situation was what it was until well after the reaction began to unfold. This is evidenced by the comments he made after the sermon about having a great lunch with the Pattersons and that he was not aware of any conflict between them.
In your analogy, you would have to have the staff member not realize the passion of Jr. for multi-site.
This sermon is often painted as a deliberate, “in your face,” move. Dwight has assured me personally that it was not. I encourage anyone to ask Dwight personally for themselves concerning his motivations at SWBTS that day.
There have been a few lies posted about Ben Cole & Wade Burleson being on campus and coaching Dwight that day. These stories are false – I have it personally from all three of these men.
The idea that Dwight intentionally went into that situation to create conflict has no basis in fact. Again, ask him for yourself. I know he would appreciate the opportunity to answer that question for anyone who would ask it.
Bart Barber
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 12:54 pm:
Art,
If things are as you describe them, then that does absolve Bro. McKissic of much of the responsibility.
But forgive me for struggling to understand.
On the one hand, Bro. McKissic is somehow so much in-the-know as to be addressing what he thinks is an important issue, to characterize his sermon specificallly as the deliberate taking of a “prophetic stand,” to mention very clearly the IMB policies, and otherwise to give every indication that the very reason that “he was addressing an important issue that, he believed, needed attention” was because of his awareness of what was going on in the SBC at the time.
On the other hand, Bro. McKissic is somehow so isolated from current SBC events that he had no idea that his statements would be controversial, had not the slightest indication that Dr. Patterson held a different view, and did not imagine that his sermon was tantamount to a confrontation of the International Mission Board.
Now, either of those scenarios is not that difficult to imagine by itself. I just don’t know how to fit them together in a way that makes sense.
Art Rogers
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 2:43 pm:
I can tell you only as much as I have told you. That is what I have heard first hand from Dwight, about a month ago.
I perceive that it is somewhere in between the two descriptions you have given.
I think Dwight, like most Southern Baptists had heard about the discussion concerning PPL within the convention and felt compelled to address it where he first encountered it.
What I understand, and specifically intended to address, was that he did not realize Dr. Patterson had a role within the IMB issue, and that he wouldn’t have responded the way he did – taking it as intentional conflict.
Really, you should contact Dwight yourself and ask him whatever you feel pertinent. I am sure he will be very forthcoming concerning his thoughts and mindset.
Bart Barber
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 3:17 pm:
Art,
I emailed McKissic at the beginning of all of this.
Art Rogers
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 4:34 pm:
Bart,
Try emailing him again. As you once said, in reference to my never getting a call back from the President’s office, it was a hectic time.
Brian Hatcher
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 5:16 pm:
Bart,
I fully understand the representative nature of a state conventional meeting. I am curious about a number of things at this point, especially after finally getting the chance to read the full text of the resolutions from the SBTC meeting this week. First off, I am curious about the make up of the resolutions committee. I glanced through the SBTC website (interesting that it is essentially used as a blog for its news section, but yet many of the speakers for its meeting were anti-blogging. Maybe they were talking about cranberries and we just all misunderstood.) and couldn’t find the list of committee members. Obviously, from the postings I know that Malcom Yarnell was the head. My question comes to this: Who is resonsible for the make up of the committee? And, if the committee did not fully represent the diversity of opinions within the folds of the SBTC on interpretative issues (i.e. PPL among other things) then why did it not? How can something from a non-representative committee be unbiased even if it is worded very carefully?
My next question deals specifically with Resolution #2. Below I have copied two unique phrases that I firmly believe at which every person should wave a giant red flag. Note, I am assuming that “Word of God” means the Bible/Scripture.
RESOLVED, we call on Texas Southern Baptists to remember that the Word of God alone is righteous, and that fallen human beings lack righteousness; and be it further
RESOLVED, we encourage Southern Baptists to remember that the Word of God alone is able to redeem sinful human beings, and that they may look nowhere else than to the Bible for the source of redemption; and be it further
I have settled in my own belief the inerrancy of Scripture and its existence as revelation from God. I believe it is applicable and sufficient in every area of my life. I am not real good at applying it, but God bless me I am getting better thanks to Jesus. Speaking of Jesus, He mentioned in the gospels that no one is good except God. How can the SBTC make a statement about something that Jesus, the Savior and God Himself in the flesh, would not even make about Himself? On top of that, how is the Bible alone righteous when Jesus lived incarnate on this earth in the flesh a perfect (i.e. righteous) life? Now, also, I don’t have the entire Bible memorized but I am certain that nowhere in there is it ever stated that anyone or anything is able to redeem a sinner other than Jesus Christ, His atoning self-sacrifice on the cross, burial, and resurrection on the third day. How can the SBTC make such a claim? This is dangerous water to tread. We must not lose sight of the true source of redemption, Jesus Christ, in our quest to reclaim inerrancy and sufficiency, which by the way we have already accomplished. To narrow parameters of cooperation and leadership beyond essential biblical principles is as bad as widening the gates to let everyone and every belief in.
Bart Barber
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 5:46 pm:
Art,
I never complained or commented (until pretty much asked point-blank) that Bro. McKissic did not reply. Nor did I draw any negative conclusions from the fact that he did not. I merely assumed that he did not reply because he wouldn’t know me from Adam. I’m more than willing to try again.
Brian,
Actually, Dr. Yarnell was not the head of the committee—he was a member. (Maybe the reason people speak ill of our blogs sometimes is that people come to conclude things from reading them that aren’t true?) He couldn’t make it on day one, so he was only there for the wrapup.
The makeup of the committee is a matter of public (printed) record. I don’t mind naming names. My only reservation is the limit of my memory. I hope that I don’t leave anyone out.
Marlene Boswell (chair)
Tony Matthews
David Galvan
John Hatch
Malcolm Yarnell
Hal Kinkeade
Lynn Snider
Bart Barber
My apologies to anyone I may have forgotten…either that, or you can thank me later :-).
Like committee appointments in virtually all Southern Baptist extra-ecclesial structures, these were made by the President, I’m pretty sure. Since the overwhelming preponderance of the messengers approved each of these resolutions, I’d say you’ll have a pretty tough time portraying the committee as “non-representative.”
I think you err in your stated assumption. The “Word of God” is not uniquely a reference to the Bible. There is the living Word who alone is righteous and our source of redemption. Yet it is important to note that you know absolutely nothing about Jesus that you did not learn from the Bible. Thus, unless and until we start seeing some more “Damascus Road” kinds of experiences, you may look nowhere else than to the printed word to discover the living Word.
Art Rogers
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 6:19 pm:
Bart,
Why the comment about not complaining? Did I insinuate to you that you had complained?
Bart Barber
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 6:23 pm:
Art,
The comment about not complaining to clarify that I’m not complaining.
The comment about not commenting to differentiate between this circumstance and that of yours to which I commented once upon a time long ago.
Please don’t take umbrage at my response to something that you brought up when I would not have.
Art Rogers
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 6:27 pm:
Bart,
I am not offended, but was slightly confused. I thought you were saying something that I wasn’t getting.
Indeed, I wasn’t getting what you were saying, but you have cleared it up.
My point was merely that you were right, once upon a time, about the busy-ness of the time and you might be more successful now.
Brian Hatcher
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 9:42 pm:
Bart, you are correct. I misread Art’s statement above, not so much misread as misremembered. I apologize for calling Dr. Yarnell the head. That was my mistake. You are correct in pointing out that. As for the committee, I maintain my same question. The reality that each resolution passed does not make the committee, or the state conventional meeting, representative of anything but the people in that meeting. My question asked specifically whether the committee represented the diversity of opinion throughout our fare state. Did anyone on the committee carry the interpretation that PPL or tongues, is a proper understanding of the passages? In other words, why wasn’t someone like Dwight McKissic placed on such a committee? After reading your recent post it appeared that you were not sure who is responsible for it. I certainly don’t know, but I believe it is a fair and legitmate question to ask. Why not attempt to put together a committee that represents the diversity of opinion out there, a committee that fully represents the state? Maybe the answer is to move beyond a single person being able to place and sit the committees. I don’t know. Again, I am also currently ignorant as to the committee process.
Now, as a person who experienced a “Damascus Road”-esque conversion, I would still agree that it is only the Living Word who is able to redeem, and it is through the printed word that He works.. I would also argue that there are a lot more of these experiences out there. My difficulty is the apparent elevation of the printed word above the Living Word. Without the Living Word there is no need for the printed word. The Scripture references in the preamble(is that even the right term?) of the resolution do not include John 1. The direct reference to 2 Timothy befuddles the issue because we would all generally argue that these verses reference the printed word. We would do well to remember that the two are distinct, and not the same. The printed word did not get nailed to the cross. It tells us of the Living Word who did. THe equation of the two, I fear, would lead to an elevation of the printed word to the status of deity and ultimately one person’s interpretation of it as Law. Isn’t this what Jesus chided the Pharisees for so often?
We are at a critical juncture in our denomination. We have won the battle for inerrancy. Is it possible that we are taking inerrancy too far? At this point we are risking further fracturing the denominational structure that we have. I believe we have become far too distracted from our God-given task of proclaiming the news of Christ to a lost and dying world. This is a bad thing.
Brian Hatcher
on Nov 17th, 2006
@ 9:58 pm:
Bart,
I came back to make sure I explicitly said that I agree whole-heartedly with your assessment above of the Living Word and printed word. I don’t think I really did in the previous post. I feel like we are blurring a line we shouldn’t, the line between the Living Word and printed word. Your statements on that topic are certainly true. The Living Word reveals Himself in and through the Bible. There is no doubt.
Brian
Alan Cross
on Nov 20th, 2006
@ 11:13 pm:
This will probably go unnoticed because it is now an old thread and everyone has moved on, but I called Dr. McKissic a couple of weeks ago and asked him the same thing that Art did. I talked to him for about 30 minutes. He assured me that he did not do this as an intentional “slap in your face” insult. Many people accused Dr. McKissic of trying to stir up trouble, and that he surely must have known what he was doing, right after it happened. That was not the case.
I find that whole approach interesting, as a matter of fact. When many were accusing Dr. Patterson of being behind the events with the IMB, his defenders came out asking for proof. Over and over, he was declared innocent. I remember Brad Reynolds writing profusely about this regarding the white paper. But, when Dr. McKissic speaks on this issue, he is just supposed to know that Dr. Patterson is in agreement with the IMB BoT? I have followed this very closely and had no idea where Dr. Patterson stood on the issue until he did not broadcast Dr. McKissic’s message. You can’t have it both ways. Not everyone knows all of Dr. Patterson’s theology on every issue.
And, by the way. What is wrong with opposing the actions of the IMB BoT from the chapel of a seminary campus if you think that they are wrong, or are behaving unbiblically? Why can we not express these opinions? It does not carry any weight and affects nothing officially. It is a point of discussion and debate, and hopefully, the result will be that it will cause us all to study Scripture that much harder. We should not be afraid of vigorous debate on these issues. I am stronger and sharper because of my exchanges with Bart Barber, Brad Reynolds, Tim Rogers, and others and would not trade it for anything. Now, if I could just get them to admit they’re totally wrong . . . :)