Author: art rogers
PPL, The road thus far
Wednesday, December 13th, 2006 @ 9:36 am
How did the PPL (Private Prayer Language, if you are new to the conversation) issue become the spotlight issue among all of those things that make up the current discussion? Among those things dividing us, we have the Authorized Baptizer guideline at the IMB (International Mission Board); the anti-Calvinism/pro-Reformed issue lurking and making appearances from time to time, whether by sermon from Ergun Caner or Johnny Hunt or motions concerning the theological position from the floor of the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) as we had in Greensboro last year; the debate surrounding Resolution #5 on boycotting the Alcohol industry, now brought to further prominence by John Sullivan, Florida’s State Convention Exec., who promised a complete exclusion of all folks in leadership unless they affirm that the one and only valid interpretation of Scripture concerning alcohol agrees with his - to the rousing applause of those gathered and in spite of the diligent exposition of the texts by Voddie Baucham just prior and which arrived at a different conclusion; and let us not forget the long running divide over worship styles, recently elevated to the collective conscious of the SBC by Executive Committee Chairman, Bill Harrell - who has also been known to weigh in against Calvinism as well. All of these issues fall under the question of Sufficiency of Scripture, BFM (Baptist Faith and Message) and where our authority to establish cooperational standards ACCORDING TO DOCTRINE lies.
There are probably several factors that have come together to make the PPL issue the main focus of our discussion.
Of course, the trail of this issue begins with Jerry Rankin, who has professed to having a PPL prior to being hired as the President of the IMB, winds through opposition to him within the IMB BOT (Board of Trustees) and other places in the Convention, makes a significant turn in the implementation of the restrictive policy at the IMB concerning missionary candidates (that has a very detailed history of its own), gains notoriety in the blogosphere starting with Wade Burleson who “vocalizes” his dissent (before being silenced by a policy aimed directly at him) by starting a blog, and followed by numerous others, including myself. *Deep breath* At this point the trail has now become a road that leads to Greensboro where Wade Burleson makes a motion that the Executive Committee study the goings on at the IMB (not just the PPL, but it is included in the motion). This motion gets differed to the IMB, whose study is ongoing.
All of the while, the other issues mentioned in the first paragraph are taking center stage in turn and the PPL issue is just one of so many. Add to that the fact that Wade pleads for peace in the blogosphere so that the ad hoc committees are allowed to do their job. This certainly takes the spotlight off of both the PPL issue and the Authorized Baptizer issue at the IMB as most bloggers honor that request.
At this point, our road seems to have come to a dead end of sorts. At least the construction of it has come to a standstill. Enter Dwight McKissic, newly elected trustee at SWBTS (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), who preaches a sermon outlining his experiences and understanding of Scripture concerning the issue of a PPL, both of which are favorable to its existence. The significance of this sermon lies in the fact that Dwight has been a part of the Resurgence/Conservative structure and was highly thought of among conservatives in Texas and the SBTC (Southern Baptists of Texas Convention - the “conservative” state convention of Texas); Dwight was a newly elected Trustee to SWBTS; Paige Patterson, Resurgence Architect and friend to Dwight McKissic, is also President of SWBTS and said by some to be “behind” the PPL policy at the IMB. No evidence of Dr. Patterson’s direct involvement has ever been produced.
Dr. Patterson then pulls the video from the online Chapel archives, although he makes it available for purchase. The controversy begins to escalate and is picked up by local media in the DFW area and, of course, the blogosphere. Eventually, it is picked up by others within the Baptist media.
*satire alert* Another aside, I think this is actually a new fundraising initiative for the Seminary as they are likely not to sell as many copies of all other chapels combined. 
*end of satire*
The BOT at SWBTS, under the leadership of Dr. Patterson, adopts a resolution that, in effect, states that any person that interprets Scripture in a way that allows for the existence of a Private Prayer Language could not serve at SWBTS. Of course, if no one knows that such a position is held by the candidate or employee, it is a moot point. Also, it is called a resolution and not a policy, but it is enforced and has the weight of a policy. Keep in mind, resolutions have no authority, and this thing does, making the term “resolution” ironic, at best. I call it the “Don’t ask, don’t tell non-policy policy.” That’s the short version.
Now we are on the beginnings of a highway that has a high mark of traffic when Wade Burleson announces the Roundtable and quits blogging until early December. Along with that, there seems to be an absence of any other developments in any other issue of division within the SBC, with the exception of the adoption of a resolution by the SBTC speaking against PPL during its meeting in November. This is on the same topic as the issue concerning Dwight McKissic, so it fuels the Roundtable discussion, rather than moving away from it.
An interesting note, here, the BGCT had a real opportunity to steal the show by dealing with the scandal in the valley where accusations of embezzlement of convention funds have surfaced, but they failed to deal with them in any significant way during their meeting. Their failure to allow the messengers access to the information is as “un-baptistic” as you can get, but still does not draw the spotlight. I think that because it was the BGCT many in this discussion, who consider themselves conservatives despite the libelous accusations of some, did not see it as directly relating to them or their churches. This drew a moments attention, but was not enough to grab the spotlight.
Back to the Roundtable. Dwight McKissic is the central figure in the Roundtable discussion. It was his idea, as was the Conference on the Holy Spirit. He and his church hosted the event (and all were grateful for the fine meal and generous spirit!). Since the main issue for Dwight is the PPL, the buzz surrounding the Roundtable has been about PPL. It is the topic the secular media perceives to be the subject of the entire discussion.
I think that the actions from SWBTS and the SBTC have done as much to make this issue the spotlight issue as anything. Don’t misunderstand this statement. I am not accusing them of doing anything inappropriate. I am saying that the timing of their actions, taken with the timing of the sermon and the Roundtable, have been very instrumental in raising this issue above the others in the conversation.
Let me say this clearly: I am aligned with Dwight on this issue, but it is not my only issue, nor is it my main issue.
The thing I have said repeatedly, that I said at the Roundtable and at the Press Conference, is that the PPL issue is not the root, but the fruit. It is the fruit of this controversy as is the worship style issue, the Calvinism issue and the rest.
The root is the struggle to define Southern Baptists as inclusive of those with differing interpretations of Scripture or to be exclusive of those who do not believe as “we” do (whomever “we” might be to the person speaking).
This conversation has been, and should be, about the continuing narrowing of parameters of cooperation among those who call themselves Southern Baptist.
Next: Southern Baptists right to choose with whom they will cooperate.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
December 13th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Your post didn’t really call for a “Hey, I agree” statement, but I agree. This is what I believed before any of this became an issue, and I so often found that others were afraid to stand up and deal with these issues. I’ve been a Southern Baptist for 44 years (my current age). I don’t remember being afraid of what I believed until about 20 years ago. Now, I’m just afraid for our convention. So, thanks for bringing up the issues, for being willing to publicly disagree with the powers that be. And, thanks for affirming how I believe an inerrantist should handle Scripture and doctrine.
December 13th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Let’s see….now we have the leader of an organization [IMB] who is disqualified from serving in the organization he leads were he to newly begin the process of appointment. AND we have a Trustee of an organization [SWBTS] who is disqualified from teaching at the organization he trustees….all because of something that is called “private.” Which would have remained so were it not made public by questions from those who say it should have remained “private” and are upset with another trustee who made “public” that which they didn’t leave “private.” I think…..that’s right. Boy, are we messed up or what?
December 13th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Paul, you just won me over, my friend. One’s private devotional life should remain just that … private. Our entities should not ask. But then, neither should people volunteer the fact that they have a “private prayer language. The moment that they do so, it is no longer (by definition)private. And the moment they do so, it contributes to the atmosphere and confusion in the church of the spiritual “haves” and “have-nots” … the divisive atmosphere that is the unfortunate, unavoidable product of glossolalia. Most of us probably have church members asking, “What is this whole private prayer language about? What is it? If it’s real, then why don’t I have one? Have I done something wrong? Is my theology bad?” You see what I mean…
Guys, I still believe that the entire PPL discussion, because of its recent broadened discussion and apparent call for acceptance of tongues in general (as evidenced by views expressed by visitors to this blog and others)is a non-winning issue in overall SBC life. The “fear of the tongues” and the desire to avoid all things charismatic,I think, seals the issue’s doom before the debate has even started. A discussion about broadening acceptance for cooperation (which I am all for … Art, you know that! I am a poster boy for Southern Baptist rejection
) really needs to center upon another issue.
But I do love the debate!
December 13th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Dear Art,
Great Post! You’ve done a fine job chronicling this issue. I value you, our friendship and the great ministry you provide to our convention via this blog. I do take exception to one comment you made, “Since the main issue for Dwight is the PPL…”. The main issue for Dwight is giving our missionaries the freedom to pray in private as they are gifted to do so. My secondary issue is for our seminaries (SWBTS) to teach a biblical and balanced perspective of this issue representing all viewpoints held by credible Baptist scholars. My third concern is that these doctrinal policy changes should be adopted first by the SBC in an annual session, rather than by the agencies of the convention usurping the convention’s authority and defining the convention in a way the convention has never defined herself. Finally, the most important issue for me is the same agenda our illustrious President Dr. Page has articulated and that is for Holy Ghost Revival to once again sweep over our SBC churches and convention. And by this I mean the Holy Spirit Himself not necessarily one of His gifts.
WDM
December 13th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Dwight,
Thank you for the clarification and, as always, the gracious and generous spirit. I hope that all of those who speculate about you and your motives get the opportunity, as did both Wes and Robin, to speak to you in person. I know they will come to find the gentle man of integrity that I have come to know.
Perhaps I should have said something like this, “Since the issue primarily associated with Dwight is PPL…”
Geoff,
I hope you take Dwight’s comment here seriously and realize that forcing the issue of glossolalia to be normative in the SBC is not a part of what anyone here is advocating.
On the other hand, I am afraid that I disagree with the interpretation of the word “private” to mean something that is not allowed to be discussed. This is what has led SWBTS to the “Don’t ask, don’t tell non-policy policy.” My primary criticism is that this is an ineffective way of dealing with the issue.
The truth is, some scholars give valid reasons for the POSSIBILITY of such a thing. I have just obtained permission, in fact, to reproduce some of Dr. Sam Storm’s work on the subject, written last year just after the IMB policy went into effect - before blogging and Wade Burleson were common concepts among so many of us. Look forward to that a little later.
I will agree with you, however, that the fear of “Pentecostalism” and the perception of arrogance (we are better/more holy because we posses something you don’t) will hurt the overall issue of cooperation. Unfortunately, this cannot be helped. Because of the prominence of the issue, the Sufficiency of Scripture as an overall part of the issue which is well worth defending, and especially because it now affects so many missionary candidates, it is an issue that must be addressed in a scholarly way and let the chips fall where they may.
art
December 13th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Art:
I think the lack of the tie in Arlington has led to greater blood flow to your brain, as this is a super post. But I must also point out that if 1 Corinthians 14 gives any permission for praying in the Spirit, or speaking in the tongues of angels, in your prayer closet, it also permits 2 or 3 public pronouncements, if interpreted.
Answer it right and I won’t even mention the part of Chapter 14 that says women should keep quite in church. I promise.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Geoff,
It may be I’m not understanding adequately, but, I’m seeing no one advocate tongues. I do see people who would not have said anything about whatever gift they might have, except confronted in an interview with a new policy of asking, and then turned down because of an answer with which the askers disagreed.
I, then, hear a man [I listened to the entire message] who spoke of his gift as an illustration that the disagreement would be with some other Baptists and not just missionary candidates. I did not hear advocacy for tongues in his message at all. I heard a confession made [because of the previously stated reason] and a biblical defense of the right to have a particular gift. Others are making a biblical defense of it not being a continuing gift at all. This is all legitimate dialogue from my perspective as a Baptist.
But to say it should just remain “private” is a statement made far too late, in my opinion. My statement was an attempt to take a look back to the original privacy needing to be maintained [or not being violated which is the flip side] “as to qualifications for appointment.” [This is primarily because the BM@M does not...perhaps should not...that's another discussion... address it at all.]
May we learn from this somewhat convoluted debate is my desire and prayer and not make the same mistakes over other doctrines not essential to salvation, Baptist life, or personal fellowship. [Remember tongues was addressed effectively in the former policies.]
December 13th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
I pray that the current BOT witht the IMB will move to rescind the new policy on PPL and revert back to the former policy which worked and relied upon regional leadership to address any abuses or violations of said policy.
Each local church itself could address PPL and cessationist/continualist theology in general; and then yet the IMB could appoint God called missionaries from both cessationist and continualist churches. This would be an incredible move to bring back some unity to the convention and hope for the local automony of the church under obviously the Scriptures, but also the BF&M.
So what say ye? Is this possible? What’s the likelihood of my hope becoming reality?
December 13th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Let me go on the record as saying that I am not advocating tongues either. Our church is continualist leaning. However, if someone were to come into our church and advocate tongues, try to get everyone to do it, or make anyone who did not have the gift feel inferior, I would pull them aside and correct them. In the same way, if someone came into our church and tried to forbid it, or go after those who participated in the practice privately, I would correct them as well. From time to time, in conversation with their pastor, someone will reveal to me that they have the gift. I never have any idea from anything that they do publicly in our church. This seems to be a good balance and our focus is on Christ and His gospel.
Our church has not been harmed. We have been leaders in our state in baptisms, CP giving, and missions involvement for a church our size. We are healthy and growing in every definition of the word, and our church is filled with young people. We are sending people out into ministry. We are not charismatic at all, although our worship is exuberant. Why anyone would see a problem with our fellowship is beyond me. Yet, the issue is that people coming up through our church who are taught the Bible the way we teach it could be disqualified from missionary service if God sees fit to grant them a prayer language, as we teach is possible. That is why I am involved in this.
We also accept those who have been scripturally baptized from other denominations, even those who do not believe in eternal security. Strike two.
We also lean Calvinistic. Strike three.
We also engage in small groups and modern, informal worship. Uh, strike four?
We have elders . . .
We are grace oriented and do not control behavior through legalism . . .
We work across denominational and racial lines . . .
We initiate our own mission work if our state convention, local association, NAMB, or the IMB cannot help us . . .
Do you see where I’m headed here? We are far from perfect and have many faults. However, the direction of the leadership of the SBC seems to be headed another way. All of these issues are important and they go straight to the heart of what Art is talking about. Does the SBC really want to push aside churches like ours? I don’t think they do. Actually, I think that the vast majority would welcome our involvement, and they do. That is why the activity of a few people in power must be dissented against, in my opinion. It isn’t only about PPL and their view is not the only one that matters. I was taught that that perspective is pretty Baptist. Shows what I know.
Just some thoughts.
December 13th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Alan,
MO only, but I think you were taught correctly. I think you’re doing church correctly. I think you make it fun being a Baptist. You’re my kind of guy.
December 13th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Wow, Alan, there are churches out there believing the Word of God?
Geoff, the bible makes it pretty clear that not everyone has every gift and that no one should be that concerned about who has what. As Alan said, if someone were to act in a spiritual have kind of way, well, then they are only glorifying themselves, and not God, and that should be dealt with. I’ve seen that kind of behavior in every church I’ve been a part of, and I know I struggle with pride, and it normally doesn’t have anything to do with what spiritual gift someone has. It often has to do with something much more base, like money (of the world), power (as defined by the world), prestige (again, by the world), etc. I’d almost like it if the pride were over something Kingdom oriented (not really).
December 14th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Art and all,
I have been waiting many years for this high-level widespread discussion of tongues and spiritual gifts in the SBC. I hope — no, I believe — this is the Lord’s timing. I pray that love, wisdom, and peace will prevail, and that Kingdom work together will soon be enhanced and expanded rather than restricted.
May I share a relevant bit of my story? I was once told by a church treasurer in northeast Texas, “Pastor, you’re gonna have to decide if you’re a Baptist or a Pentecostal.” She was afraid that I was being influenced by a close friendship with a Pentecostal pastor in the area. (She had been raised Oneness Pentecostal and later became a Baptist.) In reality, in a spiritually dry time and place, I was beginning to hunger and thirst and believe that there was more to the Christian life than I had experienced before — something more like the book of Acts for the church today.
I did experience spiritual renewal eventually, and it became difficult for the old wineskins to hold new wine.
(Tongues was never an issue, though, because I never raised it.) I left that church quietly to devote full-time to a dissertation back at SWBTS, and my family and I joined James Ave Baptist Church for almost a year. Steve Fish was and is still the lead pastor there. Oh, what refreshment and affirmation! I discovered it IS possible to be Baptist AND believe that the Lord continues to pour out His Spirit on His people and give them the same gifts He gave His earliest followers. What a biblical balance we experienced between Word and Spirit!
While there, however, my wife and I received news that we could go no further in the FMB/IMB appointment process. After many years in seminary and in the candidate pipeline, we had gotten to the reference-taking stage. It seems that at least one secondary reference (the church treasurer of the former church?) used the word “Pentecostal” to describe my beliefs. The candidate consultant said, “The trustees would shoot me out of the water if I took these references forward. You should go on to another pastorate and let us take new references after about two years. Maybe then your theology will have settled down.” It wasn’t about PPL at all. But it WAS about perceptions and what was properly “Baptist”. I would have been content to serve under the old policy about tongues. But today I would be asked and disqualified by my answer.
Back then, how I wished the SBC would have been ready to address these issues which became very personal to me. Looks like the time has come.
With you all, in His grip, for His glory,
Todd
December 14th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Darren,
I don’t know the likelihood. I know it is our goal and that we are closer than we were.
Todd,
Thanks for the testimony.
All,
Thanks for lending your thoughts.
art
December 14th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
As much as I want to affirm the right and even the necessity of our being able to respond to God in whatever form is given, I am concerned about singling out glossolalia or private prayer language as the way that spiritual renewal comes. Ought there not to be more focus on the full range of missional activity, including a commitment to justice and to peacemaking, and aren’t these things the ground out of which renewal grows? Certainly those commitments, plus an ongoing involvement in studies that connect Christ and culture, plus participation in classical, even liturgical, forms of worship, are all renewing to me.
After many years in ministry I still hear the considered judgment of a committed college professor, whose research suggested to him that glossolalia were most often associated with persons affected by deep insecurities. That is not intended as a pejorative, just as an analysis.
For what it’s worth, I belong to another generation (I’m almost 69 years old) and was trained at the Southern Baptist Seminary (Louisville) when the focus was quite different from what it is now.
December 14th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Dear Uncle Smith (using the Asian title of respect),
I’m not sure if you interpreted my testimony as implying that renewal comes only through PPL. That would not be my intended meaning at all. In fact, I do take a broader view of spiritual gifts and the work of the Holy Spirit that embraces all that He empowers us and directs us to do in Kingdom work. In our church, for instance, we emphasize Isa. 61 and the doing of good works, deliverance for the captives, good news for the poor, etc. Personally I like the concept of “servant evangelism”.
Southern Baptists have a good track record historically on the Word as our foundation and missions as our mandate (including some who have emphasized justice, peace, and ministry to the poor and marginalized). Where I see the Lord calling us lately is to a more balanced and biblical reliance on Word AND Spirit, work AND worship, truth and grace. I first learned the importance and priority of worship through Bruce Leafblad at SWBTS in the mid-80s. Without a vibrant private and public worship life, we will burn out doing good works, even missions (and BTW, PPL is not necessary for a vibrant prayer life!) On the other hand, worship without obedience, no matter how “feel good” or contemporary the worship is, is incomplete.
Regarding PPL being more common among people with deep insecurities … Without seeing the empirical data, I can’t comment on the accuracy of that analysis. But it does smack of reverse elitism to me. (The “have nots” see the the “haves” as emotionally immature. I hate that divisive “have - have not” terminology, though, and always teach against it.) My own limited observation indicates that charismatics and others with a PPL represent a wide spectrum of humanity including both the emotionally immature and the very stable. Maybe we see what we want to see, huh?
BTW, there’s a link on my blog to a scientific study of the brains of tongues-speakers. I found it interesting.
Blessings on you, sir, as you keep worshiping and serving the Lord.
And thanks, Art, for the forum for this discussion. I appreciate your summary of the developments of the last year or so.
Todd
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
December 15th, 2006 at 6:23 am
Well, Nephew Todd, your post gets at what I am working toward — the balance of work and worship, etc. Very good. It reminds me of the old days — yes, good old days — when what was then known as the Home Mission Board published materials on and worked at issues of inclusiveness, racism, etc., although with very little on the advocacy front. Of course now we do advocacy, but apparently only for Republican-conservative causes!
I will check out your brain-study link, as it may shed light on the phenomenon, which I am trying to see in psychological and now maybe neurological terms AS WELL AS theological terms. Fearfully and wonderfully made as we are, I prefer not to drive a wedge between those things, and see God working in and through who we are rather than invading us. We’ll see … have not had to do much study of this because I have never been in a church where this phenomenon arose. And I see your point on reverse elitism … after all, one way to describe sin is to see it as insecurity, a distancing from God, so that salvation becomes redemption from that condition. As my wife said when her mother died this summer, “I am not grieving because I know where she is.” Security! But insecurity sneaks up on us, blindsides us, and so in a sense we are all partially redeemed.
I know of Dr. Leafblad. My brother, Robert Smith, who teaches in the SWBTS music school, has mentioned him with genuine appreciation.
December 15th, 2006 at 7:35 am
JMS,
I certainly wouldn’t say that PPL is the thing through which Spiritual Renewal comes. I don’t pray in anything but english with a slight southern drawl.
Which leads me to Todd’s reference to Dr. Leafblad. Amen to all of that. Like so many, I was deeply affected by Dr. Leafblad’s vision of a deep, personal relationship with God, in which Worship is the main form of relating to Him. Of course, this is where I was first introduced to John Piper and his book Desiring God.
I was never under the impression that glossolalia had anything to do with it, necessarily. In fact, I don’t ever remember it mentioned.
Finally, I agree with Todd about the anecdotal story concerning emotionally insecure people tending toward tongues. It seems like reverse elitism, but I think that has marked this entire discussion. Dwight McKissic, one I know who we all can recognize, is personally kind, genuine, humble and gracious. Anything, frankly, but insecure.
Todd,
Very interesting study on your blog. I recommend it to all reading - it is thought provoking to say the least.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
It’s safer to be a heretic than a “charismatic” or “pentecostal” in a Baptist church. The powers that be have chosen this issue as the place to dig in and fight because it is a battle they will win with the people in the pew through the use of labels and charicature (remember Baptist Press label “Neo pentecostal”). They want people in the pew to believe we’re like the nuts on TBN.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Greg,
That is a sad statement for you to say it is safer to be a heretic than a “charismatic” or “pentecostal” in a Baptist church. That is a VERY SAD statement to me, esp. an outsider of Southern Baptists. (I am a charistmatic/pentecostal, yet non-denominational person myself).
And TBN or Daystar people are NOT NUTS. I got saved through Christian television, specifically TBN. If it wasn’t for TBN and Daystar, a lot of people would not hear the Gospel, and a lot of people would not find Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord.
Lastly, a note on whether PPL is the source of spiritual renewal. I disagree with that notion. Having a PPL is a result of being spiritually renewed, not the source of spiritual renewal. That’s what I think.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Jonathan,
It is a sad statement that you could be heretical before Pentecostal in most SBC churches. Many, however, consider that Pentecostal theology to be heretical. In some places, I might agree. I have to say, though I don’t want to degenerate into nitpicking TBN, I have seen and heard a few things that I definitely consider beyond the bounds of orthodoxy.
I would, however, agree with your final statement wholeheartedly.
art
December 15th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Art,
Thanks for your comments…
I agree that some pentecostal theology IS heretical (i.e. Oneness Pentecostal theology). However, I think we need to define what “Pentecostal theology” means, because that is a vague term, and can mean different things to different people, depending on your background and spiritual heritage within Christianity. Personally, when I hear the phrase “Pentecostal theology,” I am confused as to whether you are speaking of Oneness Pentecostals, or other groups, e.g. Assemblies of God, Foursquare, Church of God (Cleveland), etc.
I do not agree with everything I see or watch on TBN and Daystar, either. Personally, Daystar is much more mainstream and usually in the bounds of orthodoxy, whatever that means. However, I think TBN does put out good programs, and you cannot just take everything on TBN and put it in one basket… they even air Baptist ministers, too.
December 16th, 2006 at 6:45 am
Joseph (is it ok to be less formal now? :-),
Speaking of various people and the old Home Mission Board, I used to work a bit with Dale Cross and the Urban Evangelism Fellowship when I was a student at SWBTS. Got to host and meet missional men like Ray Bakke, John Perkins, David D’Amico, and Harvie Conn. It was an enriching and challenging time. Also at the HMB for many years was a good friend and neighbor from seminary days, Tom Wright (and wife Donna). He’s now the DOM of the Mobile Baptist Association in Alabama.
Greg!
Hey brother. You still in Georgia? Jeni and I have good memories of our summer teamed up in Columbus, OH doing church planting 21 years ago.
You’re right about the strong feelings against charismatics and Pentecostals that continue in many Baptist churches. And understandably so, perhaps. But I’m hopeful that, the times they are a changin’. Not that all Baptists should “capitulate” but that we should engage their theology and practice without prejudice and adopt the biblical and best aspects of the movement while staying anchored to the Word. I think, on the whole, the Vineyard movement has done that and so have some Evangelical Free churches — not perfectly, of course, but with more openness than the majority of SBC churches and leaders, IMO.
Art,
Thanks again for the forum, and for the replies to my testimony and link. And for allowing some name-dropping!
Jonathan K,
Hi brother. Just wondering: What motivates an unabashed charismatic to hang out on Baptist blogs?
December 16th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Todd, good to hear from you. I’m still in metro Atlanta and doing well. I always look for your posts and praise the Lord for all He is doing through you and Jeni. I wish times were changing, but all that is going on in the SBC right now gives me pause to believe it could be so.
Jonathan, the statement about TBN should have been qualified, and for that, I apologize. I’m happy every time the true gospel is communicated, regardless of who is doing the communicating, regardless of their motive. Not everyone on TBN is a nut. Most people in the SBC pews, however, associate TBN with Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley and others who they view as nuts and they will use this to charicature the whole PPL thing.
When I say it is safer to be a heretic than a “charismatic” or “pentecostal” in the average SBC church I do not consider that a good thing (I am a continualist but would not consider myself either a charistmatic or pentencostal as I do not believe the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is a second work of grace evidenced by speaking in tongues), and I speak from experience. The one time I got into trouble on staff of an SBC church is when we had prayer groups that took James 5 seriously and started laying hands on people and praying and seeing some remarkable results. Some of the folks in the church I served viewed this as “charismatic/pentecostal” and asked that it be stopped (even sent me an article from a very prominent local Baptist pastor who said God doesn’t work this way anymore). The same church later embraced a pastor who advocated the so called “free grace” heresy(You can reject Jesus as Lord while asking Him to be your Savior).
I am currently leaving a staff position at an SBC church and will likely begin attending a local Vineyard for all the reasons my friend Todd mentions.
December 16th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Todd,
I started following Baptist blogs with the initial contrversies of Rev. Burelson and Henderson Hills, because I live in Oklahoma, and these are “local matters” to me. It really started with just reading Burelson’s blogs, and then exploring others who commented in his. I am now starting my own blog, which some bloggers will be able to comment in as well. Hope that answers your question.
Greg,
I don’t see Benny Hinn or Rod Parsley as nuts, although I might not agree with everything they say. I believe there are more accurate and appropriate terms to use in describing these individuals than “nuts.”
I’m sorry about your experience in that Baptist church. It is sad to me that a group that takes James 5 seriously would be told to cease it.
My pastor, also, is an ex-Southern Baptist, for some of these same reasons.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
You might be interested to know that Paige Patterson himself is on record in saying that a Christian should be afforded the right to have a PPL, we must not forbid it. If only he would practice what he preaches. See here http://timothycowin.wordpress.com/
TC