12 Witnesses

Why does it seem that James A. Smith, editor of the Florida Baptist Witness, has targeted Dwight McKissic? Not since Benjamin S. Cole set his sights on the occupant of the President’s chair at SWBTS has there been such a laser beam focus of one editorialist on a subject.

Consider the Florida Baptist Witness issue of a couple of weeks ago that seemed to have a theme: Critique Dwight.

Now, to be sure, anyone in the public eye, especially in such a role as Dwight, deserves a fair and honest critique - and a thorough one, to be sure. The question is, has he received a critique that is thorough, but is also fair and honest? I wonder when a state paper focuses so heavily on one person if it can be considered thus.

Let me give you a couple of links, and you can read for yourself.

First, this is a search of the word “McKissic” on the FBW website: McKissic-FBW. That’s a lot of talking about one man and his theology. For the most part, the theme seems to be trying to link Dwight to either Charismatics or Liberals.

Speaking of Liberals, be sure to read this: Prof’s 1980 lectures framed Sandy Creek-Charlston analogy

Written for Baptist Press, Smith follows a trail from Walter Shurden through Leon McBeth to Dwight McKissic. Specifically, Smith insinuates that because Shurden was openly critical of the Conservative Resurgence and that McBeth used statements from Shurden made at the same time as a source, and McKissic used McBeth as a source, then McKissic must be against the Resurgence. If you doubt that this is the intent, consider this quote from the article:

While McKissic speaks approvingly of the Conservative Resurgence which brought about the current leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, Walter Shurden delivered a two-part lecture in November 1980 offering a harsh critique of “inerrantists” who in ensuing years would successfully convince Southern Baptists change was needed in their denomination.

Note the “speaks approvingly” phrase. This, especially in light of the indictment heavy balance of the article, seems to indicate that Smith thinks that these words from McKissic are just that: words.

Interesting what lengths we would have to go through to link Dwight to Liberalism in the form of Shurden. In fact, you don’t really have to go this far. McKissic quotes Shurden himself directly in his booklet on the Sandy Creek - Charlstonian Roundtable. You don’t even have to go through McBeth to link these two.

However, does it stand to reason that if someone quotes historical sources from someone who is not a conservative inerrantist that they are not a conservative inerrantist? Rather, like Roger Moran, James Smith seems to be participating in a guilt by association indictment - only Smith does it with an state paper’s platform. He also does it with a little more finesse, not outright calling McKissic a liberal - just insinuating.

The end result, however, is not so different.

I called and asked Dwight McKissic about the insinuation. He hadn’t read the article yet, but when presented with the idea that if you quote a liberal, you must or even might be a liberal, he chuckled and sounded like he was shaking his head. Maybe the head shaking was just me.

Posts with related content

• No Related Post

SBC

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.