A Response from Dwight McKissic

We are fortunate here at SBC Today that we have many diverse views represented. For some that do not know, our recent addition to the Resource Management Team, Brother Scott Gordon, is a 5-point Calvinist. We enjoy the different theological views that are across our denomination we call the Southern Baptist Convention. It is our differences that make us strong, but it is also our differences that create the tension that we all know as Baptist.

One such difference was seen recently when Brother Dwight McKissic appeared on a TBN show, hosted by Richard Hogue, where the host began the show by saying, “I love a good controversy, don’t you?” Rev. Hogue followed that statement up by saying, “There is a controversy brewing inside the Southern Baptist Convention about speaking in tongues”. This statement caused me concern because Rev. Hogue went on to name his panelist after he referenced them as “pastors that are Southern Baptist and Pastors who actually they themselves speak in tongues”. When Rev. Hogue makes a statement about speaking in tongues, he does not speak from the same theological bend as does Brother Dwight McKissic. Therefore, the disagreement I held for Brother Dwight and the TBN show, had nothing whatsoever to do with appearing on TBN. Any pastor any place is free, and I applaud them, to appear in various venues to further the Gospel. Brother Dwight sat on that panel and openly stated his view but it was intermingled with the views of the others that clearly spoke from a pentecostal pneumatological view of tongues. Thus, in my last post on SBC Today, Baptist Dissent, I called on Brother Dwight to clearly distinguish his views from those of the panelist. His nearly fifteen page response distinguishing his views from those of the panelist is the reason I am placing this article in the comment stream. I do not want to negate, or hide, his articel with my response.

I desire to focus on some areas that Brother Dwight has called to our attention in his response. Brother Dwight’s article is entitled Are Baptist Who Pray in Tongues in Personal Devotions Welcome in the Southern Baptist Convention? The very title of the article presents a misnomer about the SBC. All are welcome in the SBC, but there are some theological moorings that we will not compromise. One such mooring is the theological position that the convention has steadily held concerning charismatic practices. The June 2007 LifeWay release posed one serious flaw. That flaw was to clearly describe a theology of what pastors considered to be a charismatic practice. What do pastors mean when they use the term Private Prayer Language, or Praying in Tongues? Is this a Pentecostal doctrine they are describing? Brother Dwight did an excellent job expressing his differences from those of the pastors that appeared on the panel with him. He has clearly separated himself from the positions of Rev.’s Camp and Miller and even expresses how Rev. Miller’s four baptism position is also out of kilter with the Pentecostal position and how the host even spoke to Rev. Miller during a break.

Brother Dwight has expressed his concern about not feeling part of our SBC family. His concerns, on the surface, do appear legitimate but when investigated and presented with other facts, should not cause that great of a concern. I am not saying it should not concern us, but I am saying that it is not to the level we should move heaven and earth to rectify.

Brother Dwight states that he; “plans to remain Southern Baptist unless I’m disfellowshiped.” No one is going to disfellowship Brother Dwight, or anyone else in the SBC because they have a Private Prayer Language. This is an exaggerated statement that should not concern anyone. It seems that many are saying that if we stop sending Missionaries out that have a PPL then we will then stop sending out Calvinist. Such a statement concerning PPL fails to remember that no one has called for Dr. Jerry Rankin to step down from leadership position because he possess a Private Prayer Language, and no one has called for Dr. Albert Mohler to be removed from his position at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary because he is a Calvinist.

Brother Dwight has also called our attention to a seemingly discriminatory practice in the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. He speaks about a recent trip to the ExCom in Nashville and his tour of the 14 floors containing those that fill our denominational payrolls. To his surprise the highest ranking African American was the head custodian. First, being a custodian should not be viewed as degrading work. I remember working at a grocery chain and my job was cleaning the isles. I was the custodian. I do not believe that Brother Dwight means this to be a derogatory statement toward custodians, as he related to me his father held that position, I know Brother Dwight holds custodial work in high regard. Therefore, working as a custodian is not something that anyone is viewing as a negative position. Second, I do not know the ExCom.’s hiring practices. I trust Dr. Morris Chapman seeks God’s will for the right person and basically becomes color blind when he fills a position. Let’s say that an African American Senior Pastor desired to maintain an ethnic balance within his administrative staff. If he were to identify his need for an Anglo Executive Pastor, would he not remove African American Executives that were highly qualified from the search list? If it is the case that the ExCom. is throwing out resumes because the person is African American, then I will lead the charge to move from such a practice. I just do not believe that our leadership at the ExCom. is doing something like this. If we have a person that is charged with African American church leadership and that person is Anglo, then we certainly have a problem. However, I just do not believe that is the case.

Brother Dwight also expresses that he does not feel part of our SBC family because there are not persons like himself at the entity level heads. While I know that Brother Dwight does not mean that he personally should be in these leadership positions, I do want to call attention to something. The five pastors, that call ourselves Resource Managers here at SBC Today, has never held a trusteeship with an entity in the SBC. I have never been given a tour of the Executive Committee building and neither of us have led in a silent prayer at any seminary chapel service, let alone been asked to preach. Brother Dwight has ascended the ranks of SBC entities much further than any of us who are defending these entities. We feel very much a part of the SBC family.

This issue is not about race, it is about theology that will be acceptable to Southern Baptist, as a whole. This issue was exacerbated by an appearance on a broadcast where clear theological differences were blurred because of some misplaced desire. Brother Dwight’s desire to reach people for Jesus and strengthen His Church is one that needs to be mimicked by us all. His heart to reach the nations is seen in his church and his leadership of the gracious and hospitable people at Cornerstone. I know that every time I mention his name my daughter’s eyes brighten and a smile crosses her face. Why? Brother Dwight took time to make something special of her when he met her. The same thing he does when he meets anyone. He has a way of making you feel as if you are the most important person in the world when you are in his presence. His desire to fulfill a part of his calling of strengthening the church and clearly spreading the Gospel became misplaced, I believe, by this appearance as a panelist. Brother Dwight believes, as I, that if he would have been interviewed by himself there would not have been such a response.

For Brother Dwight to now say that he does not feel part of the family in SBC life if foreign to me. He has been asked to preach on some of the leading conferences and in seminary chapel services. He was even asked to speak at a SBTC conference after his SWBTS Chapel service message that was not published on their website. God has used Brother Dwight and the SBC has recognized that fact. He has been exposed to the inner working of the Trustee system. He has been placed on various conferences and has been invited to speak in various Seminary Chapel services. How much more in the family should someone feel?

I believe that Pastor McKissic did a yeoman’s job in responding to a challenge that was put to him in a seemingly patronizing way. He not only answered clearly and succinctly, he went beyond that and displayed his heart on his sleeve.

It is not seemly that after doing so, he should be mercilessly nitpicked! His humility and graciousness should be received in like manner.

If I knew him and were considered to be a friend, it would be an honor. Those whom he calls friends, should also be so inclined to feel honored.

Dr. McKissic,

I appreciate your candor and your honesty in what you have said. I live in Nashville and the EC building is shorter, but seems inflated when inside (smile…just a joke!). I agree with you, if anyone is serious about evangelism or committee representation, you don’t ignore ethnicity and I would hope that NBA,….Lifeway, EC or any SBC affiliate would understand that simple fact.

It is interesting listening to this debate and how the gift of tongues is defined, and then redefined, and then defined, labeled and then relabeled. It appears you have embarked upon a new definition of tongues, now termed “praying in tongues” which I would agree is a more accurate biblical representation of at least the words used (1 Corinthians 14:13), yet without the substance that you have attached. The context of the passage, Corinthian correction, does not create a need to change the meaning of what the gift of tongues is to the church. The spiritual gift of a tongue obviously is a gift for the church and there is no biblical reason for it to cease.

I think you have at least brought up an interesting theological concern, though. The concern is not whether tongues or “praying in tongues” exist, because scripture is clear that the gift of speaking in a tongue does exist in the context of the church. The theological debate is centered on whether one believes Paul is “correcting” the Corinthians or whether he is simply establishing new forms of the established gift in how he addresses the Corinthians in chapter 14.

If one takes the position that he is not correcting the Corinthians, then it becomes rather easy to impose a new definition for tongues in the model of a prayer, privately or not privately. If one takes the position of correction, then is becomes clear that Paul is using his manner of speaking, as he does in many of his other letters, to make a point of correction and not to establish something new. Whether one is Baptist or Assembly of God, PCA, et al., it is impossible to miss the context. The issue becomes how then it will be taught for the benefit of the church.

It would be “silly” to remove evangelists and missionaries from the field for praying. They simply need to be taught the biblical reason for and the proper use of tongues. Paul did not have an issue with clarifying this for the Corinthians.

Blessings,
Chris

Brother Dwight,

It is good to see your response. I will address your response one item at a time in order to clearly articulate our differences.

1.) Where can I find the official “theological position that the convention has steadily
Held concerning charismatic practices.” First, Dr.s Hemphill, Draper, and Graham are all addressing the Pentecostal Pneumatological position of a second blessing. All three deny the second blessing, but they also acknowledge a gifting of the Holy Spirit and tongues being one of those gifts. The tongues that Dr. Draper references is the tongues of a language that is practiced with an interpreter in a public worship setting, not a personal prayer language. Dr. Hemphill , while I agree that he allows for a personal prayer language, seems to deal more with a public worship experience. Dr. Graham, if you are basing your argument on the quotes in your paper, clearly states that he does not believe in a gift of tongues.

2.) I have not requested nor do I expect the SBC to move “heaven and earth to rectify” anything.
You may not feel this needs to be rectified at this time, but if it is not rectified will you feel part of the SBC? I presume you will say no. If that is the case then we need to rectify the situation in order to keep you. If you say yes. Then why bring this up in this forum without first presenting it to the ExCom?

3.) Bro. Ben Cole reminded me that there were only 7 floors at the EC building. This was corrected when you told me. Of course, it may not have been a faulty memory, but probably a double tour. Something else that adds to my point that you are part of the SBC Family. :^)

4.) Bro. Tim, when you join the NBC, invest money and attend their convention then I’m sure you’ll be granted an audience to voice your concerns. Sorry, Brother Dwight, but while the NBC has a statement of faith that appears to be closely related to our 63 BF&M, their open ecumenical positions do not agree with the church I pastor does.

5.) I feel very welcome in the SBC. I visited Southern Seminary this past summer doing independent research and I was humbled and honored that Dr. Hershel York and Dr. Russell Moore were very gracious in extending to me a welcome, lunch and a favor at the library. This is not what you said. You said that you did not feel a part of the family.

6.) Bro. Tim you missed the point: Now that the convention is aware of my belief and practice regarding the gift of praying in tongues in private—would I be offered a trusteeship? You probably would not be offered a trusteeship. But, the question looms largely, would it be because of your theological beliefs, or would it be that you did not finish out your appointment? Let’s face it. There are trustees at various entities that have disagreement with the entities leadership. None of them have felt a need to resign. None of them have been censured. Many have been asked to serve another term. As for stepping down, you said that was done of your free will.

7.) Bro. Tim, you do not address the key concern: Are all welcome to drive the train even if they pray with the gift of tongues in private and because it is a gift they don’t have a reason to publicly deny this gift, just as one does not deny any other spiritual
gift? As you and I have stated earlier every analogy breaks down somewhere. This is one analogy that I believe breaks down when you try to apply it. However, if you must use this analogy, we must remember that there is only one place on the train for the driver to sit. There cannot be multiple tracks to chose from when th train is moving down the tracks. Let’s say that you have someone come into your church that desires for the church to hold to a Landmark theology. Would you allow that person to serve on your staff? You certainly would allow that person to be a member of the church, but would you allow that person to serve in leadership positions? Do you not feel it is the same within the convention? Just because someone says; you can ride on the train, but you will not be allowed to drive it, does not mean that anyone is being moved to a lesser position. If through the presidential appointment process, we begin seating more and more trustees with the theological leanings such as yourself, then you will be able to probably drive the train. But, according to your report of the ExCom visit in September, you have been in the engine room, and I am still sitting in the back of the train. Why do you feel you are not driving the train?

Blessings,
Tim

Sister Debbie,

I thought you might out there… (smiling)

Back to the Corinthian text….Why would Paul even have to speak this way to those in Corinth… (1 Corinthians 14:14)? You must ask why and pay attention to context, before you establish or construct a new pattern where one did not exist previously.

Paul is making comparisons and contrasts to emphasize the use of clear speech in languages that are understood. He is not making an assumption that when tongues are properly spoken they cannot be understood, which if they cannot be understood would make them impossible to interpret. A language (tongue) was meant to be understood, thus we have interpretation. If a language could not be understood, it would not be interpretable. A language that is un-interpretable is forbidden in the context of the church. This is Paul’s main them in this 1 Corinthian 14 section. To miss the context is to simply ignore the clear teaching of Paul to an immature group at Corinth. There is no other way to look at this group at Corinth or the context of Paul’s admonitions. It is extremely obvious that his letter is not a “pat on the back”….for something they were doing right….he makes it abundantly clear in chapters 1-3 when he casts these multiplicity of outstanding problems….and then he addresses the problems throughout the rest of the letter using common sense examples in Pauline fashion.

Is there another way to view it? I am not trying to be naïve to think that many people try to interpret Corinthians in a different, or new a fast way….

If the context is established and understood as Paul correcting this group at Corinth (as I believe it is), the meaning of the passage is very instructive to the benefit of the church. Paul (speaking the very words of God) is saying to this group and all that follow.. “speak clearly”…and he does say this in is summary statement.. (1 Corinthians 14:18-30). If someone were to pluck these verses (or any verse for matter) out of context, it would make it very opportunistic and exciting to work Paul’s admonitions to be anything you desire.

I don’t think it can be anymore clear….Paul is correcting the behavior of speaking in tongues, not reconstructing its use. Again, this does not call for cessation whatsoever, but simply amplifies the context for clear interpretation or even better, prophesy.

Blessings,
Chris

I believe we’re avoiding the elephant in the room here. The real issue is racism. Why don’t you folks talk about the real issue?

Are Southern Baptists racists? I believe we have a long, long way to go. Our Sunday morning worship services are still the most segregated hour of the week.

Les

Hello Pastors,

Alan Stoddard Here. Three years ago I resigned from Hillcrest Park Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas. I resigned after four years because 4 deacons harassed me to the point of internal unrest. I lost my passion for the vision. The vision? Yeah, we were in a neighborhood that experienced “White flight.” We had 43% Latino, 33% African American, the rest was Asian and a little Anglo. The church was dead when I got there. We went from running 90 to 160 by the time I left. We began reaching the neighborhood. Blacks and Hispanics started attending in small, but respectable numbers. Things were changing. Guess what happened? The old guard SBC guys got mad because they lost power and we were reaching different people. I used to wonder of some of the Blacks who would visit, but would not join. What kept them from joining, connecting, and staying? The answer is simple: they never got to the kitchen tables of the older Anglos who owned the place.

When I resigned, I was not 100% sure of where I would go. I know that breaks the rules, but when your passion and vision are sucked dry by people who say one thing to your face, then another behind your back, well, integrity must step in and stand up. Dwight McKissic allowed me to serve on his staff as his Minister of Evangelism. For 2 years I served the Lord, Dwight, and the Cornerstone Family. I learned a lot. If it was not for Dwight McKissic, I may have ended up who knows where. A year and a half ago, to my surprise, Dwight did something that I always wanted to do, especially with a Black minister. He promoted me as his Executive Pastor. HELLO! A white man as the number #2 guy in a Black church? Most of you would not even know what to do with that kind of thing. And before you respond with “it’s not a racial issue,” here this. “Southern” Baptist Convention. You’re kidding me right.

Tongues is a theological topic that stands on its own. However, Dwight’s comments about the issue of race in the SBC should be heard. Racism is still a huge problem in the SBC. The “being a custodian should not be viewed as degrading work” response to his statement is proof. This response is often not intended the way it sounds, but here’s the shift point. White people deal with race from a rational standpoint. Most Anglos are not immersed in African-American culture enough to “feel the pain” or understand the issue. Until we do, we are not going to move forward in the SBC. We have made some strides forward, but just like Imus and Dog Chapman have proved recently, race is still an underlying cancer of America and the American Church specifically. And yes, it’s a 2 way street. However, the reality is we are Christians and Anglos are the majority. We should lead the way in being sensitive to race.

Dwight McKissic is the smartest man, pastor I have ever met. He has a phd in life and ministry. The man’s mind is a computer hard drive. His compassion for people is amazing. He’s the most giving person I have ever met. He does push the envelope on peripheral doctrine, but didn’t the IMB bring this one up? And I would rather be on the edge seeking God than drawing the line with excuses with the possibility of missing Him.

Oh, what happen to Hillcrest after I left? The old guard lasted one year. Two weeks after I left they lost 120 people. The were down in the 50s. The people who wanted change (the majority), left. The church died because it was unwilling to embrace the multi-cultural community as related to God’s revelation in Scripture to “reach all nations.” To see this church die was a sad thing.

Guess what happened? Scott Camp took over the campus with Fellowship of Joy. The church came in a reached the neighborhood. They exploded by 100 people in a year. What happened after that? Oh Yeah, it gets better. CAFE church is there now. There are a totally Latin church. They are growing too. You see, God will accomplish His vision with or without us. Let’s be with Him, together.

This whole thing is about Anglo SBs who don’t know what to do with spiritual expression when it’s emotionally charged. We need to come together on this. It’s true, whether we believe it or not. Blacks are turned off to our White approaches.

Get a Black person in your “inner circle” of friends. Don’t change them, you change. You will be better for it.

Brother Les,

How many African Americans do you have on your staff? If you do not have a staff, how many deacons, sunday school teachers, WMU leaders, will you say are African Americans?

To All,

Before we start firing the race card on this issue lets all look at our own back yard. How can you insist that the leaders of the convention do things that we are not willing to do in our own ministry settings? Also, it appears that we are being told that if we do not accept the doctrine of praying/speaking in tongues we are going to lose African American congregations. Are you telling me that God only gifts African Americans with the gift of praying/speaking in tongues?

Blessings,
Tim

Tim,

Thanks for the question. I’ll be honest and say I have no African-Americans on staff. However, I do have a Filipino pastor on staff and a Hispanic pastor on part-time staff.

Also, I had the privilege of baptizing five African-Americans last year as new born-again Christians into our church membership.

I can play your silly game of diversion too. How many non-Anglos are on your staff? How many African-Americans did you baptize last year?

This is a silly game. I believe the question I asked was a valid question in light brother Dwight’s post. Are Southern Baptists racist? Will you answer the question straightforwardly, please?

If you prefer not to answer, I understand and you may rightly say I am off topic. If so, I will abide by your leadership on your blog. I’ll be glad to host the discussion about racism on my blog if you prefer.

I’m not trying to be a troll here. I’m trying to get some honest answers for a change.

Les

Brother Allan,

Welcome to SBC Today. I cannot remember if I have already welcomed you or not.

The race issue is not what I am saying. Brother Dwight has brought into the discussion the race issue. I am telling you this is theological, not racial. If one were to insist that we are missing African Americans because of our stand on tongues, then one would have to say that the Holy Spirit only gifts African Americans with the gift of tongues.

Blessings,
Tim

Tim,

Thanks for the welcome. I agree this is a theological issue, but a related issue is race, and probably more culture. I understand your point, but I think this racial piece is a larger problem than tongues. It effects our SBC witness more.

I am not saying anyone has to agree with Dwight’s position on tongues to reach Blacks. What I am saying is that often our White approach (which I think is represented in the last year of blogesphere) is often a “hey, you’ve got a maintenance man on staff. What more do you want?” mentality.

And hey, I’m only interacting on a blog. Don’t take my comments as personal attacks. I don’t know you. But I think all of this is intertwined and is related to revival.

Brother Les,

I will visit your blog tomorrow, as I do every day, but will probably respond.

Brother Allan,

I just realized that your name is spelled with one “l”. Sorry. First, no one is saying that a maintenance man should suffice. What I am saying is the hiring practices of the ExCom are being called into question on an open public blog before anyone has even raised the question with the ExCom. Brother Dwight was in the ExCom in September and the first anyone has heard about this perceived discrepancy is now. If Brother Dwight took them to task on this in September, what was their response? Did he begin with the BoT? Has he contacted Dr. Chapman? Brother Dwight, with you defending his position, is saying that he does not feel a part of the family because of his theological stand. However, he points to a discrepancy of African Americans in the SBC as a reason. If I were to join the NBC and become a part of them and then after 15 years begin saying I do not feel a part of the family because there is no Anglo’s in leadership the leadership would explain to me where the door was. Why? I know going into the NBC that I am absolutely in the minority. While you and Brother Dwight say that you want to reach all cultures and races it is commendable. But to say that you are not satisfied in the SBC because of the discrepancy of African Americans in leadership, but focus a larger part of your ministry with the NBC that does not have Anglo congregations seems a little disingeniousness.

Please, as you allowed for me, I also allow for you to understand that I do not want you to take my personal. I am telling you that I certainly am not arguing from a racist thought. I am saying that if you are holding one area to a certain standard you must hold the other areas to the same standards.

Brother Chris,

I believe you have seen something that is the flaw in most of the tongues argument.

Blessings,
Tim

Tim,

1. I am still waiting on you to tell me where can I find the “theological position that the convention has steadily held concerning charismatic practices” that you referenced in your response in comment #1? Dr. Graham did not state “he does not believe in a gift of tongues” as you referenced in comment #7? His book makes it emphatically clear that he believes in the gift of tongues.

2. On the day that I discovered the fact that the highest ranking African American was the head custodian I voiced my shock and displeasure with the executive committee officers including Dr. Chapman. Therefore, I did present it to them first.

3. The NBC executive offices, reflects the constituency that comprises it membership which happens to be exclusively African American to the best of my knowledge. The SBC executive offices does not reflect her constituency, which is comprised of thousands of African American, Hispanic and Asian congregations. Bro. Tim, that’s the point. Bill Clinton understood that his cabinet should look like America. Should not the SBC cabinet and executive officers look like her constienuency?

4. I make it very clear in my post that I feel welcome at the individual fellowship level but not at the institutional level as it relates to entity headships reflecting the ethnicity of the convention. My statements have been consistent.

5. “Let’s face it. There are trustees at various entities that have disagreement with the entities leadership…None of them have been censored.” Hello! Wade Burleson! Bro. Tim have you forgotten Burleson’s censorship which was a vindictive act because he dared stood up and defended existing missionaries and potential missionaries who pray in tongues private. Although I ultimately resigned solely at my own discretion, certainly you recall that I was publicly asked to resign before I even received the notice. I deeply regret Chairman McClain and I did not get to know each other personally before I offered to resign if he was displeased with me as a trustee and before I eventually resigned. By the time he and I made peace and formed the framework for a mutually beneficial working relationship, I’d made up my mine to resign. I completed one year because of promises made to many Southern Baptist who asked me not to resign. Because of prior tension in the relationship with the SWBTS trustees, I concluded one of us were out of the will of God. It must have been me, therefore I resigned, so that I would not be a distraction to the board’s most important work.

I believe Chairman McClain and I eventually grew to love and respect each other. I sometimes regret that Chairman McClain and I did not start our relationship as it eventually grew to. We would have experienced a different outcome had the beginning been like the end. But that’s water under the bridge now. The key question Bro. Tim is this: Not me personally, but could anyone who acknowledged praying in tongues in private be elected to a trusteeship or an entity head without opposition because of that factor?

6. You can’t be serious comparing sitting in the
“engine room” is comparable to holding the
position as the chief engineer of the train? Your
arguments sound eerily familiar. We’ve heard them before. They were unsatisfactory then and they are unsatisfactory now.

7. In response to your #10 comment, 3rd point: By real authority” I mean holding a position as one of the entity heads—one who is able to make a decision or a recommendation to their board that must be carefully considered. There is no minority in the SBC with this kind of authority. BTW, my assistants post my comments, but I approve before they are posted. I must have been on the phone with you when previously approved comments were posted.
8. Finally, I’m surprised that you aren’t giving clear specified direct answers to clear, specific direct questions. I still don’t have an answer to the question, would you be comfortable and not consider it a race issue if the EC president and all the vice presidents were Black and the highest ranking Anglo was the head custodian? Please give a clear specific answer.

Dwight

Dwight,

I am relieved that you now refer to PPL as “praying in tongues.” When the PPL controversy erupted a couple of years ago, I remember that some people did not believe that PPL and “modern” tongues are the same thing. I don’t believe that “modern” tongues are the same thing as biblical tongues.

I noticed your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:2. Lenski had a different take on that verse:

“The man who speaks in a foreign language in reality speaks not unto men but only unto God. ‘For no one understands’ makes this plain. The people hear the speaking, but they do not comprehend the meaning of what is said. . . . ‘No one understands’ does not mean absolutely no one, for one who has the gift of interpretation, i.e., who is conversant with the particular foreign language used, would understand. Paul himself speaks about the possible presence of an interpreter, v. 27, 28; in fact, the speaker himself may be able to act as an interpreter, v. 5, 13. But in this opening statement these ramifications of the subject are not touched. The audience in general does not understand the strange language. Such a speaker, therefore, speaks only unto God, for God alone understands him. The trend of Paul’s thought is left when the speaker’s intention is introduced as though he intends to address only God. . . . After the negative statement that no one understands a corresponding positive statement is attached: ‘but in spirit he speaks mysteries,’ i.e., ‘things mysterious’ that are not understood by the audience. . . . When one is speaking with tongues, no discursive thinking takes place as is the case with ordinary speaking. The usual mental powers are not operative so as to govern the speaking. The human spirit is directly influenced by the Holy Spirit and finds words placed upon the tongue and is impelled to utter them aloud. The speaker may or may not understand the words which he utters. In either case they come to his lips without previous reflection and are due to an immediate impulse that affects his spirit.”

R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963), 576-577.

Robin,

No one has played a race card. And race is “thoughtful discussion.” Throwing the “race card pulled” dart is a discussion killer. And yes, this has been about tongues. Yet the cultural challenge may be the larger, connected issue.

Chris,

If your position is that “modern” tongues are the same as biblical tongues, then I think you are misunderstanding Lenski. Lenski is saying that the biblical tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 were unlearned foreign languages, such as German, Korean, etc. If this gift still existed, then it would have saved me 17 months of full-time language training when I was an IMB missionary in South Korea.

Fred Fisher, a former professor at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, listed some reasons for believing that the “tongues” in 1 Corinthians 12-14 referred to human languages:

“This was a common use for the word ‘tongues’ in the New and Old Testaments (cf. Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15). . . . The complex of Greek words which is translated ‘interpret’ or ‘interpretation’ (1 Cor. 12:10, 30; 14:5, 13, 26-28) is used, with one exception, in the New Testament with the meaning of translating a foreign language (cf. Acts 9:36; John 1:38-42; 9:7; Heb. 7:2). The one exception where the meaning is the more common Greek meaning of explaining something is Luke 24:27. . . . The analogy between the Old Testament passage and the tongues in Corinth (1 Cor. 14:21) would support the idea of a foreign language, for the Old Testament passage clearly has this meaning (cf. Isa. 28:11-12). . . . The statement that the tongues were a sign for ‘unbelievers’ (1 Cor. 14:22) would be in favor of a foreign language which the unbeliever could understand. . . . The strong supposition that all spiritual gifts were for the purpose of gospel proclamation would favor the idea of foreign languages as the meaning of the phenomenon at Corinth. In view of these considerations, it would seem that the weight of the evidence is in favor of giving the ‘tongues’ at Corinth the meaning of speaking unlearned foreign languages. The only real objection to this is found in 1 Corinthians 14:2 and 14 and possibly 23. If, however, we suppose that the speaker did not himself understand the language, but spoke it in the grip of the Holy Spirit, these passages could be so interpreted.”
Fred Fisher, Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians (Waco: Word Books, 1975), 217.

I watched the TBN special on tongues. One of the guys said that the idea that tongues would cease by themselves was just silly. Notice what Daniel Wallace said about 1 Corinthians 13:8. His textbook is used in two-thirds of the nation’s schools that teach Greek, and it has been endorsed by Bruce Metzger and C. F. D. Moule:

“If the voice of the verb here is significant, then Paul is saying either that tongues will cut themselves off (direct middle) or, more likely, cease of their own accord, i.e., ‘die out’ without an intervening agent (indirect middle). It may be significant that with reference to prophecy and knowledge, Paul used a different verb (κατάργέω) and put it in the passive voice. In vv 9-10, the argument continues: ‘for we know in part and we prophecy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial shall be done away [καταργηθήσονται].’ Here again, Paul uses the same passive verb he had used with prophecy and knowledge and he speaks of the verbal counterpart to the nominal ‘prophecy’ and ‘knowledge.’ Yet he does not speak about tongues being done away ‘when the perfect comes.’ The implication may be that tongues were to have ‘died out’ of their own before the perfect comes. The middle voice in this text, then, must be wrestled with if one is to come to any conclusions about when tongues would cease. The dominant opinion among NT scholars today, however, is that παύσονται is not an indirect middle. The argument is that παύω in the future is deponent, and that the change in verbs is merely stylistic. If so, then this text makes no comment about tongues ceasing on their own, apart from the intervention of ‘the perfect.’ There are three arguments against the deponent view, however. First, if παύσονται is deponent, then the second principal part (future form) should not occur in the active voice in Hellenistic Greek. But it does, and it does so frequently. Luke 8:24 is brought into the discussion: Jesus rebuked the wind and sea and they ceased (επαύσαντο, aorist middle) from their turbulence. The argument is that inanimate objects cannot cease of their own accord; therefore, the middle of παύω is equivalent to a passive. But this is a misunderstanding of the literary features of the passage: If the wind and sea cannot cease voluntarily, why does Jesus rebuke them? And why do the disciples speak of the wind and the sea as having obeyed Jesus? The elements are personified in Luke 8 and their ceasing from turbulence is therefore presented as volitional obedience to Jesus. If anything, Luke 8:24 supports the indirect middle view. Third, the idea of a deponent verb is that it is middle in form, but active in meaning. But παύσονται is surrounded by passives in 1 Cor. 13:8, not actives. The real force of παύω in the middle is intransitive, while in the active it is transitive. In the active it has the force of stopping some other object; in the middle, it ceases from its own activity. In sum, the deponent view is based on some faulty assumptions as to the labeling of παύσονται as deponent, the parallel in Luke 8:24, and even the meaning of deponency. Paul seems to be making a point that is more than stylistic in his shift in verbs. But this is not to say that the middle voice in 1 Cor. 13:8 proves that tongues already ceased! This verse does not specifically address when tongues would cease, although it is giving a terminus ad quem: when the perfect comes.”

Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 422-423.

To SBC Today Readership,

Robin Foster who is considered a part of the status quo and Art Rogers who is considered a reformer are both good friends and both have lovingly cautioned me about raising the issue of race. In addition to responding to Bro. Tim’s family analogy that he raised in he original post, I raised the issue of race in this post only to prick the consciousness of Southern Baptist surrounding the question of fairness, inclusiveness, and empowerment or lack there of related to the absence of minorities at the SBC Executive Committee vice-president level and entity heads. I truly believe the vast majority of Southern Baptists will be most uncomfortable with this. The question is “what do we do about it?” If the vast majority of Southern Baptists are comfortable with this, that is vital information for some of us to be aware of so that we understand where we stand in SBC life. Therefore, the only question that I want answered and if I get an answer to this question the comment thread would not be hijacked is this: “Are persons who pray in tongues in their personal devotions welcome in SBC life?”

Remember I define “welcome” as being eligible to serve as an entity head without receiving opposition based on ones private prayer life. If we stick to this question this comment thread will be on target. I would love for Peter and Chris to answer this question specifically.

Bro. Robin you warned me of the potential subject matter getting out of hand based on some of these comments, it appears that you were right.

Dwight

ok.. thanks Dwight for your comment.. so lets get this straight, “driving the train” is NOT exercising any control or power in the SBC? What is “driving the train?
Do you want charismatics to drive the train in SBC life, like what was said on TBN?
Steve

Bro. Dwight

I don’t like to think of myself as part of any status quo. I would rather think of myself as a restorationist, seeking to restore the church to the first century biblical model rather than one of the 1600’s many refer.

I am also sorry the conversation turned the way it did, but I still feel your post was worthy to have hear and I have enjoyed reading your comments as well as Tim’s. Thank you for engaging.

God Bless

Mike,

I might be missing your point. Are you saying that tongues are, or are not known languages?

Also, what is the definition of “Modern” tongues?

Thanks,
Chris

Chris,

Biblical tongues were, not are, known languages like German, Korean, etc. There is no evidence that they are still in existence. “Modern” tongues are best described as “babbling,” which Webster’s New World College Dictionary defines as “confused, incoherent talk or vocal sounds.” It’s obvious that 1 Corinthians 14 is discussing known human languages, not babbling. At the beginning of verse 22 in 1 Corinthians 14, the phrase “so then tongues”—“hoste hai glossai” (ωστε αι γλωσσαι) is significant. The inferential conjunction “hoste” means “therefore” or “so then.” “Hai” is a definite article that modifies “tongues,” and in this situation it is an article of previous reference (anaphoric article). The Greek scholars Dana and Mantey commented on this use of the article:

“To Denote Previous Reference. The article may be used to point out an object the identity of which is defined by some reference made to it in the context.”

H. E. Dana and Julius Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto: The Macmillan Company, 1955), 141.

Mike,

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that tongues are known languages as you have stated and as scripture clearly defines. Modern tongues or babblings are just that,…babblings….and have no meaning whatsoever and are easily identifiable. There is not evidence that the gift of tongues has ceased, but there is clear evidence that tongues are not normative (when compared to preaching and teaching for example), nor have tongues ever been normative in the scriptural account of the churches.

Debbie,

I am not trying to suggest that I know anything more than anyone else, and many would agree with that last assertion….. but, I am open to hearing solid evidence that suggests that Paul is trying to create or sustain something that has to do with a prayer language in these chapters. It just has not surfaced as the theme in the context of Paul’s corrective activities with the Corinthians. If it is there, I am all ears.

I also do not believe that this text is very difficult to interpret because the context is so strong in support of Paul’s correction. I would not consider it to be a difficult passage. So, there is a great deal of edification to be had for the church in understanding the passage, and that is what I would offer to anyone aspiring to leadership.

Blessings,
Chris

Mike,

No doubt! Scripture is much less complicated than what we make it out to be…..

Blessings,
Chris

Sister Debbie,

You got me thinking last night…

Something I have always found interesting, but have never verbalized, is the similarities between a cessationist and a prayer language advocate. Both of these people (well intentioned for the most part) use the same experiential argument to found their beliefs and they use Paul’s same letter to make it happen. I should know because I used to be one of them. Then I realized what Paul’s letter was about and low and behold I began to take my eyes off of myself (Romans 7:14-25) and began to understand a little bit better, it wasn’t about me after all.

When I was younger, my aim was to prove tongues had ceased because I was certain I had never spoke in a spiritual tongue and boy could I bring the proof from scripture and from my own experience. I would get out my hermeneutical pencils and erasers and whittle on the 1 Corinthians 13:8 passage, until I had convinced the world that God had meant these gifts were no longer for the church. The problem was, I gave up “context” for the sake of pride, but my experience of not speaking in tongues was more important to me at the time, ….and of course this was no sweat for me since living around an abusive use of tongues some 20-25 years earlier had proved to me how shameful babblings can be mistaken for tongues and how easily people are sucked into the sham.

Prayer language advocacy is no different. The experience to have a prayer language is as strong as the cessationist’s passion to make tongues disappear. The only difference is that the Prayer language advocate rallies around 1 Corinthians 14:4,14 to make it happen. Both emotions and experiences are very real, yet both miss the context of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. Paul’s correction is for the cessationist and the prayer languageer.

God has given us 1 Corinthians as a wake up call, pointing us back to the clear message of Christ. We would do well not to miss the power of God for the sake of our own experiences. The Holy Spirit will operate as He wills and we should not be surprised when He acts in accordance to the scripture. Pastors, Theologians and immature Christians should thank God for this Corinthian letter as it Shepherds us back to the love of God and brings unity to His church, not division.

Blessings,
Chris

Dwight,

You’ve asked some questions that deserve answers:

1. “Are persons who pray in tongues in their personal devotions welcome in SBC life?”

2. “We simply don’t want to be excluded because of our belief and practice. And if we are going to be excluded, shouldn’t the convention send us a notice?”

I speak for no one but myself, and frankly I am uncomfortable answering these questions. I don’t want to sound intolerant, elitist, narrow, or exclusive. I want to be loving without compromising the truth of Scripture. I also want to focus on theological issues rather than personalities, but personalities are indeed involved and personal hurt seems inevitable whenever the issue is frankly discussed. Thus, the issue is like an elephant in the room that we would just as soon ignore. Some people would say it can be ignored with no harm done. I believe that the issue cannot be ignored and that it must be dealt with in a responsible, loving manner.

I love my charismatic brothers and sisters in Christ. I can cooperate with them on some levels. For instance, if they have the same basic soteriological views that I do (i.e., if they do not believe that the baptism of the Spirit comes after conversion, if they believe in eternal security, etc.), then I can cooperate with them in sharing the gospel. In regard to worship, prayer, and church planting, however, I cannot cooperate with them. “Modern” tongues (babblings) in my view are not from God. If babbling is not from God, then there should be no babbling in worship, prayer, or church services. Babbling should not be taught by our missionaries who are planting churches. There is no gray area here; rather, it a clear-cut issue. Either babbling comes from God, or it doesn’t.

I think there are three sources for the babbling which is now prevalent around the world among Christians:

1. Emotional Venting – Some people let their emotions go in prayer and worship in ways beyond crying, etc. The babbling seems to have a cathartic effect on some people. I believe emotional expression is okay in prayer and worship within biblical bounds. The babbling, however, creates confusion in worship and is prohibited in prayer — Matthew 6:7: “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.” The Greek word in verse 7 for “use meaningless repetition” is “battologeo” (βαττολογέω). The word is onomatopoetic, meaning it sounds like the word it means. For instance, we use the word “swish” to describe a basketball going through the net without touching the rim, and we use the word “buzz” to describe the sound a bee makes. “Logeo” means “to speak,” and thus “battologeo” means “to speak batto.” Thus, Jesus said that we should not “speak batto” when we pray privately. Jesus said that this babbling was something that the Gentiles did when they prayed. This emotional venting seems to have an appeal to people of many different cultures.

2. Syncretism – Some other world religions utilize babbling in their ecstatic worship and prayer experiences. When people convert to Christianity, it is a simple thing for them to bring the babbling over into their Christian life. Again, a reference can be made to Matthew 6:7: praying like the Gentiles prayed during Jesus’ time on earth.

3. Satanic Counterfeit of the Real Thing – This is the source that raises the most concern.

If a person has been babbling in prayer and says he has supposedly received an important message from God, then I will certainly question the validity of that message. This situation has implications for both our leaders and followers.

Dwight, if I remember correctly, you advocated an amendment to the Baptist Faith and Message dealing with the issue of tongues. On this, you and I are in agreement. As evidenced by the TBN program, there is a perception that the SBC has not made up its mind about tongues. If we accept tongue speaking by making no official statement in the midst of this controversy, then we have in effect become a charismatic denomination. In the past, associations dealt with this issue. Now it is a denominational issue, and it should be dealt with at the denominational level. I believe that future applicants for employment in SBC entities should be required to indicate their agreement with the Baptist Faith and Message, a document that would include an amendment that would prohibit babbling in prayer and worship. I’m in favor of narrowing that parameter in our confession of faith.

Dwight,

After some thought, I would change the word “prohibit” to “condemn.” Our confession cannot prohibit anything–it cannot force anyone to do anything–but it can condemn some things. I believe that it should condemn babbling in worship and prayer (both private and public). As I said, “If a person has been babbling in prayer and says he has supposedly received an important message from God, then I will certainly question the validity of that message.” Thus, private babbling can be just as destructive as public babbling.

Mike,

Don’t you think the SBC entities would be best served by committed and wise leadership, than by trying to establish some new minimums for service?

Trying to establish minimum guidelines seem to be the problem currently….

I would thing the SBCer’s would be leaning the other direction.

Blessings,
Chris

Tim or Dwight,

(my anit spam word was patience) so…racism has been with mankind since the beginning…. Even though this is kinda exciting like the X-Games …what is the point of this arm wrestling?

Local churches of any denomination have some level of racism no matter the nationality.

Dwight,

Are you advocating that balancing the nationality of the board members within the SBC organization or NBC organization will change racism at the local church level? If so, how would this play out at the local church level?

Thanks,
Chris

Brother Dwight,

Do you have the gift of interpretation as well as the gift of tongues? (This is a serious question) I do not believe the gifts have ceased, and I would be encouraged to know if you have prayed for interpretation and have received an answer for the edification of the church. The passage of 14:13 requires that you pray for interpretation which is qualified in vs.14-17 with the view for edification for the church.

If not, has any of the tongues that you have uttered been interpreted by any other that has the gift of interpretation?

The reason I ask this…is I still have not figured out how you get the initiation of a prayer language out of the Corinthian letter since the only pedigogical evidence we have of tongue speaking is in Acts, but I would appreciate if you would try and enlighten me on that one.

Thanks,
Chris

Is there racism in the SBC? Of course there is.

Is there any portion of the Body of Christ that does not suffer from racism to some degree? Of course there isn’t.

Does the current status of racism in the SBC represent a remarkable improvement over conditions in 1845? In 1885? In 1900? In 1925? In 1963? In 1980? Yes on all counts.

Is racism the most dire problem that we face in 2008? Not by a long shot.

As bad of a taste as it leaves in my mouth to say so (and it is an awful taste), I would gladly go back to a time when we were much more messed up about race yet much more committed to sharing the gospel. By some twisted irony, we did more to get lost Black people to heaven back when we thought less of them. I would rather that we be right on both counts than to have to choose at which point to fail. Make it happen, dear Lord, in our lifetimes and through us.

Thanks, Dwight, for your response. I’ve been out of town lately. I have not yet completed my series on the TBN broadcast. I’ll address your concerns more fully in a future post.

Baptist Theologue,

Is this book still in print? Also, if this is in print, then why is everyone saying that Sister Bertha Smith spoke in tongues?

Blessings,
Tim

Tim,

The book I mentioned can be found at various libraries. I’m not sure it can be ordered online, etc. It is clear that Bertha did not speak in tongues. Some people define PPL differently than does Dwight, and they probably used the following quotes from an earlier book by Bertha entitled “Go Home and Tell” (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1965):

“Paul spoke of travailing in pain for the Galatians whom he had won to the Lord (4:19), and Isaiah stated that as soon as Zion travailed, sons and daughters were brought forth. When I have a heartache for a person, which can be likened to the Holy Spirit praying through me with groanings which cannot be expressed in human language, that person is soon saved. Would that I had experienced more of that kind of heart agony!” (page 5)

“The last Sunday afternoon of the meeting a few gathered in my living room, so heart-hungry that they could not let the meetings come to a close without a new uplift from the Lord. Heaven opened and God began to pour joy into our souls. I could only kneel by the chair and laugh, as one wave of joy after another came. Those who could put their praise into words prayed, but I just let them speak for me.” (page 66)

Here’s another interesting quote by Bertha from “How the Spirit Filled My Life”:

“Twice I heard something in prayer which may have been called praying in tongues. It was not in a meeting, just in prayer with two or three. A devout Chinese woman and I were praying together over a serious situation in the church where we worked in North China. We were sorely burdened and crying for the Lord to undertake in the matter. Suddenly the woman went off into utterances which I did not understand, but my heart kept crying to the Lord in perfect harmony with hers. I never let her know but that I thought she was speaking perfect Mandarin. I feared the devil would make her proud of having done something special. The next Sunday morning the man causing the trouble arose and humbly confessed his wrong to the church. I still kept the woman’s prayer secret. I thought that the Lord wanted only the two of us to know about it. The second instance was when a Chinese Christian worker and I were praying with a Chinese Bible teacher whom we recognized as a Spirit-filled woman. As we humbled ourselves under the mighty hand of God, he opened the windows of heaven and filled our souls with joy unspeakable. All that I could do was kneel at my chair and laugh, knowing that I could not control my vocal organs to put into words my praise. I did not try. The Bible teacher, in her effort to express her praise, went into sounds which I did not understand, but my heart was one with her praising the Lord. It seems wise to share in public those blessings that are given publicly and to keep secret those received in private. If some are given ability to speak in an ‘unknown tongue’ in private, as Paul enjoyed, would it not be safer to keep them in private? Could the first case have been the Holy Spirit praying through the woman with groanings which could not be expressed in human language (Rom. 8:26)? If he prays with groans, could he not also praise with unexpressible ecstacy? Or, could it have been in both experiences that the women were trying to talk to the Lord when they could not control their vocal organs to do so?”

Brother Dwight,

Here is my response to your comment #52.

1.) You can’t give me the “theological position that the convention has steadily held concerning charismatic practices” because the SBC in Annual session have never adopted a theological position on “charismatic practices”. Will you admit this?

I will admit that the SBC in Annual session has never adopted a theological position on Charismatic Practices. There was no need to because the NAMB, all the way back to 1987 had placed these policies in place and specifically spoke to PPL, or as you prefer Praying in Tongues. This issue came about because a Trustee on the IMB decided to place charges that were not accurate about outside influences trying to get rid of Dr. Rankin because he has a PPL (his words). The Trustee, with Dr. Rankins blessings brought the issue to the entire BoT and the BoT affirmed the position of the Personnel Committee.

2.) I dare not speak for Dr. Chapman on this issue. I did not press him for an immediate response.

Let me get this straight. You will not tell me what Dr. Chapman said. Okay, that is your right because it was a private conversation between you two. However, you say that you did not press him for an immediate response in private. But, the first time I have heard this story was when you graciously allowed me to review your article. You and I exchanged our various concerns about this issue privately. However, you press me publicly to respond. I am not the ExDir of the ExCom. Dr. Chapman oversees the hiring practices, not me. I trust he is doing all he can to place qualified people in the various positions as fairly as he knows how, following the direction of the Holy Spirit. Now you seem to be raising a concern in public that you would not press for in private.

3.) The point is, the NBC executive offices look identical to her constituency.

You are aligning yourself with a convention that openly states: “Even though the Shaw administration has just recently started, he is striving hard to reestablish integrity and credibility in the Convention, and to make the Convention a leader for black people in the nation.” If the SBC were to ever focus on one ethnic group we would certainly be called much worse than racist. Also, I would saturate her with my absence. However, you have no problem aligning yourself with a group that unashamedly states there are formed in order to be a leader for “black” people. At the same time you castigate the ExCom for not hiring different races. It just does seems to be a dichotomous position.

4.) It is our goal to build an interracial congregation.

I commend you. It is my goal also. However, you must admit that when you look solely for a Anglo Associate, you rule out ever African American that could be better qualified.

5.) Bro. Tim, would Wade Burleson undergone censorship if he had not passionately opposed the anti-praying in tongues in private policies at the IBM?

Brother Wade did not passionately oppose the policies he sarcastically, satirically, and savagely attacked others on the BoT. That is the reason for his censure.

6.)The bottom line of your argument sounds like you’re comfortable with the status quo. King wrote another book, Why We Can’t Wait to address the issue why African Americans are not comfortable with the status quo.

Brother Dwight, I was in the first grade when our school was integrated. I remember some of the of the parents in our neighborhood coming around trying to get my father to place us in private ‘Christian’ schools. Daddy saw completely through that logic and lost some friends when he told them so. I was in the third grade when Dr. King was assassinated. I remember seeing one of my best friends crying and the hurt he had in his eyes. That memory has made an indelible impact in my life. I have never wanted to inflict that kind of pain on anyone. When I was pastor in SC I was the pastor that went to the podium at the SC Convention meeting making the motion that the Rebel Flag be removed from the Capitol building. I lost members in my church over the issue. I do not want to see my brothers hurt over this kind of hatred. If my words stir up pain from the past, I am sorry. As far as I am concerned I will not comment on this again.

7.) I believe that you know that you are dodging the question when you fail to acknowledge that the churches, the convention, and the trustees have delegated a certain amount of authority to the entity heads. Will you at least acknowledge this? Would you also acknowledge that if no minority is an entity head this constitutes taxation with representation? Remember, European Americans fought a war over this very issue.

I honestly am not trying to dodge a question. The churches are the real authority. I will acknowledge that trustees are placed in their position by the churches. Just like Representatives are placed in congress to get a job done, when they do not, then they are replaced. As to the no minority entity head, I believe my last statement should stand on this one.

8.) Not all, but many Black professors would have difficulty not with the view that the senior pastor should be a male, but the view that women are restricted in other ecclesiastical roles without any biblical authority to substantiate that viewpoint.

It is those “not all” Black professors that would never have any problems in the SBC.

I enjoy you and appreciate your dialog. You certainly have a way to back me up to the wall on issues. :^)

Blessings,
Tim

Sister Debbie:

I would not want to discount experiences, except where they interfere with what is in the Word of God. Frankly, I try not to trust myself or my experiences, but I have been fully convinced by Christ that He will persevere me and that His Word will remain forever. I have felt many times similar to Peter when he received the backhand of admonition from our Lord as he was leaning upon his experiences just after his congratulatory rock accolade, …and Peter’s experiences leave us a clear path and constant reminder that we should not take the Word of the Lord lightly or depend upon the human side of things.

It is a humble privilege and a tireless responsibility to be allowed by God the opportunity to teach and preach His Word,…. and each pastor and teacher should carry with great and extreme seriousness their task to know the valuable context of the passage they are dividing.

It is enticing and novel to come up with new things in our study of scripture. Yet, most of the time it is just new to us. But to ignore context tends to be the most egregious error of our contemporary culture with our hundreds of bible translations and political endeavors…..or by simply thinking we can help God out a little bit in His mission.

As I admitted earlier, my prideful endeavor to protect a cessationistic viewpoint was based upon my experiences. I had motive to make my assumptions make sense because I was proving a point, but thankfully I got the backhand of Christ’s fellowship because I was lazy, prideful and unwilling to consider the context of Apostle Paul’s admonitions to the Corinthians. If the Spirit was not in the business of sanctifying me, I would still be stuck in more pride even more than I am today. Thank God for His great mercy and love.

So at this point in my life,…I think very little about my experiences, because I have already gained more than I can know and everything I have to offer is but dung when put into perspective. I am more interested in trying to be an obedient nobody, and give all that I have to clarify the gospel and edify Christ’s bride with the measure of faith that God has supplied.

Blessings,
Chris

Brother Wade did not passionately oppose the policies he sarcastically, satirically, and savagely attacked others on the BoT. That is the reason for his censure.

Tim: There is a greek word to describe this comment.

Or, if you prefer the Latin:

veritas

Wes: I guess we’d have to be friendly and agree to disagree on your choice of either. Truth isn’t the word I had in mind.

Are Southern Baptists Racist?

Likely no. Prejudiced: YES, unfortunately.

We don’t like to talk about race because it makes us feel uncomfortable. We get all snarky and accuse people who try to bring up the issue of pulling the race card. It’s funny that for a denomination built on a controversy over the institution of slavery that led to the death of 600,000 Americans we are so defensive. We were also the dominant religious movement in the South during the Civil Rights era and we either opposed integration or did nothing to help blacks receive liberation. Many of the people who presently lead the SBC were either supporters of segregation in their youth are were silent in the cries for justice from our black brothers and sisters. That fact has never been adequately addressed.

Bart Barber says this:

“As bad of a taste as it leaves in my mouth to say so (and it is an awful taste), I would gladly go back to a time when we were much more messed up about race yet much more committed to sharing the gospel. By some twisted irony, we did more to get lost Black people to heaven back when we thought less of them. I would rather that we be right on both counts than to have to choose at which point to fail. Make it happen, dear Lord, in our lifetimes and through us.”

I understand what Bart is saying and I also commend the many white Baptists who shared the gospel with blacks both before and after the Civil War. I do understand his point and my prayer is the same as his at the end. But, I don’t really think that you can be truly committed to sharing the REAL gospel and be messed up on race at the same time. You end up with a partial gospel because the Bible says that there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. 1 John says that if you hate your brother, then you do not know Christ. We were so messed up on race that we stunk to high heaven and it is hard for me to not believe that we are now reaping the bitter harvest of our generational sins through dying churches, lack of zeal over the gospel, and continued division. The gospel is about more than just getting into heaven. It is the Gospel of the Kingdom and it is also supposed to impact the world that we live in today in dramatic ways. This gospel tears down the dividing walls that come between ethnic groups in Jesus Christ himself, our peace.

Our church is trying very hard to heal racial wounds in our community and we are praying that we become a church that is as diverse as our city. We believe that we give witness to Christ when that happens. I would go so far as to say that churches that do not make every effort to bring reconciliation between races after all the damage that has been done, that those churches are missing the implications of the gospel in rather stark ways.

Perhaps I can throw a monkey wrench in the whole shebang. Support of TBN and the many false doctrines they propose ought to cause all of us to pause. Is it ok to ask a modalist to share our pulpit even if he can preach down the stars? Is it biblically defensible to allow someone that believes prophetic utterances are equitable to revelation free reign? I know I’ll be in the minority, but the whole TBN broadcast was a setup that diverts from the gospel. It’s the very argument that Chris has made. Paul chastized his folks for not allowing the main thing to be the main thing. I, for one, do not rejoice that Bro Dwight is going to proclaim a supposedly “tertiary” doctrine in Africa. It seems if TBN was focusing on the right thing – the emphasis would be on the right thing. Now this is SBC Today and probably where my ship will sink – but I’ll go out on a limb. No one should want to be associated with this bunch. Not because they speak in tongues but because of the irrevocable theological damage they do by much of their false teaching. In fact it’s interesting where this discussion has landed – tongues, prayer language, racism when the heart of the gospel is at stake.

Amen Joe!

That should be: Do we give people the gospel and then when they come to Christ, join a SB church, throw them this bag of goods that we are dividing over? That’s kind of like being an Amway salesman isn’t it?

Wes-
It appears that you cannot hit the bullseye in Greek or in Latin.

Debbie,

Our discussion illustrates the importance of definitions. If PPL is speaking in tongues in private, then Bertha Smith did not have a PPL. If PPL means occasionally groaning, laughing, crying, stuttering, etc. during prayer, then possibly every Southern Baptist has experienced PPL. Do you see the importance of how we define PPL? Dwight says that PPL is speaking in tongues in private, and I think that is the generally accepted definition held by charismatics who do it. In any case, Bertha’s actual words trump the words of others. In research, the words of the subject (primary source) trump the words of those talking about the subject (secondary sources), if the subject can be trusted and is consistent. The subject is usually more careful in putting his or her words in print than he or she would be in casual conversation.

ebbie:
I knew that was coming. I’m afraid as a pastor and overseer that we are to be on guard for both ourselves and all the flock. It’s God’s church. Perverse things will be spoken to draw away disciples. There is much biblical precedent to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. Paul in Titus reminds us some should be silenced because of their false teaching. Our lack of courage to deal with the TBN fiasco says something about how far we’ve drifted. It’s as if anything said to correct false teaching is more condemned than the heresy itself.

Bart,

Why choose between the two? Both aspects are applicable. Jesus told us to make disciples of “nations” not just individuals. The deficiency of Baptists was that they dealt with a personal conversion that had no effect in the larger society where injustice ran rampant. That is not the real gospel.

might of been a fiasco. That should read might have been.

Debbie,

Apparently you did not notice Dwight’s clarification of his position in his most recent post:

“I use to employ the terms praying in tongues and ‘private prayer language’ interchangeably. I now seldom use the term ‘private prayer language’ because it is not a biblical term. I prefer the term praying in tongues or praying with the gift of tongues because this reflects biblical language (ICor. 14:14) and does not easily lend itself to the criticism that if it’s a ‘private prayer language’ it ought to stay private.”

He now uses a very specific definition for what he does, and is not inclusive of other things.

Sister Debbie,

When you say; “I wouldn’t call the TBN interview a fiasco. I could follow it well. It could be because I know Dr. McKissic’s view on this subject, but I didn’t see where he botched anything.” Please do not take what I am about to say in the wrong way.

This is the same arguments that the liberal/moderate profs. used when they were confronted with notes from students in the class. Profs. protected each other by saying, “I know him/her and that is not what she/he believes.” All of this was done under the guise that everyone was conservative and what we had was only a preacher fight.

Now, I am not saying you or anyone is a liberal/moderate, I am saying that you are using an argument that does not hold water. The reason is that we are to clearly articulate our position. That is the reason that I called on Brother Dwight to clearly state his position. He has done this in his response here. I appreciate him doing it.

However, to use an argument that “I know he did not mean what the others said” is not really an argument. IMHO

Blessings,
Tim

Alan,

I’ll be glad for us not to choose between the two. But at a time when our vigilance for the gospel seems already to be waning…

Bro Tim, you said

“there is only one place on the train for the driver to sit. There cannot be multiple tracks to chose from when th train is moving down the tracks. Let’s say that you have someone come into your church that desires for the church to hold to a Landmark theology. Would you allow that person to serve on your staff?”

Come now. The the SBC and the BFM has NO position on private prayer languages. A situation that would match your analogy, would be one in which “the driver” of your church declared that no one holding a Landmark theology could serve on a committee or teach a Sunday School class.

I doubt you would take such an extreme position. In fact, I doubt you would take any action at all toward a member who told you he used PPL.

However, it is such extreme PERSONAL predjudice toward PPL that has caused certain trustees to create ex nihlo a controversy around PPL in the SBC.

Either the SBC has no position on PPL or it does. We fought long and hard to turn around the convention leadership who were “driving” the convention in a direction that was other than those of the individual churches. I’m not comfortable seeing “my guys” do the same thing.

I used the official SBC web site (sbc.net) to search SBC resolutions, and I found nothing about tongues. I did find the following under “frequently asked questions”:

“8. What is the SBC’s official view of ‘speaking in tongues’ and other ‘charismatic’ gifts?

There is no official SBC view or stance on the issue. If you polled SBC churches across the nation on the topic of ‘charismatic’ practices you would likely find a variety of perspectives. Probably most believe that the ‘gift of tongues’ as described in the Bible ceased upon the completion of the Bible. Some may view speaking in tongues as a spiritual gift given to some Christians enabling them to communicate the Gospel to foreign cultures in a language the speaker had not known previously. A very small minority might accept what is commonly practiced today in charismatic churches as valid.”

http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/faqs.asp

Tim: I totally agree with you. This program however was a time limited program with how many guests on it plus the speaker. If Dwight would have broke in during or after each person spoke, that could very well be looked upon as disruptive or fanatical. I think Dwight conducted himself as God guided him to conduct himself. The fact that Dwight has engaged here and other places shows that he is willing to stand up for the truth.

Mike,

I would not expect the answer that the SBC.net gave with respect to their imagined exit polling of Baptist churches to be likened to that of someone that has never read the bible. But unfortunately it has that appearance……surely this was just a misprint or someone hacked into the website…..we need to help them do better than that.

Chris

I’ve been working not having time to blog. After skimming the remarks from yesterday, WOW!

1. The tongues discussion is the same old thing. The shift point came when the question moved from theological to sociological: are tongues “welcome” in SBC?

2. For a point that had no merit two days ago, the challenge of race has gotten a lot of press on this blog. And that’s a good thing. I haven’t seen this much discussion on race in a long time.

the solution is to implement an SBC minority quota hiring system and hire Rodney King to be the enforcer so that we can all get along and quit playing the race card

Mike, I think our wavelengths are in sync here….

Debbie: I just read your comment 90, and I am glad that Dwight has seen fit to clean up the terms, because it is extremely confusing to the church to refer to the gift of tongues as a private prayer language. I think Mike is right, in that we have botched up the terms and made this gift of tongues very confusing.

I would submit three unmistakable realities of the gift of Tongues:

1. There is one biblical definition provided for the gift of speaking in Tongues. The gift of Tongues is the supernatural speaking of interpretable language which is delivered by the power of God.

The bible never refers to the speaking in tongues as a prayer language, babbling, ecstatic speaking, etc. The 1 Corinthian 14:13-14 account …“Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. (14) For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful” is not an establishment of a new “prayer language” different from the gift of speaking in a tongue. These verses simply convey to the church that anyone with the gift of tongues will either be understood or not understood.

2. The gift of Tongues is spoken in an interpretable language regardless if the tongue/language is interpreted. (This can be tested and validated, as it was in the book of Acts)

3. The gift of Tongues has been given as a sign for the unbeliever and as a gift to individuals for the edification of the church.

Blessings,
Chris

Chris: I could agree with that, but I also see Ephesians 3:19 for example. I do not have the gift of speaking in tongues(since that is the phrase you would rather be used), but praying in the Spirit can run so deep that I do not at all discount that it could be done through the Holy Spirit praying in a language not known to man but to God.

Sister Debbie:

No,….I’m just having fun pinning jello to the wall.

I think I understand your viewpoint though…..

Blessings,
Chris

Debbie and others:
I’m not talking just about a particular program mentioned as a fiasco. I’m talking about the whole enterprise at TBN.

Brother Alan,

There’s no doubt we have the same view. The power of God unto salvation that reveals righteousness is the same power that continuously transforms our lives and teaches us to love one another. That type of love will certainly make a radical change to society.

Romans 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Thank you for your commitment to Christ and the preaching of the Gospel.

Blessings,
Chris

Alan,

The “gospel of personal conversion” in the Second Great Awakening was, in fact, THE cause of the abolition movement. I think, if you’ll read the writings of early Southern Baptists and take a look at, for example, early missions efforts among Southern Baptists, you’ll see evidence that the gospel DID bring about conviction regarding racial issues among early Southern Baptists.

You demonstrate that the “gospel of personal conversion” is not 100% effective in achieving the entire sanctification of its recipients upon this earth. Conceded. I now ask you to show me any large-scale movement that has been successful by the measure you apply against the “gospel of personal conversion.”

Brother Dwight,

I appreciate being able to contact you directly and discuss this important topic. As I trust you understood during our discussion, I am in no way judging your experiences. I am firmly convinced and believe that the gift of tongues is one of the gifts given to individuals in the body of Christ for the edification of the ekklesia, and I am comforted to know that you have the gift of tongues. In the same way, I am comforted to know that Alan, Mike, Tim, Joe and others have been given the gift of preaching and teaching. So…from my point of view, I have no reason to judge one gift over the other, because all gifts are perfectly given by God. Scripture is clear on how the gifts operate and we know,

1 Corinthians 12:18 ….God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.

Therefore, I would expect that our fellowship should never be any different than with other saints striving to preach and teach the gospel to a lost world.

I also appreciate that we can have a disagreement on the interpretation of the 1 Corinthians 12,13 and 14 section and remain committed to clarifying the gospel to the church and the lost world. I will continue to try and change your mind to see the full context of the passage in 1 Corinthians and the benefit of such, because my view is that this is what brothers and sisters do with those they love. I will also tell you if I believe certain teachings (not experiences) will be harmful to the body of Christ. I would not expect any different treatment coming from you back to me.

I love you and will work with you to fulfill the great commission of our Lord.

Blessings,
Chris

Bart,

I am not trying to come against the gospel of personal conversion. I absolutely believe in it. I am only saying that it is not enough. We should not stop there. We wer to disciple “nations.” Salvation does not end with us personally but is to flow out of us and affect our society – everything that we are able to influence. That is what being salt and light means.

Baptists have often reduced salvation to a “me and Jesus” perspective and we have entirely missed the fullness of what God is trying to do. In doing this, we have unnecessarily compartmentalized our spiritual life away from our social and civic lives, unless we were dealing with a certain behavior, like drinking alcohol, that we had collectively decided was wrong. During the 20th century, we would rail against alcohol while sitting in churches in towns that were decidedly racist. We should have addressed the latter without neglecting the former. Thankfully, we are starting to come out of the sins of racism, prejudice, and injustice, but it is not because we got a lot of people saved and everything just took care of itself. If that was enough, then we would have been fighting for Civil Rights instead of opposing it or standing silently by while police dogs and firehoses were turned on the non-violent resisters.

By the way, the 2nd Great Awakening happened in the South as well and it made little difference in the institution of slavery. A lot of people got saved, but the way that they treated others was barely affected. I praise God for the abolitionists, but why were their views so rejected by Southern Evangelicals to the point of dividing with them across many denominations? It seems that protecting the Southern way of life, their autonomy, and their economy, was more important than letting the gospel do it’s work in their lives. Those values were important enough to them to sacrifice 600,000 men and rip our country to shreds. Again, where was the power of the true gospel in the hearts of the Southerners.

And, I say this as a descendent of Southern soldiers and calvarymen from Mississippi and North Carolina, so I am not trying to throw stones. I am just asking why the gospel did not curb this impulse. My answer is that a truncated gospel was preached and received. It got people into heaven and reformed their personal life and created pious people, but it did not reform society the way that it did in England and in the North.

We must beware of a truncated gospel that deals only with us personally. We are called to disciple nations.

David, you just really don’t get it, do you? There is nothing inherently wrong with any of the things you mention–cornbread, buttermilk, chicken, whatever. Mayor Cornett can say whatever he wants about it. I like cornbread a lot. I can talk about it, and I can eat it, whatever. But if I am in a discussion, particularly a disagreement, with a black man, and I tell him to sit back and eat his cornbread and his buttermilk, it is a racially offensive comment, period. That is because in our nation’s history, when a white guy wants to express his dominance over a black guy, and he isn’t smart enough to do it with his intellect, he resorts to belittling him with a comment like this. I’m not saying that’s what Peter intended, but that is how it is received by many in the black community. Apparently it is how some people on Dwight’s staff took it. The fact that you don’t see it as insensitive and offensive only means that you have never been a target of racism and hatred.
What I don’t understand is how people can belittle others so easily for how they feel. It doesn’t matter if you don’t see it as offensive, if other do, and that is how they feel, it is legitimate. Perception is reality, and if there are members of the black community who were offended by these comments, then an apology should be made to them (and for all I know, an apology was made). Then belittling their feelings the way you are doing should cease.
Once I was in a relationship with someone, and on occasion they would make a harsh comment to me that would hurt my feelings. I would tell that person that their comments hurt me, and they responded by saying, “Oh come on, that didn’t really hurt. I was just messing with you. You’re too sensitive. What is wrong with you?” It didn’t take long for me to realize that I didn’t want to be in that relationship any longer. And that is exactly what you and others are doing when you make light of this situation.

Dwight, your story left a lump in my throat as big as a grapefruit. Thank you for putting it into perspective for those of us who have no idea. Bless you, brother.

Sorry, the last paragraph should read (known, not know).

The question is, can we say, simply, honestly, not because we feel as evangelicals we ought to, but it is a plain matter of fact, that we have known God, and that because we have known God the unpleasantness we have had, or the pleasantness we have not had, through being Christians does not matter to us?

Jeff, I am going to have to contest you on this one. Sure, anyone can say they are offended. But the reality is that what was said in this case did offend people. Many people. And the reason it offended people is because there is a long history of this phrase in one form or another being offensive to African Americans. This is not subjective, this is a well-documented fact. Now, Peter has said that he did not intend to offend anyone, and that is fine. However, the prudent thing to do is to take the high road and apologize that he used words that are known to have caused offense.
It is about subjectivity vs. objectivity. You can say you don’t like my blog for a variety of reasons, and if something I say offends you, that is subjective. I would say, “I am sorry that my words offended you.” We would agree to disagree, and you have the freedom to not visit my blog anymore. But if I made a comment that is known to be offensive to people, for example, if someone said to a black man, “listen darkie, its time for you to shut up,” it is no longer subjective, but objective. At that point, an apology should be offered, and attempts should be made to correct the situation so it does not happen again. If you were to say, “just because he feels offended because I called him that, it doesn’t mean he has the right to be offended.” Of course he has the right to be offended. That’s like, if a guy gets hit, blaming him by saying, “his face got right in the way of my fist.”
Can you see what I’m talking about?

I could say the same thing about the “n” word Jeff. It has been said for years. It is just a word. People who say it are doing nothing wrong. The only apology that needs to be offered is by the ones who try to say that it is wrong to say the word.
Perhaps we are going to have to agree to disagree.

You’re not black. You’ve never been the victim of racism. You don’t know. It is exactly the same thing. Maybe more extreme, but certainly in the same ballpark.

Well, then Jeff, it looks like I owe you an apology. You obviously have a good reason to be racially biased. One suggestion. Perhaps ministry is not the job for you. On the other hand, maybe it is a perfect job for you. Where else can you hang out with a bunch of people who are just like you? Good luck with that.

No, not because you and I do not agree. I tried earlier in this comment stream to say that we should agree to disagree.
You seemed bitter in comment 138. That is why I said that about you being biased. I’m sorry about that.
Once again, my brother, let’s agree to disagree.

I saw on your website that you are a runner. That’s great. I’m interested in your attempt at a run across the state of Arkansas. That’s a lot of running! I try every year to participate in our annual bike ride across Oklahoma, but a runner I am not.
Have a great run.

[...] theology, etc.) McKissic tells this incredible story which definitely deserves to be retold. Here is McKissic: On a visit to the SBC Executive Committee Building in Nashville, Tennessee this past September, I [...]

Sorry, but in the statement above I ment to say DON’T rely on “Hand me down theology.

Pastor Del