A Response from Dwight McKissic

January 2008
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Dec		Feb »
	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

« Christmas Poetry (Part 3) | Main | Mohler Nomination Announced »

A Response from Dwight McKissic

Posted by SBC Today | January 2, 2008

[As part of our commitment to facilitating discussion regarding contemporary issues within the Southern Baptist Convention, we have invited Pastor Dwight McKissic to allow us to post his response to our commentary regarding his recent appearance on Trinity Broadcasting Network's Praise the Lord program. Below is the article he has submitted, and he has our thanks for his willingness to engage in this forum.]

ARE BAPTISTS WHO PRAY IN TONGUES IN PERSONAL DEVOTIONS WELCOME IN THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION?

William Dwight Mckissic, Sr

December 20, 2007

ANSWERS TO CONCERNS REGARDING THE TBN INTERVIEW

By “Baptist” I mean a born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who was baptized by the Spirit of God simultaneous with their salvation experience (I Cor. 12:13), baptized in water as an outward testimony of the inward faith—symbolizing a dying to sin and self and being raised to a newness of life in Christ (Rom. 6:4; II Cor. 5:17; Mt. 16:24), in doctrinal agreement with the Baptist Faith and Message, and a member of a Southern Baptist Church.

By “Praying in Tongues”, I mean exercising a gift of the Spirit (I Cor. 12:10) whereby the Baptist believer who is praying in tongues, … “does not speak to men but to God”, in a language that “no one understands him, however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries” (I Cor. 14:2). According to Paul, the language spoken is cognitive content understood by God, but not man. Since the Bible is clear that the person who is praying in tongues is talking to God and not to man, there is no valid reason for man to understand what the person praying in tongues is saying. The Baptist believer praying in tongues is talking to God—not to man—so it is a moot discussion to determine whether or not the spiritually gifted language that the Baptist believer employs to talk to God is a language on earth understood by man. Since the Baptist believer is talking to God in private it is irrelevant whether or not man understands what is being said.

By “WELCOME”, I mean that a Baptist believer who prays in tongues in his or her personal devotion should be accepted to serve in SBC denominational life in any capacity without any qualifications other than those listed in Scripture (I Corinthians 14).

As a Baptist, I do not believe that The Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs subsequent to salvation and is accompanied by tongues as a normative experience for every believer. I do not believe that the gift of tongues is given to every believer. When Paul raised the rhetorical question, “Do all speak with tongues”?, I believe that he was making it emphatically clear that all believers were not gifted to exercise the gift of praying in tongues, nor are all believers gifted to exercise the gift of tongues in public proclamation that must be accompanied by interpretation and evaluation (I Cor. 14:27-29). If there is no interpreter present the Baptist believer is to “keep silent” in church and “speak to himself and God” (I Cor. 14:28).

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN TONGUE SPEAKING IN A PUBLIC ASSEMBLY WITHOUT INTERPRETATION. I believe that a person gifted to pray in tongues, may also worship or sing in tongues (I Cor. 14:13-15) in his or her personal devotions. Contrary to what the host of TBN Richard Hogue stated on the December 13, 2007 telecast, I do not believe it is biblically permissible for the entire congregation to sing in tongues, without interpretation. I have been a visitor in “charismatic” churches when this practice took place—the congregation singing in tongues. I felt very awkward and uncomfortable because I could think of no biblical authority for this practice. As a matter of fact the Bible explicitly forbids this practice. I BELIEVE THAT TONGUES ARE PRIMARILY FOR PRIVATE DEVOTIONS AND NOT FOR PUBLIC DISPLAY! When or if tongues are spoken publicly, I believe the biblical guidelines regarding the public use of tongues must be strictly adhered to.

Unfortunately, my dear friend Pastor Scott Camp prayed in tongues as he was challenging SBC pastors to be open to receiving the gift of praying in tongues and to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Again, I was not comfortable when Pastor Scott did this because I believe that his praying in tongues in that setting, violated the letter and spirit of Paul’s teaching in (I Cor. 12:27,28).

I believe it is appropriate to invite pastors to pray to be filled with the “fullness of God” (Eph. 3:19). I believe we are commanded in Scripture to seek God in His fullness, not one of His gifts. Because the Holy Spirit is sovereign, He distributes gifts according to His will (I Cor. 12:7). Tongues are one of His gifts (I Cor. 12:10). Every believer does not have every gift, therefore a prayer for every SBC pastor to pray in tongues is not from my vantage point, a biblically appropriate prayer. A prayer for every pastor to be filled with God’s Holy Spirit and to “pray in the Spirit” is a biblically appropriate prayer (Luke 11:13; Jude 20).

Pastor Camp believes that Paul and Jan Crouch are the authorities at TBN and since they had or have no problem with him praying in tongues on TBN it was biblically permissible. What the Bible teaches on this subject matter “trumps” what Paul and Jan Crouch might permit. Therefore, I maintain that Pastor Camp’s praying in tongues on TBN was biblically inappropriate.

In James T. Draper, Jr.’s book The Church Christ Approves he states:

“In every instance in the New Testament where the gift of tongues was received, it came unsought. The disciples in the upper room did not seek this gift; they were obeying Christ by waiting. This gift came uncoached, unsolicited, and unexpected in every New Testament instance. Why? Because the Holy Spirit is sovereign in bestowing this gift.” (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1974) p. 50

This certainly was my testimony. While praying on my knees, in my dormitory room in Ft. Worth Hall in June 1981, while on the campus of SWBTS, I was not seeking the gift of tongues. In prayer, the Holy Spirit’s gift of tongues found me. Bless the Lord’s Name. I want God in His fullness and whatever gifts He wants to sovereignly bestow upon me. And I’m truly thankful that He has bestowed upon me the gifts of preaching, teaching, leadership, giving, tongues and hospitality. Although my wife debates my hospitality gift (smile).

I do believe in the gift of prophecy as I believe all the gifts listed in Romans 12; I Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4 and I Peter 4 are available today. Dr. Jack Gray during his lifetime taught the students at SWBTS that the gifts were given to glorify God, edify the church and to carry out the Great Commission. Therefore, as long as we are commanded to carry out the Great Commission, we need all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit listed in the Scripture. Furthermore, Dr. Gray taught that the gift of prophecy included “a particular truth, for a particular people or person at a particular time.” I absolutely believe that the gift of prophecy still exist today and is manifested while many SBC pastors are preaching. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Dr. Jerry Falwell were both mightily used of God to speak prophetically to this nation.

I do believe that tongues interpreted in the church does become a prophetic message to the church that must be weighed, judged or evaluated by the leadership of the church, that biblically speaking is to always be a male (I Timothy 2:12). I DO NOT BELIEVE TONGUES INTERPRETED IS EQUAL TO, IN ANY REMOTE FASHION THE BIBLE. To place prophecy on par with Scripture or as authoritative as Scripture is a serious doctrinal error in my opinion and again violates the letter and the spirit of Revelation 22:18-19. The mere fact that Paul insisted that prophetic words spoken in the congregation must be evaluated or confirmed by male leadership certainly placed prophetic words in a place under scriptural authority not equal to Scripture. Furthermore, Paul makes it clear that we “prophesy in part” (I Cor. 13:9), which is further testimony that when one exercises the gift of prophecy it is not on the same inerrant, infallible, perfect and complete level as the Scripture.

This teaching opens the door to all kinds of serious abuse. In talking with my beloved pastor friend, Scott Camp, after the TBN telecast, he explained that he does believe that prophetic words cannot contradict the Scripture, and if they do obviously the Bible is right and the so called prophecy is wrong, and I certainly commend him for that viewpoint. But he also maintains that prophecy is “what thus saith the Lord” and unless it contradicts Scripture it must be obeyed. I absolutely and unequivocally disagree with this assertion, but I genuinely love, honor, respect and appreciate Scott Camp as he does me. I look forward to continued fellowship with him. I’ve listened to Pastor Camp preach at the SBTC pastors conference and convention a few years ago and I agree with Jim Richards, “Scott Camp preached down the stars.” I’ve heard him preach in my pulpit with clarity, conviction, boldness, power and accuracy. There was a great evangelistic harvest the Sunday Pastor Camp preached for our church and for that I shall be eternally grateful.

However, as John MacArthur stated, “No man’s theology is perfect” and incidentally that includes John MacArthur. And on the issues of public tongues without interpretation, and the gift of prophecy equals “what thus saith the Lord” or is equal to Scripture, we discover exactly where Camp’s theology or practicology is imperfect and biblically incorrect. I do believe that Scott Camp is biblically grounded enough to never abuse his erroneous viewpoint, although I am concerned that his viewpoint taken at face value leaves much room for abuse by others.

I listened carefully as Pastor Dwaine Miller articulated his four baptismal theory. Off camera, I heard Richard Hogue caution him about articulating his “four baptisms theory”, favoring the classic Pentecostal “two baptisms” viewpoint—(1) WATER BAPTISM (2) THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST WITH THE EVIDENCE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES.

The “four baptisms” that Pastor Miller mentioned are as follows:

“1. Positional baptism—which is when I am born again, I Corinthians 12, “for by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.”

2. Personal baptism- which is water baptism.

3. Practical baptism- being filled with the Spirit which is the yielding of my self totally and completely unto Him without any reservations, without anything held back, which produces the fruit of the Spirit in my life. Because see, one of things about those of us who have been Baptist, we have known a lot of people who did not speak in tongues who bore the fruit of the Spirit, I mean they were filled with love and joy and peace, just like what Bro. Arthur did, before he ever spoke in tongues he had to be filled with the Spirit.

4. Power baptism - that comes upon one. I was filled with the Spirit at 24 and did not believe in speaking in tongues. I had the baptism of the Holy Spirit to come upon me in Pensacola then the signs and the wonders began to flow. Now that is where I personally position myself. I tell my people when you get filled with the Spirit in a personal yielding time that is the best time to release that prayer language, because why would God give him an ability to be more intimate with Jesus and not offer it to me. So it is available to everyone.” [Exact quotes from Pastor Miller as expressed on the TBN/SBC program]

Call me a heretic, but there are certain aspects of Pastor Miller’s “four baptismal theology” I agree with and certain aspects I disagree with. I would not and have not nor will I ever express his viewpoints his way. It’s unfortunate that he labeled these aspects of the Christian life as “baptisms”.

I believe that there is one Lord, one faith and one baptism (Eph. 4:5). I believe this “one baptism” is a reference to the baptism of the Holy Spirit whereby Paul said, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (I Cor. 12:13). Again, I believe that this “one baptism occurs simultaneous with salvation and as Pastor Miller alludes to, it “positionally” places us in the body of Christ. I believe water baptism symbolizes the “one Spirit baptism” therefore they are a part and parcel of the same experience. Baptist believers are baptized in the water because we have first been baptized in the Spirit. Paul makes it clear that we all have been baptized in the Spirit, but we all do not speak with tongues (I Cor. 12:30).

What Pastor Miller labels “practical baptism”, I would label being filled with the Spirit. There is only “one baptism” but many fillings. Miller’s explanation of the “practical baptism”- again which I call the filling of the Spirit - I absolutely agree with every word spoken there to explain the filling of the Holy Spirit.

Miller’s “Power Baptism” is classic Pentecostalism. What Miller calls in #4 the baptism of the Holy Spirit or “Power Baptism” I would call the “filling of the Holy Spirit.” We are commanded in Scripture to be filled with the Holy Spirit, we are not commanded to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, because that occurs at salvation. What genuine believers often lack is not the Baptism of the Holy Spirit but the filling of the Holy Spirit.

Apparently Miller believes that all believers who are filled can release “that prayer language” during a “personal time”. I do not believe that a “prayer language” gives one a “more intimate” ability to talk with Jesus. Praying in tongues is not a better or “more intimate” way to pray, but rather a different or spiritually gifted way to pray, granted by God to some believers for His own sovereign purposes and will. Just as no one spiritual gift is available to all believers, “tongues” or what some will call “a private prayer language” meaning exclusively praying in tongues, is not a gift given to all believers. I disagree with Miller—praying in tongues or a “private prayer language” that some use as a synomous term referencing praying in tongues is not “available to everyone.” Miller also argued that you could be filled with the Spirit without speaking in tongues (#3 above). His points #3 and #4 seem to be contradictory or unclear.

Evangelist Billy Graham best summarizes my viewpoint of being filled with the Spirit and any possible/biblical relationship to speaking in tongues:

“I have difficulty linking the filling of the Holy Spirit to a second baptism and to a necessary accompanying sign, speaking in tongues.” (Billy Graham, The Holy Spirit (Dallas: Word, 1988), p. 172

“In like manner the gift of tongues is not necessarily to be equated with being filled with the Spirit. We may be Spirit-filled and never speak in tongues. The filling of the Spirit may result in many different experiences in our lives, of which tongues on occasion may be only one evidence. Some of the most Spirit-filled Christians I have ever known had never experienced the gift of tongues, but they were no less filled with the Spirit.” (Billy Graham, The Holy Spirit (Dallas: Word, 1988) p. 174

“In fairness to some of my charismatic friends I must add that even though I disagree with them on the issue of the “baptism with the Spirit” as accompanied by the sign of tongues, yet I do know and teach the need for believers to be filled with the Spirit. Setting aside the issue of tongues as the necessary sign, we may be talking about a phase of the same experience. In my judgment the Bible says that any believer can enjoy the filling of the Holy Spirit and know His power even though he or she has not had any sign such as speaking in tongues. On the occasion of a particular infilling, tongues may be a sign God gives for some, but I do not find that it is a sign for all. I do think it is important, though, for each of us to hold our opinion without rancor and without breaking our bonds of fellowship in Jesus Christ. We worship the same Lord, and for this we are grateful.” (Billy Graham, The Holy Spirit (Dallas: Word, 1988), p. 177

I believe Dr. Graham is 100% accurate on his pnuematology related to this issue. His views however would be labeled by SWBTS and many Southern Baptists as “harmful” to the churches. How unfortunate. If the SBC adopted Billy Graham’s positions on these issues, we would no longer deny God called “Baptist” missionaries opportunities to serve on the mission field. Some of these who have been denied opportunities are Black Baptists. I’m also aware of an Anglo doctor who fears being rejected if he answers the question honestly regarding his personal prayer time. These have me deeply concerned.

The TBN interview was my first and only encounter and conversation with Pastor Miller, but I must admit my impression of him was that he is genuine, authentic, anointed, gifted and “orthodox” other than the exceptions noted above. I look forward to building a relationship with Pastor Miller and maintaining and strengthening a relationship with Pastor Camp. Pastor Camp has made it very clear to me that he is Pentecostal, no longer a Southern Baptist and he is very happy and fulfilled being a Pentecostal. He pastors an Assembly of God church. This should have been made clear on the TBN program. Pastor Miller, pastors the Second Baptist Church of Eldorado, AR., an SBC congregation.

It is regrettable that the host Richard Hogue referred to Dr. Paige Patterson’s written theological views as explained by Pastor Miller as “silly.” Everyone knows that Dr. Patterson and I don’t share the same views on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Dr. Patterson disagrees with Dr. Billy Graham’s views on the gift of tongues. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t ever refer to his view as “silly”. I do not regret having done the TBN interview. I do no retract anything that I stated on TBN. I would like to publicly apologize to Dr. Patterson for the host referring to his writings as “silly”. This was unkind, unprofessional and unChristian from my vantage point. Although a person’s public writings obviously are subjected to scrutiny and criticism. However, believers must be gracious and respectful while expressing what may be a valid criticism.

Just as some SBC pastors become irate and somewhat justifiably so for the Hogue reference to Dr. Patterson’s writings as “silly”, the SBC pastors should get equally irate when men like the late great Dr. W.A. Criswell and many other contemporary SBC pastors refer to speaking in tongues, specifically referencing Beverly Hills Baptist Church and her pastor, the late Howard Conaster as, “senseless, insane and idiotic” (Baptist Standard, April 23, 1974). Criswell’s remarks were equally unprofessional, unkind and unChristian.

Pastor Bart Barber has challenged my assertion spoken on the TBN interview that many in the SBC have an aversion to speaking in tongues because it is associated with poor people, Pentecostal, and uneducated people. Clearly, we learn from Dr. Criswell arguably the most influential Southern Baptist in SBC history, that he viewed persons who speak in tongues as “senseless”. Modern day Pentecostalism as a denomination promoting the doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of tongues, traces its roots back to Azusa Street in 1906 and William Seymour.

The following quotes from scholars document the fact that Pentecostalism historically has been associated with rural, poor, uneducated and even African Americans.

Quotes about Pentecostalism

William Seymour

In the same year an itinerant black preacher arrived in Los Angeles. William J. Seymour was “disheveled in appearance”, blind in one eye and scarred by smallpox. He was also on fire with a vision—that Jesus would soon return and God would send a new Pentecost if only people would pray hard enough.[1]

Pentecostal Movement

Historically, the Pentecostal Movement has been associated with the lower socio-economic levels of the population.[2]

The majority of Pentecostals around the world are found among the poor and the working classes, the same socio-economic groups that gave rise to Pentecostalism in North America in the early 20th century.[3]

The rise of Pentecostalism at the turn of the century tells us how a number of America’s poor coped with the economic, social, and religious challenges of modernity.[4]

Azusa Movement

The movement then spread, particularly in the South where evangelists built followings among rural blacks and whites.[5]

James N. Gregory writes that the congregations were “modest storefront operations.”[6]

Even Dr. Barber acknowledges that there is a “kernel” of truth to my assertion, although he did not admit this on his blog. The following is a quote given by Bart Barber with permission:

“Although I do not dispute some kernel of truth in your observations regarding elitism in the SBC, one can hardly imagine a more elitist or condescending statement than the suggestion that non-Pentecostals are inferior to Pentecostals.” [7]

He further explains this quote in detail with a follow up email:

“Here’s what I mean: I am unwilling to take upon myself the burden of demonstrating that every Southern Baptist everywhere who ever lived and rejected what is commonly asserted as glossalalia did so without being tainted at all by emotional prejudice. Thus, I sought to dispute not that your assessment ever applied anywhere (i.e. that there might be some kernel of truth there), but merely to dispute that it applies significantly now to those in the SBC today who remain dubious of the practice.

In other words, while it might describe some people somewhere, including perhaps somebody you may have encountered along the way, I know that it is presently an assessment without foundation and I do not believe that it is an accurate assessment.

Merry Christmas,

Bart”[8]

Barber’s “kernel” of truth related to SBC elitism, regarding tongues I believe remains true today as evidenced by Criswell’s remarks. If Dr. Barber wants to believe that Criswell’s elitist and “infallible” disposition toward Baptists who pray in tongues in private no longer exists among a significant portion of today’s Southern Baptists he is sadly mistaken. My Arkansas Baptist background was very similar to what Dr. Barber described on his blog post. The only difference is his mother did not speak in tongues and mine did often in her personal devotions, but never in her public worship.

This post is a response to Pastor Tim Rogers request that I address the issues that I’ve already addressed above. Brother Tim intimates that I joined with disgruntled and ex SBC “family” members to attack the SBC “family”. I have been interviewed on TBN at least on four previous occasions on other subject matters. This was the first time I was interviewed in a panel like forum. This approach surprised me. Had I been interviewed alone, I don’t believe there would have been the same reaction, because I simply repeated on TBN what I’ve always said and I would not be asked to answer for the comments of others.

Let me be clear: I AM A SOUTHERN BAPTIST DUALLY ALIGNED WITH THE NATIONAL BAPTIST CONVENTION, and I plan to remain Southern Baptist unless I’m disfellowshiped or disqualified if the SBC in annual session ratify the anti praying in tongues policy that certain SBC entities have already adopted. I remember walking into the SBC annual meeting in San Antonio this past June, with the mixed emotions of trepidation and anticipation. The trepidation had to do with all of the publicity surrounding my SWBTS chapel sermon but the anticipation had to do with seeing old friends and the prospect that the pending vote on the B, F& M statement would settle some of the convention controversy.

As I walked through the convention hall headed to the Pastor’s conference that Sunday evening one of the first persons I saw was Bro. Tim Rogers. Although, we are on opposite sides of a theological pnuematological divide, Tim and I had developed a genuine friendship for several months prior to the San Antonio Convention having met in Jackson, Tennessee at the Baptist Identity Conference. Bro. Tim greeted me warmly, which relieved some of my trepidation and escorted me into the convention hall and sat me with Bart Barber, Wes Kenney, Robin Foster and David Worley. By this time I’d developed a genuine friendship with all of these men, because our common bond was Christ and being fellow SBC pastors, although, again we were on different sides of the denominational, doctrinal pnuematological fence lines. Nevertheless, these men were warm, gracious, and friendly. I sincerely enjoyed the camaraderie. I indeed felt like, I was among “family”.

Furthermore, my trepidation had to do with the fact the IMB, NAMB, SWBTS and SBTC anti-praying in tongues in private policies for their employees left me with the feeling of being unwelcomed and being tolerated but not really wanted or appreciated in SBC life. Because of my beliefs and practices concerning praying in tongues in private I would be ineligible to be employed at any of the above entities. Yet, I’m expected to cheerfully and liberally finance entities that make it clear that my theology and practice is unacceptable to them. I have no desire to work for any of the above entities. It’s just knowing I’m unwelcome there is extremely painful and problematic. For the IMB to allow Dr. Rankin and missionaries who pray in tongues in private to remain employed with policies that forbid this practice is a huge integrity matter if they truly believe praying in tongues in private is biblically incorrect. Thank God for Wade Burleson. The IMB has been so distracted with him that I believe God has uniquely used Pastor Burleson to protect Jerry Rankin and the missionaries’ jobs who pray in tongues in private.

Perhaps the strongest evidence that the IMB policies are driven by emotional prejudice and not biblical truth is the fact that Jerry Rankin is still employed there, while acknowledging an on going practice of exercising a private prayer language in his personal devotions. The IMB anti praying in tongues in private policy was obviously put in place to embarrass Dr. Rankin and to pressure him to resign. The practical effect of the IMB policy is that Dr. Rankin is being asked to enforce a policy that he admittedly violates in his own personal prayer time. The IMB trustees must certainly see the inconsistency in this. The answer to this dilemma is not to fire Jerry Rankin, but rather change the policy to reflect the results of the Lifeway Poll-which documents that the majority of Southern Baptists believe in the biblical legitimacy of praying in tongues in private as gifted and prompted by the Spirit of God. If the IMB policies were driven by biblical truth Jerry Rankin and the many missionaries who admittedly pray in tongues in private would not be employed by the IMB. You do not compromise “biblical truth” for the sake of not offending personalities. But, if biblical truth is not the driving force behind these policies then it is easy to compromise.

Having read where Jim Richards, Executive Director of the SBTC stated that persons who have a private prayer language were “welcome to ride on the train but could not drive the train” also left me with the feeling of being unwelcome in the SBTC. The resolution adopted by the SBTC in part authored by Dr. Bart Barber where it was voted on to be “patient” with those of us who pray in tongues in private left me with the feeling that sitting in a SBTC meeting, I would be viewed as a person with some kind of impairment that required special “patience” by the “normal” people. Who wants to go to a place where you are officially viewed as needing the “patience” of the larger constienuency? I do appreciate the SBTC’s honesty and transparency on this issue. Pastor Tim Rogers is to be commended for asking the SBC in her annual meeting to also take a stand on these issues.

Because Bro. Tim invoked the family analogy I find it necessary to respond to his analogy as an African American member of the SBC family. On a visit to the SBC Executive Committee Building in Nashville, Tennessee this past September, I was privileged to take a guided elevator tour of 7 floors. I happen to notice that I didn’t see any African Americans on either floor. When I asked who was the highest ranking African American in the executive building because I wanted to meet and dialogue with him or her, I was told, the highest ranking employee at the executive committee building was “the head custodian”. That response completely took the wind out of my sail. I have not felt welcome or completely included in the SBC since that day, though I must confess that my reception at the Executive Committee was marked by every Christian courtesy and grace.

America would not stand for the White House or the Republican or Democratic Executive offices to be completely staffed by all Whites. Less you think I’m being overly racially sensitive; how would you respond if the SBC executive committee employees were all African American? Perhaps you would be left with the feeling of being alienated and unwelcomed as well. If I could find an Anglo gentleman to serve as executive pastor, certainly the EC could find an African American to serve somewhere in addition to the head custodian in a upper level management position.

Four Anglo Arlington Southern Baptist pastors invited me to lunch recently. We enjoyed sweet wonderful fellowship and discussed the pros and cons of the TBN show as it relates to the SBC. I felt more than welcome among them and count them all as dear brothers and friends. At the individual fellowship level I feel welcome. At the organizational – institutional level I feel unwelcome because of the anti-tongues policies and because of a huge lack of minority, specifically African American empowerment at the entity head level and throughout SBC life starting at the executive committee. Therefore, Bro. Tim, if I didn’t sound like I’m a part of the SBC family, could it be because the SBC family has made it clear at the entity level headships, persons like myself are unwelcome.

Are Baptists who pray in tongues in personal devotions welcome in the Southern Baptist Convention? The Lifeway poll makes you feel welcome. The published works of Billy Graham, Jimmy Draper, Jack McGorman, Jack Gray, Ken Hemphill and Wade Burleson makes a Baptist believer who prays in tongues in private feel welcome. The fact that the SBC voted in 1975 not to disfellowship churches who had “charismatic” leanings makes me feel somewhat welcome. However, the jury is still out. Are Baptists who fit my profile welcome in the SBC and if we are welcome are we welcome to drive the train? I hope one day that our convention will definitively address these questions, so that persons like myself will know whether or not we belong on this train.

If an African American is elected president of the SBC, that would be a major step in the right direction. Because the presidency is largely a ceremonial post that would document “we are welcome”—not just as a missions project of the SBC—but we are also welcome at the pinnacle level of ceremonial leadership. I’m praying that Pastor Fred Luter becomes the first African American president of the SBC, but it would represent serious empowerment and inclusion if a distinguished, qualified African American pastor or denominational servant were appointed at the appropriate times to the presidency’s of the EC, IMB, NAMB, or the head of any other convention entity. Are African Americans welcome as missions projects or as contributors to the cooperative program? Absolutely! Are we welcome to serve as entity heads? The jury is still out.

The greatest blessing growing out of the TBN interview was to be invited to Africa by an association of 100 Baptist churches spread across three countries who want me to come to Africa and share with them the views about “praying in the Spirit” that they heard me share on TBN. I plan to go. I would never be invited by the IMB to go to Africa and preach to a body of Baptists because of their anti tongues policy. But thank God my African Baptist brethren have invited me and they don’t need permission from the IMB, neither do I. For that I’m grateful. God wanted me to get this message to Africa and He used TBN to get the message and messenger to Africa. Thank God for TBN. God uses whomever He chooses to take His name to the ends of the earth.

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. If Paul had kept the fact private that he prayed in tongues “more than ye all” private, we wouldn’t be aware of it today (ICor. 14:15). If praying in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit, there is no gift mentioned in Scripture whereby believers are commanded to keep quiet about it. The mere fact that many SBC entities want to drive people with this gift (I Cor. 12:10) underground is why many who have this gift no longer feels welcome in the SBC. Speaking of Spiritual gifts, the word of God says, “And God hath set some in the church, …diversities of tongues.” If God has set “diversities of tongues” in the church, what is the biblical basis for IMB, NAMB, SWBTS, and SBTC taking them out? Maybe in Indianapolis, the convention will settle this matter.

Finally, when Pastor Miles Seaborn invited me to dinner at his home in the late 90’s and encouraged me to read a book by Judge Paul Pressler, A Hill On Which To Die and invited me to unite with the SBTC, I was deeply moved by his gesture.

I felt like that I was in the presence of a patriarch who was steering me in the right direction. I read Pressler’s book as he strongly suggested. I knew the conservative resurgence was right for me and would welcome me when I read in Pressler’s book, “Paige, our friends, and I would not turn on charismatics after the battle over biblical authority was won, . . .this issue will not be a test of fellowship. Charismatic worship and understanding of spiritual gifts is an interpretation of Scripture. That was not our concern. Our concern was the nature of Scripture. . . The issue in the convention was neither an interpretation of Scripture nor an effort to create unity of thinking on theological issues.” (Pressler, Paul, A Hill On Which To Die, Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville, Tenn., 1999, p. 158).

I trusted Pressler’s perspective on this issue being the coarchitect of the conservative resurgence. But now after my SWBTS chapel message has been labeled “harmful to the churches” and because I have the gift of praying in tongues, and the SBTC has adopted a resolution strongly against praying in tongues, I must confess that I felt deceived by Miles Seaborn and Pressler’s book, though I am confident that my friend, Miles Seaborn, grieves that this issue has begun driven a wedge among fellow conservatives life just as I do. Was Pressler deceived by others, therefore he unknowingly wrote deceptively? Or did he misread the degree to which extent many Southern Baptist did not and do not share his viewpoint. Whichever the case, I’m calling Dr. Judge Pressler to use his enormous influence to move the SBC toward clarifying this matter or to offer a correction of his book.

[1] Pentecostalism’s Rise. The Economist Dec 19^th 2006

[2] Newport, John. Understanding, Evaluating and Learning From The Contemporary Glossalalia Movement pg 105

[3] Hartford Institute of Religious Research, Is Pentecostalism Christianity’s next reformation?

[4] Stephens, Randall J. Assessing the Roots of Pentecostalism: A Historiographic Essay.

[5] Gregory, James N. The Southern Diaspora: How The Great Migrations of Black and White Southerners Transformed America. Chapel Hill University of North Carolina Press. 2005 pg 211

[6] Gregory, James N. The Southern Diaspora: How The Great Migrations of Black and White Southerners Transformed America. Chapel Hill University of North Carolina Press. 2005 pg 212

[7] Barber, Bart Email entitled “TBN Appearance Last Night” dated Thursday, December 13, 2007 3:38 p.m.

[8] Barber, Bart Email entitled “TBN Appearance” dated Tuesday, December 18, 2007 5:59 p.m.

Topics: Baptist Identity, SBC Issues |

144 Responses to “A Response from Dwight McKissic”

Tim Rogers Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 12:40 pm

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?
peter lumpkins Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:40 am

Dear SBCToday,

The readership rightly commend you for posting this needed response by Dwight McKissic to the TBN disaster. I personally appreciate his warm style and personableness in his lengthy response.

Even more, I sincerely note the clear distance in theological views he has placed between himself and the other two guests–not to mention the host’s own position.

And, I am glad Dwight McKissic publicly apologized to Dr. Paige Patterson for any apparent part he had in allowing Dr. Patterson’s view to be gauged as ’silly’. For me, this may have been the most serious breach of the evening.

Pastor McKissic’s more unconvincing parts are a) his attempt to make his remark about Baptists viewing tongues through the interpretative lens of ‘emotional prejudice’ viable b) his comparison of Hogue and Criswell c) his tour of SBC Ex Bldg being indicative of being ‘unwelcome’ d) his call to Paul Pressler to steer the CR ‘back’

All in all, however, Dwight Mckissic’s response should be well received by most Southern Baptists who were concerned by the TBN panel discussion.

Grace. With that, I am…

Peter
Rick Mang Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:11 am

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.
Dwight Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:26 am

Bro. Tim,

1. Where can I find the official “theological position that the convention has steadily
Held concerning charismatic practices.” Is it Hemphill’s, Draper’s, Criswell’s,
Falwell’s,Patterson’s or Billy Graham’s position? The EC has stated “there is no
official SBC position on these issues.”

2. I have not requested nor do I expect the SBC to move “heaven and earth to rectify”
anything. If they have not considered this an issue worth “rectifying” before now, I’m
under no illusion that my calling attention to the fact will bring about immediate
change. I do hope that it sparks a discussion that will eventually lead to change. In the
meantime I think that it’s important that the SBC is aware of this fact. Don’t you?

3. Bro. Ben Cole reminded me that there were only 7 floors at the EC building. My
memory was faulty.

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. I’ve joined the SBC,
contributed money and attended meetings. Therefore, I’m in a position to take a stand.
I invite you to join the NBC if you wish and I’ll join you in taking a stand. I’m not
aware of one Anglo pastor who works with or is a member of the NBC. You say that
“this is not a race issue.” Bro. Tim answer honestly! If you visited the EC and all the
employee’s that you observed were African American and all of the big “muckety
mucks” as you call them were African American, would you not consider this a race
issue?

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. They treated me as if I were family. I found myself sharing some
personal pain and disappointments with Dr.York that I’ve shared with very few
men. My time with Dr. York was therapeutic and fraternally rewarding. But none of
this removes the fact that at the EC and at the entity head level no one who looks like
me is upper level management. Are you comfortable with this? I’m not.

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? Please answer.

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? Please answer this question.
Thank you.

Dwight
Chris Johnson Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:19 am

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
Dwight Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:47 am

Bro. Tim,

(1) You state, “He [Dwight] was even asked to speak at a SBTC conference after his SWBTS chapel service message that was not published on their website.” The invitations to speak at the SBTC conferences after my SWBTS chapel message were already confirmed prior to my SWBTS chapel sermon. Perhaps, the SBTC needs to be commended for not withdrawing the invitations – but the point is that the invitations were not extended after the chapel sermon.

(2) Agreed! One with my beliefs and practice thus far can “ride on the train” but do you agree with Jim Richards, “they cannot drive the train?”

(3) Do you see it as a problem that no one with real authority in the SBC that looks like me? Do you see it as a problem that it is impossible to hold a discussion with anybody in the SBC who has major influence or decision-making authority that is African American, Hispanic or Asian? Is this acceptable to you and status quo?

Dwight
Tim Rogers Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm

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
Debbie Kaufman Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Tim: Your statement on custodians raised my eyebrows a bit. The point I understood Dr. McKissic to make is that no one(in this case African Americans) should be made to stay at that level especially in the SBC. You did not. You are no longer a janitor. Why? Because evidently you did not want to stay at that level. You began there and you rose higher. Now had you wanted to stay there, fine. No one would fault you. African Americans should be able to rise in the SBC to the Presidential level. We are not to that point yet and it is 2008. I do see that as something to look at.

Chris: Praying in tongues is not a term I see as new. Paul did use it in scripture, at least as I view it and was referring to what is also known as a Private Prayer language.
Chris Johnson Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:59 pm

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
Tim Rogers Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Brother Dwight,

Your response to me at 11:47 is strangely suspicious. I was on the phone with you at that time. However, I do want to give a benefit of the doubt here that no one else is signing in as you without your knowledge. I wish you would have asked me then. However, I will respond to your #3.

3.) Do you see it as a problem that no one with real authority in the SBC that looks like me? Do you see it as a problem that it is impossible to hold a discussion with anybody in the SBC who has major influence or decision-making authority that is African American, Hispanic or Asian? Is this acceptable to you and status quo? I do not know who is the “status quo”. I am only responding for myself, the other Resource Managers will have to respond for themselves.

Please tell me what you mean by “real authority”? According to the way the SBC is set up the “real authority” is the local church. With that in mind, how many local churches do we have that is African American? How many are Hispanic, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, etc. etc. I believe that we need to get away from having various churches that are ethnically unique. It was Dr. Tony Evans that I heard say; “When you refer to a Brother or Sister as being an African American Brother/Sister, you have just removed the emphasis from them being a Brother/Sister to them being African American or Anglo.” I agree.

Also, are you speaking about influence on the ExCom? Because it seems to me that we have various ethnic backgrounds represented on the BoT. I remember seeing African American BoT at the IMB, until you voluntarily resigned you were on the BoT at SWBTS. I remember wanting to go back to SEBTS for a preaching class the year after I graduated to sit under a new Preaching Prof who was African American. I also know that currently at SEBTS we have a Prof. known as “The Wheel that is a blind African American. I also know this prof. faced ridicule and rejection from colleagues at the university he was teaching when he came to SEBTS.

What I do find acceptable is the hiring practices that are being done at the ExCom. Dr. Chapman is responsible for them, and as I said, unless he has clearly defined that he will not hire African Americans, I do not believe this is the forum for this discussion. If there is a problem why has it not been brought to the attention of the Trustees at the ExCom?

Blessings,
Tim
Les Puryear Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 pm

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
Tim Rogers Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Sister Debbie,

You said; “Because evidently you did not want to stay at that level. You began there and you rose higher. Now had you wanted to stay there, fine. No one would fault you. African Americans should be able to rise in the SBC to the Presidential level.”

Two things. First, just because I am now a pastor does not mean I have risen higher than a janitor. Ask Brother David Rogers what he saw me doing before I could leave the morning he preached for me. I will give you a hint. It involved me wearing rubber gloves and going into a stall in the women’s bathroom. Second, as for an African American becoming president of the SBC. I believe we will see this. However, I do not believe it needs to happen only because he/she is an African American. It needs to happen because they have been sovereignly placed there by God. Race should have nothing to do with the Presidential election. Also, as for me being raised to that level. I believe you need to re-state your sentence. I have not been asked to read from the wordless book during a convention so I do not see me being raised to a presidential level anything soon. :^)

Blessings,
Tim
Alan Stoddard Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm

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.
Tim Rogers Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Sister Debbie,

That last sentence should be “anytime” soon.

Tim
Tim Rogers Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm

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
Alan Stoddard Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:01 pm

I’m not “firing the race card.” That issue is way beyond that. I’m not a race card kind of guy. I’ll pull the Scripture card. It’s not as easy to do race in a local church. Getting it done that is still a work in progress. Yet we reach the nations and can’t get a Black minister at the top of the SBC? Your point there falls short doesn’t it? Invert the paradigm. SBC excecutive first. Then, hopefully the churches will follow.

No, I am not saying you have to accept the doctrine of tongues or you will loose or never reach Blacks. I said, and meant as a principle, “Blacks are turned off to our White approaches.” We will either hear that cultural fact or not.
Les Puryear Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm

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
Tim Rogers Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Brother Les,

This is getting off topic. If you want to start a thread on you blog it would be fine.

As to the issue of race, congratulations on your outreach endeavors. You certainly do seem to be reaching the cultural diverse area around Lewisville. However, how many leaders do you have in the church that are African American. That is what Brother Dwight is arguing. His concern that anyone can ride the train, but not everyone is allowed to drive the train. I am saying it is theological and you and Brother Allan seem to imply it is racial.

Blessings,
Tim
Tim Rogers Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:23 pm

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
Les Puryear Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Tim,

I respect your response. I don’t agree with it but I respect it.

I’ll have the post asking the question “Are Southern Baptist Racist?” on my blog tomorrow.

Blessings.

Les
Alan Stoddard Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:36 pm

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.
Chris Johnson Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Tim,

It appears that no one wants to talk about Paul’s context when he discusses tongues (languages) to the immature Corinthians. I guess the “straw man” will have the last prayer.

Blessings,
Chris
Tim Rogers Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm

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 k

SBC Today

Restoring Unity through Biblical Discipleship and Baptist Identity

Calendar

Recent Comments

Recently Published

Archives

Meta

Search

Podcast

Categories

SBC Entities

SBC Seminaries

A Response from Dwight McKissic

144 Responses to “A Response from Dwight McKissic”