Friday, December 14, 2007

Vignettes from the TBN Appearance: Part 1

Hogue: “How do you respond to [the idea that not all believers will have the gift of tongues]” Camp: “I think you can experience all of the Spirit of God that you want to experience…God is not going to force anything on anybody, but if you are open, if you have a desire, if you have a hunger to go on with God, then you can experience this particular manifestation of the Holy Spirit of God…” Hogue: Do you think that every believer should pray in the Spirit? Camp: I think every believer should be open to whatever God wants to do in their life, and if they are open to this, they will experience it…” Hogue: “So you’re saying that if I’m open to whatever God is wanting to do in my life, I will at least have a prayer language that will be part of my life.” Camp: “I believe that’s probably true…What I would rather do is to talk about the power of the working of the Holy Spirit in my own life…what Jack Hayford calls Heaven’s language, and to say that this is available to every Christian who wants to experience, but…the focus is…on seeking Jesus and a deeper, fuller experience, but I want to tell you, if you do that, then you’re headed down a road where eventually you’re going to cross that bridge.” Miller: “In my own experience…and the fact is, a person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument…I think there are people out there tonight who are watching who have spoken in tongues and don’t even know it…I wanted all of God and I wanted Him to have all of me. Quite honestly, I believe it and I teach it to our people…if you want to use the term baptisms, that there are four: Positional baptism…Personal baptism, water baptism…Practical baptism, being filled with the Spirit…Baptism of power that comes upon one…I had the baptism of the Holy Spirit come upon me in Pensacola…When you get filled with the spirit in a personal yielding, that’s the best time to release that personal prayer language….Why would God give him an ability to be more intimate with Jesus and not offer it to me?”
The message couldn't be clearer: Speaking in tongues is normative for all believers. If you don't speak in tongues, something is wrong with your relationship with God, and people who do speak in tongues are on a higher level than the rest of us and have a more intimate walk with the Lord than the rest of us do.


volfan007 said...

you have hit the nail squarely on top of the head. it cant be clearer.

my question is....should the sbc allow charismatic/pentecostal doctrines like this to be preached and taught by people on cp money? should we tolerate people who are taking cp funds who may have this kind of aberrant theology? is this where some people want to take us with their wider tent view?


Ron P. said...

Correct me if I am wrong, as I am really not trying to be facetious...

Based on the outcry from a certain Oklahoma pastor about the current IMB policies, if you hold that the BFM is a "maximal" document, no SBC agency could make any statement or policy against such teaching.

Am I incorrect?

Ron P.

Tim Guthrie said...

Great points. But we must rememeber that Maximal does not relate to minimal so since no minimal truly exists, maybe the maximal does not either. Just a Friday thought :).

Debbie Kaufman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Debbie Kaufman said...

I posted on the wrong post. My apologies. I'm so confused which post is what.

Bart Barber said...

I think the clip also illustrates the difference between someone like Richard Hogue who has moved out of Southern Baptist life and someone like Camp—Hogue and camp believe the same thing. Hogue is right out in the open in his belief that every Christian ought to speak in tongues; Camp has to have it dragged out of him by Hogue. Camp believes it, but really doesn't want to say it outright.

fishformen said...

I have been doing pastor's conferences overseas for 6 years now. On the first 2 we had a pastor who was into the PPL. We asked him to not make this a point because we were here to encourage pastors to evangelism and stronger exposition. After the 2nd year, this pastor used his ppl publicly during a corporate prayer session. No one could interpret, and the indigenous pastors were unaware of what was going on. After some talk, it was determined that we should amicably part ways. The next year the pastor w/ PPL, started his own conferences. I still get monthly reports from him and it has become clear to me that a good percentage of his time in dedicated to getting folks "blessed" evidenced by tongues. My EXPERIENCE is that the slope slips rather quickly from PPL to open expression to indoctrination. Now I said on Tim's blog, I'm not a full blown cessionalist. However, I see the dangers in the whole PPL stuff at least this is an account of my experience.

Bart Barber said...


You are not a full-blown cessationist. I am not a full-blown cessationist. Dwain Miller made a great case on the program that Paige Patterson is not a full-blown cessationist.

Who is publicly involved in this Southern Baptist debate who IS a cessationist?

You can probably drop the disclaimer, just as you need not remind us that you are not a Martian.

Greg Welty said...


You might be annoyed that I'm pointing this out, but here goes :-)

During the discussion you cite, Miller and Camp are discussing their views, and the camera pulls back, and it's clear that Dwight is *not* nodding his head.

Interesting, though, Dwight is the only panelist to not answer the host's question as to whether tongues are for everyone if they're a gift of the Spirit.

But then at 01:22:30 the host asks a similar, follow-up question: will all who have the Spirit speak in tongues? Dwight answers (01:23:40): "I'm not convinced that every believer will do what I call 'praying in tongues'. I am convinced that every believer will pray in the Spirit, and the manifestation of that will reveal itself even sometimes with silence." He goes on to say, "Just do it: pray in the Spirit: whether with words that are understood, words that are not understood, silence, or groans."

Dwight's view was in contrast to the host's view, who says he "personally, radically believes that every believer ought to have a prayer language," and that "every believer ought to worship the Lord in tongues," because "that's the argument Paul is making out of 1Co 14" (01:26:40).

At 01:31:00, Camp argues that "a word of wisdom or prophecy in the church today is a 'Thus saith the Lord,' in the same sense that the written word (the Bible) is a 'Thus saith the Lord,' and that's what scares people today." At that point the camera pans back, and Dwight *doesn't* nod his head.

At 01:33:50, the host argues that "the Bible is really the book of the church; the church produced the Bible, out of its experience," and this is why "fundamentalism doesn't make any sense whatsoever." Again, the camera pans back, and Dwight doesn't nod his head at what Hogue is saying.

So let's give credit where credit is due. You earlier said that Dwight was the sanest person on that platform, and with that I agree. He did seem to refrain from endorsing the view that PPL is for everyone, and must be sought by everyone.

In addition, from 01:06-01:11 Dwight gives a very tame overview of the chapel controversy, going so far as to say he respects those who disagree with him. It did not contain any personal charges against anyone. At one point the host even tried to goad Dwight into saying some personal things against Dr. Patterson, and Dwight didn't take the bait, although it was clear the audience wanted him to.

Bart Barber said...


I am not in the least annoyed. This post is not about Dwight McKissic. What you have clarified does not contradict anything I have said, I don't think.

Do you think that it does? You have a keen mind for reading comprehension. If I have implied that this is McKissic's view, then I have done so not only inadvertently, but also contrary to my own careful efforts not to do so.

Debbie Kaufman said...

My apologies on your next post Bart. I must admit to not have reading it as close as I should have.

Tim Guthrie said...

After watching the program for the second time, I am reaching the same observations that you are. Great breakdown. My concern with the "attacks" on Dr. Patterson stem from the laughing and the manner in which the info was given and requested. I would have preferred a straight up "not going there!" I also shared this with Dwight.

Bart, you are also correct that you did not imply anything, only encouraged the viewing of the video.

Greg Welty said...


You're right. This post isn't about McKissic. Sorry if I got things a bit off track. I guess I had the previous post in mind, and the commentary there.

In other words, you made this post just so we could comment on Hogue, Camp, and Miller, and their view of tongues in general. OK.

That's too bad, though, because I had a follow-up comment all typed up which balanced out my comments above. But since it's also about McKissic, I guess I won't post it.

Restraint is good for the soul :-)

Bart Barber said...


I spent some time early today laboring hard to transcribe as much of the program as I could. I plan to present several vignettes over the next several posts. I do not plan to exclude Pastor McKissic—I plan to highlight some areas in which we agree and some areas in which we disagree. Each post will concern the actual statements and personalities involved in the snippets presented therein.

That's the best plan I could devise to facilitate good careful examination of a two-hour event.

Bart Barber said...


My very next post will exclusively address some of Pastor McKissic's words. I aspire to do so in a loving, forthright tone without misrepresenting him at all, but differing sharply with what he has said.

Joel Rainey said...

I not only "second" what Welty has already pointed out, but fail to see again from this vignette how it is demonstrated that anyone still within the SBC wants these doctrines taught.

Ron P.,
According to my understanding of the BFM statements on both salvation and the Holy Spirit, a person confessing a classical Pentecostal pneumetology would NOT be within "Baptist" bounds.

I know a few Baptists who agree totally with the BFM, would reject outright a Pentecostal understanding of this issue, yet still believe (and some even practice) speaking in tongues. Whatever differenes I have with them, I welcome them within SBC life.

My take on this show was that it was nothing more than a couple of silly charismatics taking cheap, doctrinally aberrant and inaccurate "pot shots" at the SBC, in the presence of Dwight McKissic, who in no way acknowleged agreement with their doctrinal assertions, and probably should not have gone on the show.

Attempts to use this as an "example" of how the "dissidents" in the SBC want to open wide the gate to charismatic theology is simply silly

Bart Barber said...


Theme of the Program: Differences over Tongues in the SBC.

Arthur Blessitt: Former SBCer called upon to look into the camera and speak a word to Southern Baptist pastors to help them start speaking in tongues and come to the TBN "light."

Richard Hogue: Former SBCer host who asked every participant to engage in the "look at the camera" and proselytize SBC pastors and people into the TBN viewpoint.

Scott Camp: Southern Baptist pastor, participant in McKissic's Arlington roundtable, who stridently called for the group there to organize, attendees report. Looked into the camera and called upon Southern Baptist pastors to speak in tongues and embrace Pentecostal doctrine.

Dwain Miller: Southern Baptist pastor. Looked into the camera and called upon Southern Baptist pastors to speak in tongues and embrace Pentecostal doctrine.

Dwight McKissic: Southern Baptist pastor. Sanest person on the platform.

If you "fail to see again from this vignette how it is demonstrated that anyone still within the SBC wants these doctrines taught," I confess that I cannot force you to see what you don't want to see.

Joel Rainey said...


I stand corrected regarding Camp and Miller. I was not aware that they were still SBC.

I agree with you that Dwight was the "sanest one" on the stage. That only proves my point that he isn't interested in forwarding Pentecostal understandings of the Holy Spirit, else he would be out of sync with the BFM.

I also think the contention that he "attacked" Dr. PAtterson is ridiculous. All he did was report the facts of what happened, albeit to ears more sympathetic to him than to Patterson.

But again, if you think these guys accurately represent the broad number of "dissidents" you, Wes and others are pointing to, then I can't force you to see what you don't want to see either.

I agree with David (volfann) above: no one should be allowed to teach pentecostal pneumatology under the banner of the SBC with cp funds. But I fail to see where McKissic affirmed this on the show, or anywhere else. I also am at a loss as to who he is talking about. "Some people" like Camp and Miller may want us to go there, but trust me, I don't and neither to (I believe) the vast majority of "dissenters." Specific differences (and practices) regarding speaking in tongues is not the same as the more general differences between Baptists and Pentecostals.

Bart Barber said...

OK, Joel, we're almost there... Now, where did I say that Pastor McKissic attacked Dr. Patterson?

Joel Rainey said...

you didn't Bart. But others who have commented here have, although perhaps on another blog.

Forgive me if I've confused yours with someone else's.

Anonymous said...

Alan Cross says,

Bart, this is shocking! Thanks to your insightful posts we now know that TBN supports speaking in tongues! I had no idea! Where would we be without this type of blogging?

Seriously, Bart, I have no idea who these men are. Neither does anyone else. You can find a couple of Southern Baptist pastors to advocate anything, but a movement it hardly makes. I listened to what Dwight McKissic said (the only person on that panel that any of us are familiar with), and there is nothing he said there that he has not written in print or said elsewhere. As to the import of the other panelists or the host, what difference does it make what they think? Were they influencing IMB missionaries? Have you shown that a belief in PPL necessarily constitutes a belief that there is a seperate baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues as the sign that is required for all believers?

That is definitely not my position, nor is it Dwight McKissic's or David Rogers' or the position of others that I have dialogued with. As far as who TBN has on it's show, again, how is this relevant to the SBC?

Bart Barber said...


NOBODY knows a man who is a former Dean at Criswell College, pastor of a Metroplex church, member of Pastor McKissic's Arlington Roundtable, etc.?

Bart Barber said...

Until a year ago, Scott Camp's name was more prominent than Dwight McKissic's.

Tom said...


One of the most egregious comments made on this program (and the competition was stiff) was by Hogue when he said, "The church produced the Bible." That is Romanism 101. Jesus promised that He would do things exactly opposite this in Matthew 16:18. The Word produces the church.

Despite their assurances to the contrary, it is this very point of denigrating the inscripturated Word of God (albeit unwittingly) that alarms many of us that some of our charismatic brothers undermine biblical authority by their elevation of immediate prophetic revelation.

volfan007 said...


some people just want to spin and slide right out of the truth. some people will not see what is true.

i will say again. i wish that dwight would not have gone on tbn. i dont think that it was the wise thing to do, but that's his call. also, i wish that dwight mckissic would have at least challenged the statements made by all the others that were so off the wall and calling for a charismatic/pentecostal tongue speaking movement in the sbc.

alan, who said that dwight mckissic attacked dr. patterson. dr. patterson and all cessationists were called silly by hogue. laughter from the panel insued. so, dr. patterson was attacked on national tv....was he not?


Bart Barber said...


Welcome, brother, and thanks for commenting. That snippet cometh later.

Todd Nelson said...


In the previous comment stream, (December 14, 2007 12:32 PM), you replied to me...

"Yes, certainly Pentecostals have never disagreed, never split into various Pentecostal denominations, never split churches, never exhibit carnality. Oh, God, that we could become more like them!"

Looks like I'm the last one to comment on that post, so if you don't mind, I'll copy it here.

No, Bart, Baptists don't need to become more like Pentecostals (especially not the fighting and fleshly kind -- we do quite well ourselves in those areas). But we do need genuine revival, in whatever form God sovereignly chooses to send it. And if it comes through a Pentecostal or charismatic group, I don't want to be one standing pridefully aside, wagging my finger saying, 'But they're in error on this point or that point' or 'But that's not Baptist'. If God chooses to show grace and work through others with whom I disagree, who am I to say He shouldn't?! I'm sure glad He works through me; and I know it's only by grace that He does.

Both Baptists and Pentecostal/charismatics have their fair share of legalistic and carnal church members and people who are prejudiced against other denominations. Yet the Lord graciously uses some leaders and churches from both camps -- even those who don't have it all together.

Why can't we learn from each other and take the best of what the charismatics offer in their biblical emphasis on the Spirit and power and combine it with the Baptist emphasis on the Word and missions?

I think this is what men like Jack Taylor, Peter Lord, James Robison, RT Kendall, and several others have been attempting for years. May their tribe increase, and may God Himself take over -- not any one faction of man.

To Peter (December 14, 2007 1:38 PM) who says that I seem to assume that real revival will necessarily look charismatic in nature and who questioned whether Word and Spirit can be held together in times of revival...

I've witnessed a revival of Word and Spirit leading in tandem; and I've experienced life in such a community. You and I may disagree on which movements best represent this ideal, or what it 'should' look like, but can we agree that this is what we should be aiming and praying for? A balance of Word and Spirit in an outpouring of God's love, holiness, and power?


Bart Barber said...


In general, I do not disagree. I said something compatible with your comment earlier. Yet there is great difference over what constitutes the best of Pentecostalism.

Here's the WORST of Pentecostalism: The way it asserts that its eccentricities and peculiarities COMPRISE what the Holy Spirit is doing. That's the subject of an upcoming vignette from the TBN appearance, but the foretaste comes from the way that the word "Spirit" is used in place of Pentecostalism.

I reject the thesis that "Word" and "Spirit" represent any sort of dichotomy.

Anonymous said...

By Alan Cross,

Bart, if I want to see what comprises what the Holy Spirit is doing, all that I have to do is look at the SBC, right? That's the message that I get on this blog and the blogs of your cohorts.

In reality, Bart, the very things that you hate about Pentecostalism have been said by you and your friends, i.e., if you don't do everything and believe everything exactly our way, then God is passing you by. I reject that thinking from them and I reject it from you. And, in case you want to say that you have never said such a thing, I see it everytime I read ranting posts about how we need to get back to Baptist distinctives when someone says that allowing a ppl is within the bounds of being a baptist.

I have been told many times that I needed to find another denomination just because I BELIEVED that PPL was acceptable, even though there is nothing in Baptist life (except the prejudice of the IMB and NAMB BoT) that tells me I am not a good baptist because I hold continualist beliefs. Does that view not constitute the same superior mindset that you claim to despise in Pentecostals? I'm no defender of Pentecostals. I reject their line of thinking as well and consider it unbiblical. That is why I am not a Pentecostal. But, when I see the same thinking here (and I've been reading your blog for over a year now), but with just a different subject, your anger at Pentecostals for holding their beliefs strongly causes me to struggle when you do exactly the same thing.