Thursday, December 13, 2007
Must See: TBN Clip Praying for "Pensacola" to Come in the SBC
I'm still grading papers (I sure am slow, am I not?). But during my silence, I call upon you to visit Tim Guthrie's most recent blog article. You absolutely must watch all two hours of last night's "Praise the Lord" show. There you'll see the unvarnished truth of where folks hope to take the SBC.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
64 comments:
Bart,
It really is a unbelievable video. I wish it would get played at the convention in Indy. It would really shock and wake up some pastors!
Blessings,
Ron P.
bart,
this video was eye opening... truly. to see them put experience on the same level as scripture, or maybe even elevate above scripture, was sad. also, i guess the "private" prayer language is no longer private. i mean, it was taught...excuse me...talked about on NATIONAL TV. what happened to it being private?
also, richard the host's statement about the church producing the bible, and thus extra biblical revelation of today being ok was not only disturbing, but very, very dangerous.
and, even though dwight didnt say as bad of things as dwain miller and scott camp and richard did, still he didnt refute some of their wild, charismatic statements ...much less refute it. this was sad. what was even sadder was for dr. patterson to once again be attacked on national tv. richard the host even called him silly, and really, he was calling every cessationists silly. and, it looked like all the panel were smiling in agreement.
may the Lord protect the sbc from this type of charismatic nonsense that some are getting into. may the Lord keep us from going off the deep end into charismatic extremes and tangents like these men proposed on this show.
i, like others, hope that every sb would watch this and have their eyes opened.
david
It seems to me somewhat misguided for one of guys on this show to attempt to bolster the credibility of the contemporary charismatic movement among skeptical Southern Baptists, by tracing it back to a false prophet like Montanus. Unless, of course, Christ's millennial reign as Montanus prophesied it did actually commence in the little town of Pepuza, in Phrygia, lo those many years ago :-)
In addition, one cannot miss the irony of lamenting -- in a lavish TV studio -- that Baptists used to be charismatic until they got all rich and edumacated, and so lost their humble connection with the Spirit. What, are we to think that the average charismatic preacher on TBN dresses in rags, shucks corn for a living, and drives a Chevy Nova? Surely even great wealth is not an indicator of anti-charismatic tendencies ;-)
Greg,
You misunderstand. The folks at TBN are preserving the purity of the church by helping to keep their followers poor. This is their spiritual service. Of course, they must bear the burden of becoming super-wealthy while doing so. Poor them.
I can't wait until my votive candle holder arrives! (did you watch the beginning of the video?)
Bart,
I've asked this elsewhere and am imagining what the response would be from less thoughtful or intellectually honest posters. So I'll ask you since I typically consider your poests thoughtful and honest, even when I don't agree with them.
My quesion... Is it hypocritical or merely ironic that the Revs. Camp and McKissic are facing such scrutiny while other SB pastors, who financially support TBN's aberrant theology through their regular purchase of airtime and appearances on TBN's Praise-a-thon, apparently receive a free pass?
Stuart,
Where I have been critical on this issue, I have been critical for what people have said or done, and not where they have said or done it. I'll be glad to have a discussion sometime about the appropriateness or lack thereof in prominent Southern Baptist appearances on TBN, but I will not concede any equivalence between having your book promoted on TBN on the one hand and going on-air to pray for the TBN-ization of the SBC on the other.
Bart,
I'm disappointed. I would have expected that answer at sbctoday.
I fail to see how buying weekly airtime on TBN and preaching on Praise-a-thon alongside Paula White and the gang isn't doing more to promote the "TBN-ization of the SBC" than a one time appearance on panel discussion.
I do, though, conceed that you critiqued "what" was said and not "where". I used to defend James Merritt's and Jack Graham's TBN presence on those same grounds. Stopped doing that some time ago. Incidentally, I aldo don't like it when the Crabb's sing at SBTC stuff, for the same reasons. Call me "narrow" and "legalistic" I guess. On this issue, it's accurate.
"Debbi is right, I said nothing that I have not already stated in SBC venues."
I must be confused. Did a "Debbie" post in this comment stream? There must be a battle going on somewhere else of which I'm unaware.
OK, Stuart, I'll give it one round. I just don't want to meander away from the point, so I'm limiting it to that.
I don't like it when prominent SBs go on TBN. It dignifies purple-haired millionaire charlatans when we do so. I will offer this one exception—I would love to have seen a Greg Welty added to last night's panel and would thoroughly have supported his presence there.
You can thank me later, Greg. ;-)
Yet I return us to the point: It is a different thing to go on TBN to look into the camera and pray for the poor second-class-Christian Southern Baptists to enter the gnostic fold of the tongues-speakers. Paying attention to "worse" does not mean that one does not see "bad."
Bart,
Fair enough. Thank you. I'll not split hairs with you over which is "worse" and which is merely "bad".
"Must See TV" indeed! My wife and I usually try to take in a movie on Thursday afternoons. Today we stayed home and watched the whole 2-hour TBN video that you recommended, and boy was I glad I did! What a blessing it turned out to be! I am not a TBN fan, but this show personally ministered to me in a powerful way. Of course, I did not agree with everything that was said, but the hearts of those sharing warmed my own heart. I understood what they were trying to say and long for that freedom and spiritual power in our lives. Much good was shared that indeed needs to be heard by all of us SBCers.
Someone commented on my own blog this past week that "The truth lies in the tension". I believe this to be equally true about the matters shared by the three TBN guests on the show.
The last ten minutes where each of the three was permitted to address the viewers was powerful. They each pretty well summed up many of the same things I long for in my own heart and life: a hunger and desire for more of God and his power in my life and ministry as a missionary.
If anybody is erring in this discussion, I would rather "err" on the side of those sharing on the show, than what I perceive is a very harsh judgmental outlook being shown by some of my fellow SBC brethren towards brothers in Christ with these charismatic leanings.
Can there not be truth in what both sides are saying? Does truth have to be relegated to only one extreme or another? Again, the truth probably lies in the very tension created by what both sides are saying.
Dwight,
I watched the show. I plan to post about it. For me, it stands as one of the saddest spectacles I've ever seen on a religious program.
From the beginning, it was a show about 'Southern Baptists' and their failed experiential faith. I don't think I've ever seen a mainstream show name a particular denomination before and began to criticize it.
Camp denigrated both cessationists and 'Fundamentalists' by caricaturing their view as "God spoke in the Bible and then went mute"; [they believe in] God the Father, God the Son, God the Scripture'.
For me, this is inexcusable idiocy made evidently to make the strongest case possible for a 'prophetic utterance' theory that an interpreted tongue is a 'thus saith the Lord' in the same sense as the Bible is a 'thus saith the Lord'.
The real kicker, for me, Dwight, was when Camp and Hogue flogged 'your good friend' with whom you still have 'good fellowship' in such a demeaning manner, laughing under their breathe as they spoke of 'Patterson's' 'silly' position, and you sat their like an expressionless wart on a hog's back, allowing them to poke fun on national TV at Southern Baptists' esteemed President of one of their prestigious seminaries.
Dr. Patterson is an accomplished theologian and Biblical scholar, not to mention a man of God in every sense of the term as are you or them, but there he was treated like a common, theological huckster whose sub-biblical views could muster only the epithet 'It's silly" while giggling like junior high boys. Please.
Indeed try this on for size, Dwight: your silence on National TV in behalf of your good 'friend' with whom you still have good 'fellowship' has got to qualify for the purist attempt at moral cowardice that could be imagined.
Unless you agreed with them, why you did not raise the level of 'theological critique' several notches up to respectful dissent offers no explanation to the sober observer.
In spite of that, you seem to be confident the video vindicates you. I'd consider that again were I you.
Of course, the standard reply, as you have done here, is to say 'they misquoted me'. Contrary to your stated confidence about the video existing as vindication, I encourage people to rewind the tape and see for themselves. But I forewarn them: it's liable to raise some eyebrows.
Grace for all Southern Baptists. With that, I am...
Peter Lumpkins
Bart,
In order for me to be an exception to your rule against "prominent SBs going on TBN," I would have to be a prominent SB, rather than the obscure one I really am :-)
Come on, Peter, this is a bit out of line. You infer from the mere fact of brother Dwight's silence that he thereby made the "purest attempt at moral cowardice that could be imagined"? No, I could imagine a lot worse, like Dwight actually dissing Dr. Patterson by making an outrageous claim about him. Which he didn't. Let's be a bit more even-handed here, shall we? I found the video presentation disappointing and misleading in a number of ways. But Dwight isn't the devil. He's a Southern Baptist pastor who deserves our respect, even when we disagree with him. You're actually saying Dwight attempted to be a moral coward?!
Bart,
I totally agree with what Stuart wrote and with Dr. Welty's comment to Peter.
Les
Peter and Greg,
I guess it all goes back to the way we are willing to throw around the phrase "good friend" with so little meaning. If TBN had been calling Wade Burleson "silly" and belittling him on national television and Dwight or Les or Debbie were on the platform, I think that their friendship would have prevented them from remaining silent. Even if they disagreed with Wade philosophically at the point in question, I imagine that they would have risen to some defense of his person.
I do not believe that Pastor McKissic showed moral cowardice last night, because he has never convinced me that he really does consider Dr. Patterson his "good friend." I would not allege animosity toward Dr. Patterson on Pastor McKissic's part—I just doubt that they're playing golf this weekend.
Where Peter questions the use of such terminology as "good friend," I think Peter is calling us to acknowledge reality rather than the word games people sometimes play. On the other hand, if Pastor McKissic and Dr. Patterson really are "good friends"—well, if one of the people whom I really considered a good friend sat idly by while people castigated me like that, I'd have questions about our friendship the next day.
Bart,
Do you think they would invite you, me, Greg Welty, and Robin Foster to offer a rebuttal?
It would seem the responsible thing to do: If you invite four former/current Southern Baptists to blast the Southern Baptist Convention, why not give opportunity to four current Southern Baptists to defend the Southern Baptist Convention.
Oh, forget that, they would probably bleep every time I referred to the h-r-t-cs with which TBN is affiliated....
By Alan Cross,
Greg,
Thank you for your comment about Rev. McKissic. You are absolutely right. We have disagreed on different issues, but I appreciate your fairness and desire to be objective.
As for the rest of the comments, some of you guys just blow me away. Since this whole mess started, I have seen people who even BELIEVED that missionaries with a PPL should be allowed to serve with the IMB be called:
Charismatics
Pentecostals
Heretics
Babbling Pagans
Not Baptists
Unfit for the Pastorate
Unfit for leadership anywhere in the SBC
Experientialists
Devaluers of the Word of God
Demon Possessed
Demon Influenced
And, many other very cruel things that are complete lies. Yet, some of you have the gall to assert that the opinions of 3 people on a panel discussion of TBN constitutes a charismatic takeover of the SBC? This is fantasy on the level of believing in the tooth fairy.
What difference does it make what a few people say on TBN? First of all, Dwight McKissic did not say any of the things that you are upset about. He just sat there while others said it. Have you always corrected someone when they made a racist joke over the years? What about a distasteful joke about women? According to your standards, then it means that you are a racist or a sexist and you agree with their position. What about it, Peter? If you have not corrected every error that a church member or family member has stated, does that make you a moral coward? I wouldn't think so, but then again, I don't have the ability to comprehend everything as well as some, being theologically deficient and all.
Dwight McKissic is a good man and he has tried to stay true to his convictions. The fact that he had a conference in his church where he invited opposing views, has gone out of his way to foster friendships with people who disagree, has made phone calls to bloggers who have said disparaging things, and has printed a statement to explain his true intentions should give you some idea of the character of the man. To accuse him of moral cowardice is just plain wrong and when you consider the other things that have been said by the side represented on this blog about those that they disagree with, it is just laughable.
This is why I don't care anymore about debating these issues. There is no point. This is why I am glad that the opinions represented in this post by some of the commenters is not what is most true about the SBC.
Dr. Yarnell
Please don't go.
Alan,
To suggest that Pastor McKissic agrees with everything said last night is to err. I have not done so. I know that he disagrees with them. But, the only reason I know that he disagrees with them is because of a previous relationship with him. Nobody watching last night would have walked away with that impression.
My observation about the competing direction of the SBC is simply this: Pastor McKissic has shown a lot of boldness in disagreeing with my theology. Where was that boldness last night? How can one conclude anything other than this: Although he disagrees with my theology and with Camp's theology (or Hogue's or Crouch's), mine is the theology with which he not only disagrees but which he also finds distasteful and dangerous?
Obviously, I find Camp's and Hogue's theology distasteful and dangerous. Pastor McKissic doesn't embody every aspect of that theology, but neither does he represent any protection from it.
By Alan Cross,
Bart,
I will maintain that it might be difficult to say everything that needs to be said in front of a live studio audience on national TV. I have often been in situations where I wish that I would have said more than what I said in the moment. Because I know Rev. McKissic and have had several private conversations with him and he has had MANY chances to run down Dr. Patterson and never has, I must conclude that he either did not react fast enough, did not feel comfortable interrupting, or did not fully grasp what was being said in the moment. Actually, there are many other possibilities. Maybe he felt that he was only responsible for his own words.
The possibility for all of us to NOT say something that maybe we should have is immense in most every situation. To judge someone for the things that others said while you were in their vicinity is an extreme error. I know that you didn't say those things, Bart, but others did and that is what I was responding to.
This type of thing is the reason that I have been scarce on the Baptist blogs the last few months. The vitriol on both sides has made me not want to have anything to do with Southern Baptist political life anymore. In reality, there is a whole world of lost people and thousands of struggling Christians who need more time and attention than these debates deserve.
Bart,
Your comment above is indeed true of my situation to the point. I had not had a conversation with Dr. McKissic until today and did not until today know that he disagreed with some of last nights conversation. Thus your point is the point. It should have been clear or else the perception is there and does not The Word of God caution against leading people astray and causing them to stumble? I do beleive it is very clear on both of those.
alan,
have you said the same thing to ben and wade that you are saying here to bart and the rest of us concerning their posts on dr. john floyd, dr. mohler, dr. patterson, jerry corbaley, etc.? i mean, some very awful things have been said about these good and godly men by ben and wade. i'm just wondering if you apply the same standards to them? or, are the things that they say of these men i'vve mentioned ok, because it's wade and ben sharing these unflattering insinuations and you agree with them?
bro., i've read a lot of posts and comments by ben and wade and some of the others in that camp, and i dont remember you coming down on them like you're coming down on us here...for just stating our disagreement with this tbn deal, btw.
david
i just want to go on record as saying that i have met dwight mckissic, and i've had several conversations with him as well. he's a nice guy. i like him. he and i are both big fellas. but, i disagree with hm on this situation. but, i have no hate in my heart for dwight mckissic, nor for dwain miller, nor for scott camp, and not even for richard hogue. i also dont hate the crouch's nor benny hinn. i dont like much about the crouch's and benny hinn and richard hogue, and i really dislike their health and wealth teaching....but hate? naw.
david
By Alan Cross,
David, I don't know those men at all. I don't think that it is right to say rude or unflattering things about anyone, but if I policed everyone's comments on the blogosphere about things that I didn't have first hand knowledge about, I would never do anything else. I state my opinion about those men by not saying anything about them myself, not making judgments, and by staying out of comment streams about them.
As for Dwight McKissic, I DO have first hand knowledge about his position on this issue and I do know him personally. Just like some who know Dr. Patterson personally have defended him (and I do not fault them for that, I totally understand), so am I also stating what I know to be true about the character and theological positions of Dwight McKissic.
I understand that it is a nuanced line for some, but I realized a long time ago that I can't be the blog police on things that I don't have first hand knowledge about. As for being in a camp, I struck my tent long ago and am my own man, so I am not really interested in what others are doing. Unless, it involves saying things that I know are not true about a friend of mine.
And, by the way David, I would do the same for you. As I would for Ben, Wade, Bart, Robin, Wes, Art, Marty, or anyone else that I have come to know throughout this whole ordeal. I just think that some of the comments that have been made tonight are out of line. I don't claim to be superior to anyone, I just know that they are not accurate of the real position of the man.
TO EVERYONE:
If you're reading all of these comments and letting that suffice, then you are doing yourself a disservice. Go watch the video for yourself. That's why I said very little in my original post. There's really no need for interpretive commentary. The video speaks for itself. Go watch it.
This is absolutely outrageous! SBC Today and Bart Barber have completely misrepresented Pastor Dwight's comments on TBN. I listened to and analyzed every carefully spoken word he uttered during the interviews and found nothing to be even remotely characteristic of the type of "conspiracy" that these bloggers seem to imply that Dwight and others a part of. Rather, what I saw was an educated Baptist bring some much needed moderation and theological clarity to a discussion that was grossly monopolized by two charismatic pastors with an obvious desire to promote their own charismatic agendas. Pastor Dwight, on the other hand, clearly encouraged people not to seek a gift, but to seek the Giver - God Himself! SBC Today and Bart Barber are so concerned with promoting their own conspiracy theory-laced fearmongering that they completely missed the spirit and the point of what a great man of God spoke to thousands. Thank you, Pastor Dwight, for making God and the advancement of His glory the center of this situation - even when others, in their desire to make the most of a political opportunity, refuse to do the same.
Jason,
Is it that you cannot read, or that you will not?
I challenge you to produce one direct quote from me that misrepresented Pastor McKissic at all.
And again, to everyone reading, seeing these frivolous allegations that I have misrepresented or misquoted anyone....
I'M THE ONE WHO HAS BEEN URGING FROM THE BEGINNING FOR EVERYONE TO WATCH THE VIDEO THEMSELVES.
And I reiterate that encouragement: Watch the video. I know it is a lengthy clip, but it is important that you see it for yourself. It really needs no explanation and is unspinnable.
Dear Bart
So sorry to 'hit and run' last
evening. I deeply apologize. My words were tough and I should have waited till I could have stuck around. For that I do beg your pardon.
Dr. Welty,
Thanks for the response. But I did not know I said Dwight was the devil, did I? Unless, of course, moral cowardice is equated with the devil.
You wrote "You're actually saying Dwight attempted to be a moral coward?!" To the contrary, I was not attempting to suggest anything. I think I was clear:
"your silence on National TV in behalf of your good 'friend' with whom you still have good 'fellowship' has got to qualify for the purist attempt at moral cowardice that could be imagined."
You may not agree with my definition of precisely what constitutes 'moral cowardice', Dr. Welty, as obviously our Bart does not either. I have no problem with that.
Nonetheless, I happen to embrace as a fine, flawless specimen of moral cowardice, one's shocking silence in sitting idly by while two dudes with whom he shares a panel discussion hacks a friend's* view, and his friend's* scholarship, while laughing under their breath, proclaiming 'Patterson's' view of 1 Corinthians 13 as nothing more than silly.
If you do not agree with such or think I'm being 'unfair', Dr. Welty, again that's fine. For me, silence, in that situation, loudly blows the bullhorn to the contrary.
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
*In the first post, I mentioned Dr. Patterson as Dwight's "good friend". I am less confident about Dwight saying on the show Dr. Patterson was his 'good' friend and not just 'friend' with whom he 'fellowships'. Frankly, however, I don't see that as negating my concern above...
By Alan Cross,
Peter,
Your comments were particularly troubling to me and seemed out of character for you. I'll ask you directly, have you ever been present when someone told a racist joke and you did not correct them? Have you ever been around when someone told a sexist joke and you did not correct them? Have you ever been in the company of someone when they were speaking falsehood or running someone down and you did not correct them to their face? Have you ever been in the company of a church member or another pastor when they said something that was incorrect and you did not correct them? If so, according to your standard, then you might be infected with moral cowardice. I wouldn't say that because I think that you might have been gracious or you were not wanting to embarrass someone. But, your judgment toward Rev. McKissic must at this point be turned back on yourself.
If you have always said everything that needed to be said in every moment, please write and tell us how you attained that kind of presence of mind, wisdom, insight, grace, and courage. I know that I have often walked out of situations wishing that I would have said more. I find it easier to show such courage on a blog because I have time to think about things. A live interview is quite a different scenario.
I think that your judgment of Rev. McKissic engaging in moral cowardice is extremely unfair. I hope that you can receive that. I would be a moral coward if I didn't confront you on this. Because of your example, I dare not keep quiet.
Alan is precisely right. His defense of Pastor McKissic here exemplifies what one would expect of a good friend.
Bart, Greg, and Alan,
I concur with the views regarding Dwight that were brought up to Peter. I do however understand Peter's frustration. Though I too would have loved for Dwight to defend his friend, Dr. Patterson, just as Alan and Greg have defended Dwight here, I would have loved even more for Dwight to have defended the word of God!
Sola Scriptura,
Ron P.
Very clever, Bart. Very clever.
You seem to be saying a lot for someone who is not attacking Dwight McKissic. I think that everyone can get a pretty good idea of where you stand at this point.
My bold, anonymous, good friend,
Accuse me not of being coy. I'm criticizing Richard Hogue, Arthur Blessitt, Scott Camp, and Dwain Miller. To the degree that Dwight McKissic concurred with them or was silent to what they were saying, I'm criticizing him, too.
What I AM NOT doing is misrepresenting him in any way.
Alan,
Upon reflection, Allan, I don't know if I've ever denied I was a moral coward. You may very well be correct. I know there exists times I acted as one, I'm quite sure.
Albeit my own problems, I must remind you, it says nothing about Dwight McKissic's inaction on behalf of his friend. Nor are we speaking of perverted jokes about nameless individuals. Rather the situation is much more personal based upon claimed relationships.
In addition, the invitation from Hogue was clear: the panel was instructed to disagree if they so chose. Could you please make plain how the following was potentially embarassing to anyone?:
'My brothers, I must say, though I sympathize with your concerns about the interpretations of Dr. Patterson, I've just got to say I don't think it's proper to call his position 'silly'--not to mention at least half of all Southern Baptists. Dr. Patterson is a scholar, an accomplished theologian and a friend. I disagree with him--and that strongly!--but we must keep our concerns above the mundane by 'laughing' at their views."
If this--or anything remotely resembling this--had been attempted, my own words would be an outrageous, unfair assessment of the situation as you suggest. In the absence of such, I feel nor expect remorse for judging Dwight McKissic's inaction as indicative of moral cowardice.
And, if you and/or the majority of others do not so see it that way and think I myself hypocritically embrace moral cowardice or you would be a moral coward not to confront me, I suggest you continue to annie up. Think and do as you so wish.
Grace for us all. With that, I am...
Peter
By Alan Cross,
That previous comment was by me. Blogger has changed since I last posted a comment on a blog and I don't have an account. I forgot to put my name on it before I responded. Forgive me.
Bart,
It did seem like you were being coy. I could break down your statement and explain why I thought that, but I'll withdraw my assumption and believe your own words. I'll extend to you the courtesy that few seem to want to extend to Dwight McKissic. I have repeatedly given examples of how we do not always speak up in certain situations for various reasons. I can only assume that you have never silently sat by while someone made a racist or sexist joke. By your silence and continuing judgment of Dwight for his silence, I can assume that you have always spoken up with others around you made statements that you did not agree with. If that is not the case, I give you grace because I have not always spoken up. There have been many reasons for that, not all of which have been moral cowardice. Sometimes, I am willing to let someone state a position and deal with the consequences without my incessant interruptions. If someone is asked a direct question and they answer it, then that is there opinion. When I speak, I am sharing my opinion on the subject independent of what others say. We must not always react to others to forge our own positions, although that does seem to be the emerging mindset in certain Southern Baptist theological institutions.
Alan,
Please don't refrain from analyzing my comments out of any concern for me—I've invited as much several times. I deliberately and carefully wrote this post not to misrepresent Dwight McKissic. If I have done so, I want to be corrected.
Peter,
My point is very simple. It's one thing to say that, in your judgment, Dwight didn't exercise the boldness he could have exercised on behalf of a friend. It's another thing entirely to say that his performance was the "purest attempt at moral cowardice that could be imagined". Two things about this claim of yours are completely over the top:
(1) The idea that Dwight was attempting to be cowardly. You seem to be able to divine his intentions here. You didn't say it was an example of moral cowardice. You said it was an attempt at moral cowardice. This clearly communicates to me that you think it was Dwight's goal to be a coward. This is a reckless use of language.
(2) The superlatives "purest" and "could be imagined" are totally out of place. You are saying that you can't imagine any worse example of moral cowardice, than what you saw on that show. Do you really think this? The entire sweep of human history doesn't supply you with any worse examples than what you saw on that show?! Surely, at the very least, the vast arenas of warfare, crime, and college football coaching could supply you with worse examples :-)
No, moral cowardice is not equated with the devil. However, when one is guilty of the purest act of evil that can be imagined, we have indeed entered the realm of the diabolical.
Well, I've made my point. If you still don't think your words were over the top, there's not much more that I can do. I generally agree with you that the video is very disappointing. I just think there's a way of making that point without unnecessarily alienating the people you're trying to convince.
I concur with Greg on those two points.
Alan again,
Bart, I actually did not think that you were misrepresenting Dwight McKissic through anything that you said in your original post, but through this post and comment stream as well as through Tim Guthrie's, there has definitely been a "guilt by association" move against Dwight here because he sat on a panel.
The comment that I was refering to is the one that you made at 9:21am: "Alan is precisely right. His defense of Pastor McKissic here exemplifies what one would expect of a good friend."
I apologize if I wrongly assumed that you were trying to be clever here. It appeared to me that you were saying that if someone really thinks of another person as a friend, then they would defend that person as strongly and as clearly as I have Dwight McKissic. Based on Peter's statements and other statements in this post, it is clear that the majority here do not feel that Dwight did this, thus his calling Dr. Patterson a friend is insincere.
I have listened to the entire panel discussion and it seemed to me that Dwight was a spectator for most of it. He did clearly articulate his view and I understood what he was saying very well. Dwight is being judged by the comments of the other three men and since you only want to be judged by your own words and not the words of others in this comment stream, it seems that you would agree that that is unfair. I remember being on a panel with you at Dwight's church and there were many things said that you did not agree with, I would assume. You did not interrupt or challenge every point. You presented your position and no one there would have assumed that you agreed with what everyone else said just because you were silent when they were speaking. They would think that you were respectful. Actually, they probably didn't think about you at all.
I think that everyone is being way too sensitive here. It does appear that the comments of some of the guests on that show were reprehensible to some. But, people have differing views on issues and those views were shown. The host tried to push his views on others, but I saw Dwight articulate a view very different from the host on whether everyone would speak in tongues or not. As for the "silly" comment about Dr. Patterson, that was said very quickly and happened during an exchange between Dwain Miller and Richard Hogue. Dwight was not even being addressed at that point and I imagine that it was difficult for him to get a word in edgewise.
Dwight McKissic is a gracious man. When he was being asked by Richard Hogue about what happened during the Chapel incident, he told the truth, but then tried to quickly move on. That was obvious to anyone paying attention.
I watched the video and I disagreed with much of it as well. But, I did not see anything negative about Dwight McKissic in that interview. I'll leave my comments at that, as I am leaving for most of the rest of the day and will not be at my computer until later on. I hope that I have explained my position satisfactorily.
Dr. Welty,
I stand down on the first point you offer. You are correct. The way I worded 'purist attempt' in my original post carries with it precisely as you have pointed out. I regret the word choice. Moreover, I offer my deepest apology to Dwight McKissic for anything implied from that word combination.
As I was writing the comment, it was firmly in my mind to note AN EXAMPLE--a hefty one at that--of moral cowardice, not to suggest in the slightest Dwight possessed a mind to 'attempt' moral cowardice, not to mention he knew he WAS a moral coward. Know though: No excuses. Bad wording totally.
As for the hyperbole I employed to get my point across--a perfectly legitimate literary device--I offer no apologies nor do I regret using 'could be imagined'. I will let that one lay right there.
Thanks again to you, Dr. Welty. What I wrote about 'attempt' needed teased out and correction made.
And, to any confusion I injected into the conversation here by my illegitimate language and its implication, I offer to Bart my deepest regret.
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
Bart would say the last line in your OP is pretty misleading and tells the intent of this post. I quote:
"There you'll see the unvarnished truth of where folks hope to take the SBC."
Tim: If you did not know that Dr. McKissic did not agree with the men on the panel in everything, then what was the point of Dr. McKissic writing and talking personally to each of you this past year? Did you forget all that he laid out plainly several times? If it's hard to remember just go to Dr. McKissic's blog or do a google search. He has not been shy about being clear exactly what he believes on private prayer language and other subjects in which he has been orthodox.
Debbie,
The subject of the program was the current controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention with an entire panel of people articulating, praying for, and appealing into the camera regarding where they want the SBC to go. If everyone will watch the video for themselves, they will see this for themselves.
WOW,
Someone wants to defend that?
SOLA GRATIA!
*Sigh.....folks watch the video, but be warned you will have to see the last few seconds of Jack Van Impe. Do not think that is where anyone wants to take the SBC either.
I watched the whole video, and I also recommend to all SBC pastors. But don't presume, Bart, Ron P. and others, that it will wake up fellow pastors in the way that you seem to think it might -- to the dangers of a creeping Pentecostalism in the SBC. It's also possible that many pastors will identify with the testimonies of the brothers on the panel and seek a personal revival.
I went to Pensacola back in 1996 from Columbia, SC. The preaching was biblical and evangelistic, the power of the Lord was present, sinners were saved, believers were revived, and pastors were renewed for ministry. I am convinced, it was a genuine outpouring of the Holy Spirit. America and the SBC desperately need more such outpourings, and longer lasting ones -- with Word and Spirit leading in tandem.
Aren't the current carnal sarcasms and ungracious criticisms, from both sides of the SBC debate, obvious signs of our need for revival?
Lord, have mercy, please.
Bart: When TBN gets a vote in the SBC then I'll be concerned. Dwight has always been about inclusion not conforming to his way of thinking, just not pushing folks such as himself out, you know that.
Debbie,
The only person on that stage who doesn't have a vote in the SBC is Richard Hogue.
So, you have my permission to be concerned now.
Todd,
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!
In fact, I think I'll email Senator Chuck Grassley and ask him for advice as to how we Baptist folk can come to know the divine blessings of Charismania.
Debbie,
Just so you will know, Dr. McKissic is now using a new term to describe his prayer life. This new term is "Praying in Tongues". SO your response to what was written last year is mute since he has changed terms with no clear definitions nor refuting of those who went beyond his stance. What do you say about the many "amens" from him when the others were speaking?
i too wish that dwight had refuted, or at least challenged, some of the insane statements being made on the panel....putting experience above scripture...saying that everyone ought to speak in tongues....all the attacks on the sbc made by the pentecostal/charismatic hogue...dr. patterson and all cessationists being called silly, etc. i just wish that dwight, being on this panel being a bad idea to begin with, would have at least spoke out more to refute such things. to sit there quietly, and it sounded like some "amens" coming from him thru-out, gave the appearance of agreeing with...imho.
also, what about the plea and prayer at the end aimed at sb pastors? could this be seen as an attempt to convert to tongues?
where is steve grosey? grosey, tell us how the aussie baptists went from allowing this to becoming full blown charismatic, and then even heretical. grosey?
david
also, i want to add this...everytime i have seen a charismatic/tongues kind of thing develop in a church....it's caused strife and division and heartache. i believe that i can say that 99% of the time that i have personally seen people get into tongue speaking and other charismatic type things, that it has caused churches to have strife and even to split and worse.
that's been my experience with the tongue movement.
david
Tim: Dwight said nothing new. Not one thing.
The truth in this discussion has gotten so far out of hand that I'm not even shaking my head anymore. It seems you all are on such a roll with this that truth is just a distant second to politics and agendas. I'm done. I see by your next post Bart, it's going to continue to snowball. But I am discouraged that this gossip is continuing to happen.
Debbie,
Somebody goes on national television, I present the exact words that they spoke, and I'm guilty of gossip?
Silly me...I've always thought that presenting someone's exact words so that they cannot be misrepresented or misconstrued is the very sort of thing that prevents gossip.
Todd,
You write: "I am convinced, it [the 1996 Florida 'outpouring'] was a genuine outpouring of the Holy Spirit...the SBC desperately need more such outpourings, and longer lasting ones -- with Word and Spirit leading in tandem."
The working assumption you seem to possess is precisely the one apparently possessed by our panel who spoke to SBs on TBN. That is, revival, when it genuinely takes place, looks strangely similar and perhaps even identical to what happens particularly in charismatic circles.
Arguably, that assumption is one about which many faithful believers dispute--especially whether Word & Spirit 'lead in tandem' during such phenomenon. As for my part, it is not clear that such harmonious leadership happens.
Grace. With that, I am...
Peter
Bart, thanks for linking this. I am listening to it right now.
Bart,
No, 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.
Peter,
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 they 'should' look like, but can we agree that this is what we should be aiming and praying for?
Blessings.
My big question is this: Why, if it is a private prayer language and it isn't necessary for salvation as the panel stated, does Scott Camp have to teach us how to speak in said tongues at the end of the program (being private and from God, I would expect a "moving of God" to allow me to speak in such a manner) and where was the interpretation of Mr. Camp's tongues at the end of the program? I guess the point is that despite their words, their practice of this aberrant theology bears out the truth of their belief and speaks much louder than do their words.
Mike,
I'm not sure if you're addressing your question to me, but I'll take a stab at a reply.
First, I conclude from 1 Cor 14 that Paul makes a distinction between praying in tongues -- or in the spirit (vs. praying with the mind) -- and speaking a message in tongues which requires an interpretation.
As much as I wish that tongues had not been used for prayer publicly on the TV show, that is what I saw happening: praying very briefly in tongues, not delivering a message in tongues (and not "teaching" others how to pray in tongues).
Second, I’ve noticed that many people who pray in tongues often do so when they intercede for people. If it’s done in a small group or private session and no one is confused or stumbled by it, then I think there is no biblical prohibition that applies. It is prayer to God, not a message to men needing interpretation.
But when it’s done publicly (and especially on TV!), whether in full-blown prayer or little slips here and there, it is an undisciplined use of the gift that violates scriptural teaching.
Finally, I’d like to say that it grieves me when people who pray or speak in tongues display an air of superiority. It is NOT a badge to wear or a sign of super-spirituality. I received the gift during a time of personal renewal while an SBC pastor and SWBTS doctoral student. But I've never made a big deal of it or tried to push it on others.
On the other hand, it’s also disappointing when people without the gift, or who disbelieve in present-day tongues, respond with animosity and sarcasm. Both the haves and the have-nots need to exercise some humility, restraint, and love for one another.
There should be room in SBC life for individuals who practice a PPL and churches who bless the pursuit of all the gifts of the Spirit, according to the Word, and in an atmosphere of love, wisdom, and order.
We disagree on our interpretations of the Word, obviously, but let's not cast stones and generalizations like "aberrant theology" at fellow Baptists who become convinced of some aspects of charismatic theology and practice. It just may be that they/we love the Lord, His Word, and lost souls every bit as much as you do.
I'm sorry that some charismatic extremists are offensive. But not all Baptists with a PPL are extremists or even go in that direction. I really hope you can see that, or will come to see it eventually.
In the meantime, let's all hunger for the fresh bread of the Word and thirst for the new wine of the Spirit.
Have a blessed Christmas.
Post a Comment