Implications of the IMB Tongues Policy: The McKissic Incident

(Picture on Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's Heritage page of Billy Graham, avowed continualist in that he believes that supernatural gifts such as speaking in tongues have continued to the present day).

I've been doing some pondering in the wake of Chapelgate last week concering Dr. McKissic's address (if you don't know what I'm talking about, you can read my post HERE, or check out Rob Slagle's collection of pertinent posts and articles HERE). I got in a pretty heavy debate with a fellow over on Wade Burleson's blog last week concerning the validity of a private prayer language (it was in the comments of this post). My purpose was not to convince him that tongues were for him, but rather to give a good defense of my heartfelt position regarding the view that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, including speaking in tongues, were still operative today. I also wanted to show that this view had enough merit to be allowed to exist within the SBC. I didn't get anywhere, even though we had a courteous debate.

I realized something during that experience. The events at the SWBTS chapel last week were the fruit of the seeds planted by the IMB policies. Dr. Patterson was, in a sense, making the IMB policy against private prayer language, the de facto policy of Southwestern without giving any defense. He just said this teaching would be dangerous for the churches. Notice, it is now the teaching that is dangerous and must be held back. Hmmm.

With the IMB and NAMB policies against speaking in tongues, they have eliminated everyone who practices that gift. But, what about people who believe it exists and do not practice it? What about all continualists, whether they practice the gift or not? Wouldn't consistency require that they be eliminated from service as well? Because, if I believe that something is true, even if I do not have the gift, would I not teach others that it is Biblical? Even if I don't speak in tongues, would I not teach others that it is o.k. for them to do so within the proper Biblical guidelines, if I believe that it is for today? Would they not also have to eliminate me from participation in denominational life, not because I practiced tongues, but because I believed that they existed? I believe that MUST be where we are headed.

These are serious questions, because precedent is being set through the IMB policy and now through Southwestern's stance. When the amendment on women in ministry was added to the Baptist Faith & Message2000, it did not just target women in ministry, but it also eliminated male missionaries who did not agree with that doctrine. They could not sign the BF&M because of conscience, and were dismissed. It did not affect those of us who agreed with the amendment, so we didn't really notice what happened. But, does anyone not think that there will be a movement to place the policy against private prayer language in the BF&M at some point, especially since it is on the books at both NAMB and the IMB, and Southwestern has declared where they stand?  I have begun to hear the rumblings of prominent people suggesting this very thing. Consistency would require that these policies not just target practitioners of this gift, but also those who are sympathetic or believe in it wholeheartedly, but do not practice it.

As I have read and discussed this issue with cessationists, I have found that not only do they believe that many of the supernatural gifts such as tongues have passed away, but they also will not tolerate any teaching to the contrary. In other words, in my experience, it has been their practice to silence such teaching and pretend that it just exists in fringe groups and not in the mainstream of evangelical life. Well, that might have been true 20-30 years ago, but it is not true today. The number of baptists that believe that the gifts of the Spirit, including miracles and tongues are for today is rapidly growing. Not that the SBC is about to become a charismatic or pentecostal denomination. There is just a growing group of people who believe that God works in the same way as He did in the Apostolic Age. I count myself in that number, and I will make my stand here. I will not waver on that belief. But, neither will the cessationists. I am becoming convinced that their desire is to purge the SBC of continualist theology and practice. I feel that the actions of last week at Southwestern predict the future stance of the SBC on this issue and that it will be reflected in the BF&M at some near future date, if something is not done about it. An SBC that codifies and maintains that unbiblical position will be an SBC without my presence.  I pray that day never comes, but I fear that it might. This is why what happened at Southwestern last week is such a big deal and why we must pray and work to see that this does not take place.

Let me be clear: I do not begrudge the cessationist his right to believe what he believes. I would also not deny him missionary service or leadership in the denomination. At this point, it is a non-essential and we can agree to get along. But, when the cessationist tells me that I cannot serve or take part in denominational life because I am a continualist, then we have a problem. Then, the dividing line has been drawn, not by me, but by them. They are saying I can't be who I am and be accepted in the SBC. I am not saying that. They are. For those who would say, "Well, you shouldn't make such a big deal over such a small thing," I would say to them that I am not making the big deal, others are. Why don't you tell Dr. Patterson that?  If this rift is not healed and division does take place, the fault can only be laid at the feet of those who are pushing an exclusionary agenda based on their narrow interpretation of Scripture.

But, we are not there yet. I want to work for change and will keep doing so until the unfortunate day that these policies might be codifed in the Baptist Faith and Message, our confession of faith. When or if that happens, I will have to reconsider my affiliations. But, until then, I will work, give, serve, and live out my Christianity as a Southern Baptist. Only God knows what the future holds. I sure don't. But, whether these policies make it into the BF&M or not, they must be stricken from the books of the IMB and NAMB, lest we eliminate many godly people from missionary service. Some things are just worth standing up for. At some point, it is more important to be a follower of Jesus Christ and the Word of God, than to be a Baptist, especially when those positions diverge.

Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria, Solo Christo, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide!

Comments

[Paul Burleson]

Allan,

You are illustrating the truth of "reaping what is sown." You always reap more. That's why to sow a requirement that exceeds the BF@M is so dangerous. It would be easy for that document to become our guide for faith and practice instead of scriptures. Wade originally addressed the wrong of sowing such a thing, you are addressing the reaping of that thing sown. This connection should open some eyes that could not see the immediate danger. Let's hope the SBC has some thinking people and will see the tragic results.

By the way, am I missing your name and e-mail address displayed somewhere? It would be extremely helpful if you could. Once in a while I like to say a private word via e-mail. If I'm missing it forgive me, I'm getting older and have all the usual problems of not seeing things right in front of me.

Paul

[Bryan Riley]

Alan, good word. I think if more people spent time on the mission field they would be put in a position where they have to believe the promises and commands of God. I am so thankful we serve an infinite and personal God who is the same today as He was yesterday and will be so forever.

[David Rogers]

Alan,

I have been thinking about what I would post on my blog regarding this. But since you have just written everything I would have written, I am just going to point my readers your way. Thank you for your clear thinking and convictions on this important issue.

David

[Baptist Theologue]

Alan, I don't want to rehash our debate from Wade's web site. Here's my rationale for why the IMB policy is okay (something I didn't cover there):

1. Modern PPL is ecstatic utterance rather than a supposed foreign language. I assume that most Southern Baptists still agree that this is an unbiblical Pentecostal/charismatic practice. I would argue that the ban on "meaningless repetition/babbling" in Matthew 6:7 can be applied to modern PPL. There are many Pentecostal/charismatic groups that send out missionaries. Modern PPL practitioners could be sent out by those groups rather than by the IMB. Some Southern Baptists have no idea what PPL is; they think it is akin to groaning and reference Romans 8:26. Of course, the Greek indicates that such groanings are unutterable. Nevertheless, there is confusion in the SBC in regard to how PPL should be defined. If a non-practitioner of PPL errantly believes that it is some type of groaning, that person can still serve effectively as an IMB missionary. A practitioner of PPL, however, fully understands what PPL involves.

2. Some Southern Baptists are semi-cessationists, and they don't believe ecstatic utterances are valid expressions of the biblical gift of tongues. They have neither exerienced a miraculous foreign language ability nor seen it in person, but they have heard anecdotal reports about it on the mission field, and they believe such reports. The IMB policy would leave room for such people. The anecdotal reports, if true, indicate that the miraculous foreign language ability is usually a one-time experience under extraordinary circumstances, not a normal practice. The IMB missionaries who are semi-cessationists are already studying the language of their focus group, and thus they would not by definition be able to say that they themselves were experiencing a miraculous foreign language ability. The miraculous foreign language ability supposedly only comes to those who have not studied the language. Thus, IMB missionaries, working with their focus group, might believe that this could occur, but they would not experience it themselves.

3. In many if not most cases, modern ecstatic utterance involves learned behavior in Pentecostal/charismatic environments. In such environments, it is a contagious phenomenon. Dr. D. A. Carson made this clear in “Showing the Spirit”:

"The tongues phenomena have been related to the speaker’s natural language (e.g., a German or French tongues-speaker will not use one of the two English 'th'sounds; and English tongues-speakers will never include the 'u' sound of French 'cru'). Moreover, the stereotypical utterance of any culture 'mirrors that of the person who guided the glossolalist into the behavior. There is little variation of sound patterns within the group arising around a particular guide.'"

If a person believes that speaking in ecstatic utterances on a normal basis (regularly in worship services) is correct behavior, then that person will likely be a practitioner because he or she probably has already "caught" it. Of course, this would be a distraction on the mission field.

Our associations have traditionally served as doctrinal watchdogs in regard to errant churches. Sometimes churches have been disfellowshipped by associations. In the 1970s, associations dealt with charismatic problems. Now, however, the problem is on a denominational scale in regard to tongues/PPL and the IMB. The only way I can see to effect a permanent, decisive solution is for the BF&M to be revised. A section on tongues (and perhaps alcohol) needs to be added.

David Rogers and I discussed this further on my blog site,
http://baptisttheologue.blogspot.com.

[Alan Cross]

Thank you Baptist Theologue for showing up. You perfectly illustrate my point. I believe that your conclusions are in error and have already pointed my readers to the post where our debate takes place. I do not wish to rehash it here, although I am fully confident that I am able to defend my position. I would just encourage people to read 1 Corinthians 14 and come to their own conclusions. The purpose of this post is to consider the ramifications of your position, which you show very well. I'll be happy to formulate and post my defense here, if I deem it necessary, some time next week, but let's not debate this issue again.

Reader: If you would like to read the debate I had with Baptist Theologue please go to: http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2006/09/welcome-to-neighborhood-dr-mckissic.html . It picks up over half way down in the comments, but intensifies in number of postings toward the end. David Rogers chimes in as well with some interesting thoughts on 1 Corinthians 1:5-8. I'll post on this in it's entirety at some other point.

[Bob Cleveland]

Alan: if this gets too long, delete it, tell me, and I'll post it on Eagles' Rest.

First: "ecstatic utterance". IMO, that's a term that would only be used by someone without that gift. That is definitely not what I, or my pentecostal friends, experience. Well, some do when they repeat one syllable over and over, but that's not what I think of as speaking in tongues as the word tongue does refer to a language.

Second: "Prayer language". That's not what the bible calls it, and I'm always going to call it speaking in tongues. Why are people afraid of what the bible says.

Third, IMO, Act 2 is not an example of known languages (sorry, Jack Hayford). Nobody seems to want to acknowledge it, but the bible says that, standing outside, EACH person .. singular .. heard THEM .. plural .. speaking HIS OWN language. You tell me ... if a crowd inside was speaking in 25 or 30 different languages, how would you describe what you heard?

The bible plainly states, later, they heard the folks inside ".... declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!"

That sounds most likely to be either praying or praising God, to me. I think that is consistent with 1 Corinthians 14.

"Private" .. comes from Paul's admonition to the Corinthians to limit that activity. If some proud people, which can easily be discerned from the context and the purpose of Paul's letter to them, were dominating meetings with unknown tongues, praying or praising, to the exclusion of others' ability to offer prophecy, his admonition is expectable. They needed to hear from God.

How about interpretation, apart from Paul's standalone and explanation-less admonition there. Well, he later asks how we can "amen" someone's prayer if we don't know what he's praying? If that is a blanket instruction, then how can a church allow silent prayer, or "unspoken requests?"

Side note: I get this picture of someone saying they have two unspoken requests, and the prayer warrior says "I only have time to pray for one ... which one you want me to pray for?"

Anyway, this whole flap speaks of folks who do not have that gift, fearing it or those with the gift manifesting it. That is why I very much appreciate people who don't, but are at least open about it. It is certainly nothing to fear.

Sunday, our pastor knelt at the altar to pray ... he has some health issues. His wife knelt with him and put hands on him, and I was moved to go pray. Sadly, because of the fear, I had to pray silently. I was grieved in my spirit, as it's hard to really let me spirit express itself to God, when no overt feelings can be part of it. But that's ok. I won't let the gift offend anyone, and God knows what's in my heart.

[A S Hodel]

Thank you for a well written article. The transition from
practice->belief->teaching
had escaped me, and it's an important one!

Some months ago I was in a meeting involving two baptist pastors and several laymen. In the course of the meeting the IMB policy was discussed, in particular the statement that "In terms of general practice, the majority of Southern Baptists do not accept what is referred to as `private prayer language'" and that this justifies excluding such practices from our missionaries. One of the pastors said, "Reread that statement, except wherever it says "private prayer language" replace it with "soul winning."

That's been food for thought ever since.

[craig from georgia]

"Bob Cleveland said IMO, Act 2 is not an example of known languages"

Come on Bob, READ what the Bible says for a change.

"And how hear we every man in our own tongue, WHEREIN WE WERE BORN?" (Acts 2:8)

The tongue these people were hearing were the ones they had been hearing from birth. It was their native tongue (language). If modern day gibberish tongues were a spiritual gift, then based on what you say these folks were born with this spiritual gift which means they were saved at birth. You see the kind of mess you make when you discard what the Bible says and insert your opinion?

[Alan Cross]

I would appreciate if everyone would refrain from actually debating the tongues issue here. It will devolve into a mess and the point of my post will be lost. I do believe that the continuation of the gifts of the spirit, miracles, and speaking in tongues is valid for today. I welcome any disagreement with that statement and will be happy to discuss it. But, primarily, my post is about the IMPLICATIONS of limitations on that perspective in Southern Baptist life, i.e. the IMB policies and the McKissic incident.

One other note: I know that this is a heated topic. I've intentionally stayed away from the denominational stuff on this blog for the most part, at least in comparison to others. ALL communication with anyone holding any opposing view must be undertaken with respect and love. Baptist Theologue and I were able to maintain that attitude as we discussed this last week, so I know it is possible. Any failure to do so will result in deleted comments and a possible ban. Be Christian about this, o.k.?

[Kevin Bussey]

Well said Alan!

[Paul Burleson]

Alan,

I hear you saying that "meaningless repetitions/babblings in Matthew 6:7 may be applied to comments on a blog once in a while too. Is that correct? :)

Paul

[Paul]

Alan,

I'll admit that I've thought the flap about adding a statement on this issue to the BFM was very remote. I obviously hadn't thought it through as well as you have expressed here. I hope it doesn't happen, but if it does you won't be the only one who doesn't experience these sort-of gifts personally but who will have to re-think his affiliations if we codify this kind of thing.

Craig in Georgia,

Lighten up, dude. (Alan, if you need to edit that out I'll understand).

[Wayne(IN HIS NAME)]

Alanm

Thank you for sharing this and Your love for Jesus, who gave us the HOLY SPIRIT, and Our ability to communicate with God.

Eph 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. and Our ability to communicate with God.
LOVE
In Jesus Name Wayne

[Bob Cleveland]

Craig in Georgia.

I specifically stated that "repetition" ... gibberish .. is not what I refer to.

I suggest you re-read what I did write. I will not state it sarcastically, as you did.

[Bob Cleveland]

Alan:

If the gift is valid, at present, then the effect of the narrowing rulings will be to lessen the distribution of gifts within the body involved. Sort of mimicking "natural selection". I'd imagine that would have a detrimental effect on the program, over many years.

God states specifically that HE distributes gifts within the Body of Christ, as the Holy Spirit wills. That's presumably done for a purpose, and it certainly seems that a missionary organization would want to emulate a full-range body with all the gifts God provides. Narrowing the requirements forces a degree of difference between us and them. I don't think that's good.

[Baptist Theologue]

Bob, how would not using PPL adversely affect the program? God can understand any language, including English. Why would an English speaker need a different language to talk to God?

[Kevin]

I agree with you Alan. I am also a continualist and I really worry about the direction the SBC seems to be going in.

[craig from georgia]

I apologize for coming across too strong, but I'm seeing a lot of discussion about the subject of PPL but not much objective Bible study. Where will this take place? Who will take the initiative; pastors, the seminaries, Dr. Page? It must be addressed from a Biblical perspective which is what Southern Baptists have always prided themselves on.

[Alan Cross]

I agree, Craig. Baptist Theologue and I engaged in a debate on Wade's blog last week that I referred to in my post. I am thinking about hosting a debate here on this issue, possibly next month. I have a ton of other things going on, so that is why I was trying to limit the discussion to the implications of these policies. I assure you that I am not in the least hesitant to engage in a Biblical discussion. I am also not interested in convincing you that my position is right. I feel that would be a fruitless endeavor, because you have your mind made up. The question is: can both positions coexist in the SBC, just like Arminianism and Calvinism coexist? Can we create groundrules for both the cessationist and continualist position that allows us to live and minister together? That is the question right now.

[David Rogers]

Craig,

At "baptisttheologue.blogspot.com", Baptist Theologue and I have quite a discussion going on about this topic, based almost entirely on "Bible study." You will have to be the judge about what parts are "objective" or not.

[Jeff Richard Young]

Dear Brother Alan,

You are really opening yourself up to huge doses of criticism with your positions here, and I admire your courge and willingness.

You have shown a great deal of wisdom and insight here. I do believe a pattern exists in the behavior of Dr. Patterson and his followers, and you have put your finger on it.

Brother Craig from Georgia, there has been MUCH bible-based argumentation from both sides over this tongues issue in the past almost-a-year since the IMB policy became public knowledge. Many Baptists, including Brother Alan, Brother Bob, and I, have gone back to our Bibles and other resources for study of this issue in depth. You seem to think that if people like Bob and Alan would just read their Bibles, they would come to the same conclusion you have reached. O that it were so! But history shows us that good-hearted, Bible-believing Christians often come to much different interpretations of difficult passages of scripture. You won't be able to convince continualist Baptists to change to the cessationist position. So what next? Do you wish to exclude them from SBC life, or work alongside them?

Perhaps it will interest you all to know that I entered 2006 firmly in the continualist camp, but through long study and prayer, I am losing my confidence. I may be leaving soon for the cessationist camp. BUT, I have seen how wonderful people like Alan and Bob are, and will not wish to excluded them from fellowship, service, and even leadership in the SBC over this issue.

Love in Christ,

Jeff

[John Faraiss]

Well said and well phrased, Allan. To put it all another way: the more things change, the more they stay the same. The issues may be different than they were in 1980 (which is a debate in itself, since we don't all agree what the issues were then), but the arguments are the same, and the protagonists are the same. The question is: is this what it appears on the surface, i.e., spiritual gifts/tongues/cecessionsim, OR is that merely the "strawman" while the real issue is control and power? I suspect the latter.

BTW, Craig from Georgia: something I wanted to say to you before, and somehow never got thought and opportunity together. You are NOT just reading what the Bible says as opposed to interpreting it. What you doing is INTERPRETING marks made by ink on paper. You interpret it one way, others another, but all are interpreting. Why then is your interpretation right and others wrong? Please note, I say this without rankor or hostility. In fact, I appreciate the civil, even congenial tone that you used last week in debating with Allan and others.

[John Fariss]

Whoops, I knew my spelling was bad, but it now looks like I can't even spell my last name. Supposedly it's Anglo-Saxon, slurred to its present form from "Farrah" in 17th or 18th Century Virginia, yet curiously, it is also an Arabic word.

[craig from georgia]

In the Bible, signs and wonders are primarily for the Jew (1 Corinthians 1:22). They began during the time of Moses and Joshua and then tapered off. They re-appeared during the time of Elijah and Elisha and then tapered off. Again they re-appeared during Jesus’ earthly ministry and were carried on by the apostles. Signs and wonders usually appeared because of Israel being in captivity, apostasy, or both. After the stoning of Stephen, God started dealing more with the Gentiles and the sign gifts started tapering off. During the time of the apostles the sign gifts authenticated to the Jews that they (the apostles) were representing Jesus. Once the church started becoming primarily Gentile and with the completion of the Scriptures there was no need for them. Signs and wonders will not re-appear until the Tribulation when God’s two witnesses perform God given signs and wonders and the anti-christ and false prophet try to counterfeit them. There are not different kinds of a gift of tongues. The Biblical gift of tongues was speaking in known languages. Now that we have the completed Scriptures we don’t need this gift. We don’t need sign gifts at all. We (the church) get our marching orders from 2 Corinthians 5:7; “For we walk by faith, not by sight” and faith comes by the hearing of the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Speaking gibberish served no purpose then and it doesn’t now. You are given a spiritual gift to edify the body, not yourself. There is no Biblical or logical reason for PPL. If you use a PPL, you don’t know what you’re saying and God doesn’t need for you to use a PPL because He can understand the language you were born speaking with perfectly well. Focusing on the Word of God makes us God centered. The immergence of these counterfeit sign gifts are just a symptom of the self-centeredness of the modern day church.

[Alan Cross]

Thanks for the erudite explanation of the cessationist position, Craig. There are more holes in your argument than in a package of Swiss cheese, in my opinion, but I appreciate you posting it. Of course, I entirely disagree with your position, and as I was reading your statement, scripture after scripture came to mind that discounts your position. Alas, I do not have time to refute this type of general assault on the continualist position, but I will make my case as soon as I have the time to put it all together with scripture. I do want to say that you are making a lot of arguments from silence, lack of experience, and a presupposition against the gifts. I would dare to say, that unless you are already biased against sign gifts or had been taught that way, it is difficult to come to your conclusion. You have to be taught the cessationist/dispensationalist pattern, because it is not apparent from a general reading of scripture, and scripture never makes the statements about itself that you are making for it. That is just my opinion, however.

Thank for your paricipation in the discussion, however. I promise I'll get back with you on this, but it will either be at the end of September, or beginning of October before I will have the time to devote to it. I'll make sure I email you. :)