(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!
Craig from Ga:
Uh. . . thanks? Except that my comment to you was not about tongues, PPL, or even spiritual gifts in general. It was a much more base-line issue of "interpretation." You and I both interpret marks made in ink on a page, we both interpret it into words, and the words have meaning to us both, presumably one which is enhanced and in fact made possible by a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. The questions are: why do you interpret those marks one way and me another? Who or what is the authority that says one of us is right and the other wrong--in fact, is there such an authority? And even if we both agree that not only is one right and the other wrong, but we both agree on which one is right and which one is wrong--is there still room for both of us to be Southern Baptists?
Posted by: John Fariss | September 08, 2006 at 03:53 PM