Theological Musings

his post is already eight days overdue, but I’m finally getting around to writing about it. Fox News had an article on October 19 from the Associated Press with this headline: Texas Seminary Bans Promotion of Speaking in Tongues. The article concerns a resolution that was passed at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. According to the Fox News article, the resolution states:

Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including private prayer language. Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices.

This is a very interesting occurrence, considering the decision made within the last year by the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board. The Ft. Worth, TX seminary referenced in the Fox News article is a part of the SBC.

I resisted the urge to post about the tongues issue when the IMB first made their decision. It was blogged about heavily by other bloggers, and I didn’t feel like I had anything new to add to the discussion. However, seeing that now that decision has, in part, fueled a similar controversy at one of the SBC’s seminaries has caused me to change my mind about writing about it.

Now, I realize that I have several (quite a few?) cessationists reading this blog, and I think it is important to make it clear that I do not view this as an issue that we need to divide over. In fact, that’s really the point I want to make. The SBC through its mission board and one of its seminaries have chosen to make this an issue of division. This is sad on several levels.

One of the main areas that I feel this is saddening is in the fact that, in both controversies, the issue at stake is private prayer practices! In the case of the IMB’s decision regarding its missionaries, the following statement makes this point:

[I]f “private prayer language” is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.

This is not the public speaking of tongues that is being addressed, but rather the use of tongues in private prayer. (As a very ironic sidenote, the IMB chose not to make this decision retroactive; so existing missionaries who practice a “private prayer language” are still acceptable representatives of the board, but new ones are not. This actually seems, in my mind, to undermine the stand they are taking.)

Similarly, the issue at SBTS was with regard to private practice. Again, to quote the Fox News article:

[New seminary trustee] Dwight McKissic of Arlington said during a chapel service at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary that he sometimes speaks in tongues while praying.

It was this statement that caused the matter to be brought to a resolution. Not surprisingly, McKissic was the only dissenting vote in the 36-1 passing of the resolution.

For me, the issue is not an issue of whether or not the gift of tongues is still valid today. As I mentioned, there are cessationists (those who believe that the gift of tongues is not valid since the writing of the book of Revelation) who read this blog, and I don’t find this to be an issue over which to divide. It’s an interpretive issue, and one that we cannot afford to hold to so tightly as to cause division. From that standpoint, this series of events should cause even a cessationist to be concerned.

To be sure, there are many (apparently including trustees at SBTS and IMB) who believe quite strongly that their position is correct, and therefore want to insist that any working alongside them hold to the same position. But we are not talking about issues of the Gospel here. We are talking about issues related to Christian practice, and there is great danger in making these issues divisive.

My personal opinion is that the tongues issue should be handled as an “in-house debate”, and it is to the shame of the entire body of Christ (not just the SBC) that resolutions such as the ones mentioned in this post have been passed and publicly identified. My hope is that many in the SBC will see the danger of these types of resolutions, and will rethink these decisions.

(As a quick note, I think it’s kind of funny that I posted this article with regard to an event at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, right after posting an Aside pointing out a conference at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary!  Pure coincidence, but perhaps further evidence that my concern here is not with the SBC in general or cessationists in particular!)
Until next time,

steve

ip of the hat to Dave Black for this one: Next April, there is a two-day conference being held at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary on the topic of whether or not the last twelve verses of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) are original to the text, or a later addition. It’s quite affordable ($25 which includes a breakfast on the second day), a chance to meet some great scholars (at that breakfast), and for those of us who find these types of topics of interest, a good chance to hear both sides (I presume) of this textual issue. Even though it states that it is open to “pastors, Bible scholars, and students from local colleges and universities”, I have a personal email from Dave Black assuring me that it is open to anyone who is interested. I’m hoping to attend, and thought that maybe some of my readers (especially Tony Sisk and Alan Knox, who I believe are both former students of Dr. Black’s) might be going as well, and we could use that as an opportunity to meet in person! Let me know if you think you’ll be going.

art of our homeschool day includes reading the Bible together after breakfast. We’re not on any particular reading plan (this keeps from getting discouraged if we have to miss a day, or whatever), but just started at Genesis 1:1 and are reading through the Bible sequentially.

Currently, we are in the book of Leviticus. (As an aside before I get to the point of the post, I will just say that my continual reaction throughout Leviticus is: “I am very glad that Jesus came!” My wife and I say that to each other frequently.) We chose to use The Message for our reading. Our purpose is not to do in-depth study, so we chose The Message for its readability.

Sometimes, The Message has some very interesting wording, and is not always as readable as I would have expected. But today’s reading included Leviticus 8, and as I read aloud, I stopped right in the middle of a sentence laughing at the incorrect grammar of a particular sentence. I’ll paste some of it here for you, and see who can be the first to identify what I was laughing at:

From the basket of unraised bread that was in the the presence of God he took one loaf of the unraised bread made with oil and one wafer. He placed these on the fat portions and the right thigh. He put all this in the hands of Aaron and his sons who waved them before God as a Wave-Offering. Then Moses took it all back from their hands and burned them on the Altar on top of the Whole-Burnt-Offering. These were the Ordination-Offerings, a pleasing fragrance to God, a gift to God.

So, who sees the grammatical error in there? I’ll reveal the answer later if no one gets it!

Until next time,

steve

am not going to get into specifics here because I’m not going to try to make an issue out of the specifics, but the last few days have brought some hurt here in the blogosphere. And I know I am not the only one who has been hurt.

My previous post definitely came from my heart, as I have experienced the “fire” and “hammer” quite a bit from a few others lately. Not the “fire” and “hammer” of the Word of God, but the “fire” and “hammer” of plain old criticism and judgment. In many ways, it has crossed the line into outright slander.

As I’ve talked with my wife about it, and done some very serious thinking, I have come to the conclusion that Christ is not in that. There are a lot of good, Christ-honoring blogs out there. But there are also some which seem to do more harm than good. This is not the first time I’ve seen the bad side of blogging. And it may not be the last. But this time, it has hurt a bit more deeply than before.

With that in mind, I want to publicly reaffirm some goals that I have for this blog. I am blessed to interact with some really wonderful people here, and I have grown quite fond of those of you that I get to interact with. So here, in no particular order, are some of the things that I pray will be true, and remain true, of this blog:

I pray that God receives glory from this blog, and that you each are blessed both here and (if you have them) on your own blogs.

I pray that this will always be a place where disagreement among believers is tempered with love and grace.

I pray that, while we may differ with each other, that we will never lose sight of what binds us together. For those of us here who are in Christ, we are truly bound together by His Spirit. It continues to amaze me that there is some very sweet fellowship here between simple church advocates and conventional church pastors, cessationists and continuationists, Calvinists and non-Calvinists… Not every discussion on this blog has been easy, and very few of them end up with either party changing their position — but we’ve learned a lot from each other, and we respect each other for their positions.

I pray that, no matter what takes place on this blog, that I will never present myself as being unteachable or above questioning on anything.  I’m not looking for people to follow me.  I’m looking for people to walk alongside me as I follow Christ.  Even though this blog has my name and picture on it, that is only because I’m the one hosting the discussion.

Finally, I pray that all of our speech here will be continually subjected to the standards of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks again to all of you who have made this blog a great place for interaction. Have a blessed remainder of the week!

Until next time,

steve

he Bible uses metaphors a lot. Sometimes, however, we run the risk of pushing a metaphor too far. For example, when Paul talks about “the armor of God” with relation to things that should characterize us as believers, we might go too far into the “army” metaphor and begin to see everything related to Christianity as being militaristic in nature.

This especially proves problematic when we have metaphors used in Scripture that seem to conflict with other metaphors. For example, God is shown in Old Testament as wooing the nation of Israel as a husband woos his wife. The whole story of Hosea relates to this metaphor of a loving husband and a wandering wife. Yet, we also see God portrayed in Scripture as Father. Likewise, we (the Church) make up the “bride of Christ”, yet Christ is also described as our brother. If we push either metaphor too far, the other seems to make no sense (or worse, is viewed as something very unnatural).

In Scripture, we see fire used in some metaphorical ways. God refines us, as gold is refined by fire. This shows the purifying nature of fire when it is applied to precious metals. God also talks about His word in this way. Jeremiah 23:29 says, “‘Is not My word like fire?’ declares the LORD, ‘and like a hammer which shatters a rock?’”

So does this mean that whenever we respond to people, we have the right to burn them with fire and smash them like a hammer shatters a rock? Hardly! Because there are other metaphors that need to be considered.

Look at water. Now, as everyone knows, water can actually put out a fire. So, at first glance, the water metaphor may seem automatically at odds with the fire metaphor. How can the two coexist?

Yet Scripture talks about living water flowing out of us. It talks about giving a cup of water to people as representatives of Christ. It shows the refreshing characteristic of water as part of the good news of the Gospel.

So we see these two seemingly conflicting metaphors at work. The Holy Spirit within us is depicted as fire, yet out of us can come refreshing water! Is one right and the other wrong? No. Is there a time for each? Yes.

The question that I must ask myself is, do I emphasize one over the other? If all I do in my interactions (especially with believers) is burn them with “fire” (even if I think I’m doing it on the basis of using the Scriptures to make my points), I am wrong. If all I see myself as is the burning flame of purifying fire, attempting to burn away all the things I see as wrong with others, I err grievously.

Likewise, if all I am doing is trying to make everyone feel good, handing out cups of cold water indiscriminately, I err on the other side. Let’s all consider how we may encourage each other, speaking those words of purification when necessary, but also giving refreshment to each other as we walk together.

Until next time,

steve