When Non-Essentials Divide
Sunday, October 29th, 2006
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



