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 
Steve,
I watched this situation develop through its entirety and for much the same reasons I refused to blog on it. You said,“…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.”
I agree wholeheartedly. The firefights in blogdom over this issue were so ugly and hateful when the bottom line was and is, this isn’t something that we should divide over.
I myself do not believe that Scripture supports a private prayer language yet I know some do! However, I don’t think there is sufficient Scriptural evidence to prove or disprove private prayer language, but in reality, it is a matter of Christian practice as you have stated; not something that should be addressed on the national level. But I WILL NOT part company with a brother or sister over this issue; self-defeating, don’t you think?
My big problem with the whole disagreement is the “public display” of something that is by its own definition, private. I still cannot get my arms around that, yet the very few comments I made about this aspect of this issue on other blogs, I was shrugged off, as “I was missing the point” of the discussion. (Not to mention the one time I suggested that this wasn’t an issue to part company over, I was lambasted.) Sigh.
Thanks for a coherent treatment of this issue, clearly emphasizing the main point; which many of us have missed.
Blessings, brother.
Tony
Tony, thanks for your input on this. You made this comment: I don’t think there is sufficient Scriptural evidence to prove or disprove private prayer language, and I appreciate you stating that so clearly.
I thought about getting into the Scriptural support for both positions, but felt like that would detract from the basic point of the post (which you seemed to understand, so I guess I communicated ok on it).
Maybe I’ll look at that in another post…
steve
Steve,
I too find it sad that some believers deem it necessary to deem other believers “unfit” to preach the Gospel due to a difference in private practice and experience. It seems to me that it basically boils down to “unless you believe just like we do, and are willing to tow our line, we will not support your Christian education or witness”.
Tony,
I so appreciate your willingness to embrace other believers who differ from yourself. You are a such a breath of fresh air!
Raborn, I’m surprised to see you commenting so soon after the game ended. Once again, I’m sorry, bro. And yes, I think that last touchdown was an inappropriate run-up of the score. Hope you recover in time for work tomorrow!
Now, more seriously, thank you for your comment. The body of Christ has done so much dividing over the centuries (especially the last four of them) that it almost seems to be “business as usual”, and I wonder if some people even stop to think about whether or not we should be dividing over these issues!
I agree with your assessment of Tony, too, by the way
steve
Hi Steve,
I was not able to get your site for awhile. Glad to see you are still blogging and doing an excellent job of it.
We have (in the church) not understood the heart attitude required to truly walk in the Spirit — that of not being superior in any way to others. I think upon examination, this is the core issue. We think our understanding is superior and that makes us more acceptable to God — forgetting it is by grace through faith. We do not (for the most part) receive the understanding of washing feet — to all who call on His marvelous name. Judas got his feet washed too.
I say “we” because even though I might understand in some areas, there is always another popping up in me. Learning to be the lowest is truly not natural. (Phil. 2:3)
Maybe someday.
Iris
Iris, glad to see you again! Thanks for your insight on this.
steve
Men do so love to draw lines in the sand…
)
(not “men” specifically…I mean that in the most general of texts..ie mankind…wouldn’t want you to think I’m sexist..lol
Agree wholeheartedly with Iris…
JG, yes people love to draw lines in the sand. I can’t figure out if it’s due to our own insecurities, or if it’s something else. I think that when we can draw lines, we feel like we’re in control.
Thanks for popping in.