To everyone, I apologize for the length of this post. But I had to finish this. I absolutely do not apologize for my views. Neither do I expect you to apologize for yours. And please forgive me if I do not respond to your comments over the next couple of days. I will be away visiting family (no computer available) for some early Christmas celebrating. I’ll check back in and respond on Friday or Saturday.
Anyhow…
This is it for me. I feel that I have completed as thorough a study of this subject as I need to. I am satisfied that, theologically and biblically, I hold a most defensible and orthodox view. There are many other passages that I could talk about, but I’m just tired of talking about it. I know that some (perhaps many) will disagree with my views. Yet I sincerely doubt that I will change on this issue. Undoubtedly, those who disagree will not change, either. So where does that leave us? I don’t know.
The circumstance that led me to this exploration of the Scriptures is the ongoing debate in Southern Baptist life over the issue of “private prayer languages” and the appointment of missionaries through our Southern Baptist mission boards. Personally, I affirm the right of the trustees and administrators of our boards to explore deeply within the lives of prospective missionaries … especially their personal spiritual lives. As I expressed on Bart Barber’s blog a few days ago, there is no such thing as a “right to spiritual privacy” for people in the ministry. Those of us in the ministry must be held to a high level of accountability. I assume that truth for myself as the pastor of a church. I assume no less for the missionaries who represent my church and all other Southern Baptist churches.
What I see within all of this is an unexplainable attitude and atmosphere of entitlement. No Southern Baptist is “entitled” to a missionary position and a Cooperative Program salary simply because they are Southern Baptists and they desire to be a missionary. The examination process is long, rigorous, and thorough. Personal lives and behaviors are explored. It has to be so. These missionaries do not simply represent themselves or even the churches they hail from. Missionary service goes much deeper that one’s personal identity and desire to serve. Our missionaries represent all of us, just as they represent our Lord as His ambassadors on the field.
I will reiterate the simple but apparently forgotten truth that absolutely no one has been denied access to any mission field. Neither the IMB nor the NAMB have such authority. They can, however, deny a position and salaried support from their respective boards. Anyone can go to the mission field. Any Southern Baptist can raise their own funds, purchase transportation, and go anywhere they want to go. Most of us know Southern Baptists who have done so, for various reasons.
What we have right now in Southern Baptist life is a less than subtle “change of subject.” Somehow, the issue of missionary qualifications has been misconstrued into an effort to “exclude” people and churches from Southern Baptist life. The end result has been an emotional outcry for “Baptist justice” and anecdotal charges of exclusion. Personally, I have seen none with regard to this particular issue. I am not aware of any churches or persons “kicked out” of Baptist life because of their claim to have a “private prayer language.” I have heard of no one who has been rejected from cooperation because of this issue. If I am wrong, I will humbly stand corrected.
I am also intrigued by the interesting level of intellectual and theological elitism that seems to be emanating from a few of the proponents of “private prayer languages.” I have experienced this attitude firsthand. I have actually had the gumption to put forth views in the blogosphere that are not in complete lock step with the viewpoints of Wade Burleson or Dr. Dwight McKissic, and have been confronted with an almost rabid enthusiasm. I cannot count how many times my views (which I have always understood to be quite orthodox) and views similar to mine have been labeled as “spooky,” “disconcerting,” “troubling,” or a cause for “concern.” Such is the language of elitism. Now I am troubled!
I have commented in several blogs and forums that the defenders of keeping the “Baptist tent” open and preventing exclusion in Baptist life have chosen a “no-win” issue with “private prayer languages.” This subject represents a foray into charismatic and/or Pentecostal theology and practice, despite the claims of those who deny this basic truth. The vast majority of Southern Baptists reject the biblical validity of unintelligible tongues, whether in public or in private. I believe they (we) do so upon sound biblical grounds, not upon ignorance, as many will surely claim. If the acceptance of “private prayer languages” is now the chosen battlefield for a war for Baptist inclusion, then inclusion will be the loser. It’s that simple. Someone had better wake up and change the subject … quickly. I believe that the future, health, and survival of our denomination depend upon it. I fear that we are only about ten years of funerals away from a cascade of church closures and deaths in the SBC. I pray that I am wrong.
I am all for inclusion in Baptist life. Truly, there is no one more on the outside of Baptist denominational life than I am. Thank goodness I do not really let it bother me. I find my avenue of service and fulfillment in my local church. I am not an ignorant, closed-minded, fundamentalist puppet. I pastor a cutting-edge, elder-led, small group focused, technologically savvy, enthusiastically worshipful Southern Baptist church. We clap and raise our hands. We don’t have a Sunday School. We don’t even have the word “Baptist” in our name. Horrors! We are so “radical” for our area that the local Southern Baptist Association has rejected us for affiliation. Needless to say, I hold no position in Southern Baptist life, at any level.
And no, I am not an “exclusionist.” Far from it. There are very few things that will prevent me from cooperating and serving alongside my brothers and sisters in Christ, including those of a charismatic or Pentecostal persuasion. But when it appears that my denomination, under the emotional banners of “acceptance” and “non-offense,” is on the threshold of being coaxed or bullied (by sheer volume of resolutions and “noise”) into a blind acceptance of even a sliver of errant charismatic theology, I simply feel compelled to speak out.
However things turn out, my church and my ministry will be just fine. And here’s the cool part. Whatever your view is, I respect it. I will work at your side. I will love you. I will respect you personally. I will cooperate with you. I simply pray that you can regard me in the same way.
One last story … and then I’m done. I promise. I was talking to one of my wife’s co-workers about the issue of “private prayer languages” in Southern Baptist life. She, too, is a Southern Baptist. She confessed that she had never even heard of the concept (surprise, surprise). As I explained it to her, a smile washed over her face. I asked her what she was smiling about, and she said,
I guess I do have a private prayer language, after all. I think most Southern Baptists do. It’s so private that most days God doesn’t even hear it!
That’s the best insight into this subject that I have heard.
Now, to quote that famous theologian Forrest Gump, “That’s all I’ve gotta say bout that.”
December 20, 2006 at 2:42 pm
[...] In addition to being a participant in my ongoing NFL picks contest, Geoff pastors a non-traditional Southern Baptist church in Kentucky (non-traditional enough to be rejected for membership in a local association), and he has written a seven-part series on so-called “private prayer language” that represents almost perfectly my views on the subject. So rather than re-invent the wheel, I simply invite you to visit Along the Shore to take in Geoff’s seven-spoked wheel on this important subject. It would be best to go in order, so read parts one, two, three, four, five, six, and the final chapter. [...]
December 20, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Geoff,
This is more of an anecdotal story, rather than a direct response. You mentioned you’ve never heard of someone being kicked out of “Baptist life” for a “private prayer language.” Well, my pastor was. He was in a leadership position (I forgot if it was a deacon, or SS teacher, or what) in a Southern Baptist church, and when they discovered he prayed/spoke in tongues, he was soon removed from his position, and disallowed to continue doing that. Sadly, he left the church over it, and went to a charismatic church, where he was allowed and encouraged to continue the practice, and eventually became an associate pastor there, before starting the church I go to. This was in the late 1970’s or early 1980’s. It has happened. And Baptists are not the only denomination that do this. I’ve heard the same with Presbyterians.
Anyways, that’s all I am going to say.
Merry Christmas,
Jonathan
December 21, 2006 at 6:21 am
i find this blog interesting. God bless. merry christmas.
December 21, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Geoff,
What a fantastic series! I found your blog through Wes Kenny’s blog. Now I don’t have to write about PPL because you have said everything that I would say.
Thank you for this series.
Merry Christmas!
Les
December 21, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Excellent series there Geoff.
I, like you, have felt free to comment, as being outside the SBC I have nothing whatsoever to lose. And I like you have siuffered the wrath and personal atacks of those who wish to bully through their views.
Every Blesing this Christmas,
Steve
December 21, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Excellent series there Geoff.
I, like you, have felt free to comment, as being outside the SBC I have nothing whatsoever to lose. And I like you have suffered the wrath and personal atacks of those who wish to bully through their views.
Every Blessing this Christmas,
Steve
December 21, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Well worth the time to read…all of these articles. Thanks for your labors. Merry Christmas.
December 22, 2006 at 1:38 am
Geoff,
An amazing series. I look forward to future posts.
Blessings,
John
December 22, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Brokenman,
Thanks for stopping by.
Les,
Thanks for your kind comment. I enjoy your blog, as well. I’ve added you to by blogroll. Would appreciate a little back-atcha.
Steve,
Thanks for the encouragement. Stop by anytime, and tell your friends.
Bart,
. But I sincerely do appreciate your affirmation and your willingness to add me to your blogroll. It’s an honor.
Thanks for your comment. I’m sorry it was such an ordeal to read (something like the blog version of “War and Peace”)
John,
Many thanks, brother. I’ll add you to my blogroll today, as well.
To all,
I must confess that I am a bit dumbfounded that I haven’t had many critics or challenges to my look at the Scriptures. I figured I would have a pile of comments to go through, especially since Wes gave me the high-traffic link from his site. I think i hear crickets …
December 28, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Geoff,
I have read enough from you to know that you take the Bible seriously, and want to submit to what it says. In keeping with that, I would challenge you to be careful in saying “I will not change on this issue.” I myself can only say, “Up to now, my study of Scripture has led me to take the view I now take. If someone can show me where my understanding of Scripture is mistaken, I am certainly open to changing my view.” I, for one, believe this is a key attitude necessary, if we are going to find a way forward.
I also question your statement regarding an atmosphere and attitude of “entitlement.” Perhaps there are some who have communicated this. However, I don’t remember seeing this. If you can point me to some specific cases of this, it would be helpful for me in understanding your point here. What I see are many who are concerned (legitimately, from my point of view) about a change in policy that affects perfectly otherwise qualified missionary candidates, who are looking for the best way to be faithful to the call of God in their lives. It is also concern from participating Southern Baptists over whether their perspective is being fairly taken into consideration.
I hope I am not one of the ones guilty of “intellectual and theological elitism.” None of us is perfect, and we all from time to time go overboard in the way we express our opinions. However, I have read many bloggers in the past year who have expressed their opinion in opposition to the new policy on PPL in a very reasoned and equitable manner. At least that is the way it seems to me. I cannot vouch for every single one, because I don’t know them all. But I, from my admittedly limited perspective, happen to think the general evaluation you make here is probably not completely even-handed.
I also regret that, (if I understand you correctly) you are making a direct connection between an open policy on PPL and “charismatic” or “pentecostal” theology and practice. Although I admire Jonathan for his convictions and the way in which he expresses them, I think it is somewhat unfortunate that he, as a self-confessed “charismatic” has been, up to now, the main one answering your objections to PPL. The objections coming from within Southern Baptist life in general over the past year are, for the most part neither “charismatic” nor “pentecostal,” at least not in the ways I understand those terms. I would urge you to be careful in the use of these terms as well. Generally speaking, both “charismatics” and “pentecostals” accept “speaking in tongues” as the accompanying sign of a post-conversion “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” I know of very few within Southern Baptist life arguing for openness regarding PPL who would also defend “charismatic” or “pentecostal” theology, at least not on this crucial point.
Also, I don’t know if I am reading you correctly. But it seems that you are perhaps linking PPL and a supposed imminent danger of “church closures and deaths in the SBC.” If this is what you are meaning to say, I would be interested to see just what connection you make between the two. From my personal observation, it seems the tendency would be precisely the opposite. Those churches that tend to take a more “closed” approach toward supernatural spiritual gifts are the ones more likely to die out. But I don’t have hard facts or statistics to back up my impression either.
I appreciate and accept your profession of “non-exlusionism.” However, I must sincerely object to the phrase “being coaxed or bullied (by sheer volume of resolutions and “noise”) into a blind acceptance of even a sliver of errant charismatic theology.” I believe we must carefully search the Scripture and evaluate each point one by one. In my opinion, it is not a question of “charismatic” versus “non-charismatic.” It is a question of what does the Bible have to say about this particular issue.
Finally, on the basis of what I know of you, I have no problem at all cooperating together with you in Southern Baptist’s united project of pooling resources in order to join together with the rest of the Body of Christ in working toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission. I wonder though, if you, knowing what you know of my view on PPL that I have expressed on these comments, believe I should be funded by the Cooperative Program as an international missionary of the IMB? If you are in agreement with the new policy on PPL, I would be interested to hear why you believe those who confess to practicing PPL should be excluded from missionary service, and I should not, (if indeed such is the case).
December 28, 2006 at 5:14 pm
David,
I don’t have time to put together a coherent response … I’m off to praise team practice. I’ll try to write a bit later tonight.
God Bless
December 28, 2006 at 8:37 pm
David,
Perhaps my claim that I won’t change is a bit strong. Let’s just say that it will take a significant spiritual event that will lead my to change my view.
The elitism that I referred to is with regard to some specific incidents that I have experienced within the last couple of weeks. My views have been referred to as “spooky,” and “troubling,” among others. I also discern a growing atmosphere of sarcasm among some of the more outspoken commenters on many of the blogs that I frequent. It’s not so much what they are saying, it’s how they are saying it. I don’t quite know how to explain it. Obviously, I do not think that you have anything resembling that attitude. I greatly appreciate the frank way that you have challenged and engaged me. There are simply some in the current “pro-PPL camp” (I don’t know how else to say it) who like to do “drive-bys” on high-traffic blogs and stir things up to a level of vitriol that I think unnecessary.
And, yes, I do believe that there is a significant, real connection between the open acceptance of “private prayer languages” and the welcoming of what some might characterize as Pentecostal of charismatic theology and practice. I just had a long conversation with my mother-in-law over Christmas weekend about her personal experience in a Southern Baptist Church (in Shelby County, by the way) that split wide open because of an acceptance and expansion of charismatic theology. The church is no longer a functioning SBC church. The “portal” of this theology into the church was a single individual, a guest Bible teacher, who introduced the practice of “private prayer languages” to the church. What followed was, I believe, an unavoidable and natural progression.
You missed my point on my reference to, what I believe, may be a rapid future decline and church closures in the SBC. It has nothing to do with tongues or PPL. It has everything to do with resistance to change and an overall lack of a missional attitude toward the communities that we live in. I desperately want “inclusion” and “expansion of the Baptist tent” of cooperation, but I think that the choice of PPL as the “battlefield” for inclusion is a poor one. It will not resonate in Southern Baptist life. That, indeed, was the overall theme of this particualr post. because of the subject, the move for inclusion will, I believe, suffer greatly.
And about your own missionary appointment and CP support, I am not qualified to even state an opinion. I trust that those who interviewed you and examined you found you to be completely qualified, or you would not be on the field. Personally, I’m very glad that you are, my friend.
December 29, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Geoff,
Thanks for the clarification regarding the point on church closures and decline. I understand better where you are coming from now. I guess Southern Baptists will have to decide just where they come down on the issue of PPL. It may well be, as I understand you to posit, that they will come down as strictly opposing PPL. If such is the case, I will be disappointed, because I believe we will be closing ourselves off to an authentic manifestation of the Holy Spirit. I wonder, for instance, if you interpreted 1 Cor. 14 like I do, would you think it to be a significant enough issue to stand up for in Southern Baptist life? Why or why not?
Thanks also for your affirmation of my ministry qualifications, and show of friendship. I receive them as genuine.
However, I still maintain that total consistency in the support of the new policy on PPL at the IMB might well call into question my qualifications. If I am not understanding this correctly, it would be very helpful for me if either you or someone else could show me why this would not be the case. In other words, why make a distinction between practice of PPL and continualist theology, in regard to missionary qualifications?
December 29, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Dear David,
As someone actively inovled with counselling continualists and charismatic pastors for many many years on almost a daily basis at times, I have found that there is a line where someone with a continualist theology makes the jump to promnoting and being dominated by excessive charismatic practises.
The line is usually if they move into some thing like the Emmaus road or something to “deepen” their spiritual life (like Richard Fosters Celebration of Discipline) or Yonghi Cho’s (sorry David Cho’s) The Fourth Dimension.
No one really wants to be excessive like Benny Hinn. But there are “entry level experiences” that make the way for travelling a more charismatic path.
Now, do I seriously think that SB’s will go that route?
Only if you water down your commitment to the finality, sufficiency and inerrancy of scripture. Only if Jesus Christ nd the gospel are allowed to move to second place in your lives. Only if you get distracted from your mission.
When I was in theological college, we had a 3 day all-college spiritual deepening programme with Foster’s book. All the faculty and all the students except 2 (out of a total of 150) went off to try and have a “vision” using Foster’s methods of mantras and visualisation.
Why?
The two were not rabid fundamentalists (we were students at a neo orthordox Baptist college for 4 years).
We separately came to the conviction that the authority of scripture as propositional revelation was much more important than trying to inculcate within ourselves subjective experiences that may or may not be of God.
Do I think the other’s experiences were demonic (they all had experiences)? No. I think there are realms of the soulish activity of man that immitate (and therefore mock) true spirituallity (Watchman Nee “The latent Power Of The Soul”). I think man’s imagination is a wonderful thing (and dangerous as it is wonderful).
Sadly, all (15 in my year) of those I went through college with are out of the ministry. ( My fellow compatriot had a heart attack at the age of 65 after a VERY fruitful ministry as head of Teen Ranch in Australia). Of the others, most went very charismatic at some point in their ministries and blew themselves out of the water through some excess or other.
But the issue is really, why?
In my opinion:
1.They allowed a super spirituality derived from visions and ecstasies to deprive them of bible based Quiet times. (this came about because of a lack of reverence for the Bible as they were coming from a neoorthodox position, and, when combined with charismatic theology, an insistence on personal revelation aka the dynamic theory of inspiration a view preponderant among Australian baptists – the Bible is not the Word of God, it becomes the word of god to you as you read it).
2. With no invisiblem means of support (Isa 40:29 He gives strength to the weary and strengthens the powerless. 30 Youths may faint and grow weary, and young men stumble and fall,
31 but those who trust in the Lord will renew their strength; they will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary; they will walk and not faint.)
burn out is common.
3. I could say further that without proper conceptions of Christ, a gospel focus is impossible (but those with a neoorthordox view would challenge me on this third proposition).
4. If as a pastor, you are responsible to “drum up” experiences for yourself and your people to validate your faith (rather than having your faith anchored to the apologetic of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus) then you use a lot of emotional and “spiritual” / soulish energy that tends towards burn out.
Here in Australia most pentecostal pastors burn out in 3 – 5 years (statistic supplied by funeral directors who see it all).
(My friends from my year would agree strongly with propostions 1,2 and 4 and have said so publicly at convention).
The issue for SB coninualists is not letting the distractions take you away from the big picture.
All of my friends in pastoral ministry are continualists. There are virtually no cessationists in any Australian run ministry.
Most (in other denominations other than Baptist) haven’t crossed the line into excesses.
The ones in Baptist churches that haven’t crossed the line are out and out reformed or solidly evangelistic. They have their focus set! All their ducks are lined up on the wall.
If Southern baptists (continualists or otherwise) remain passionate about the big things (The Lord Jeus Christ, the bible and the gospel mission) then you’ve got no worries. Your IMB issues ought not to be about so called “Landmark” issues. They should be about keeping the main thing, the main thing.
To raise “landmark” issues as important is crazy, and a distraction from keeping the maion thing the main thing.
I would say the most important thing that the IMB can do is retain continualists… and let them show that by keeping the main thing the main thing that the gospel is the power of God to salvation. Nothing can stop the gospel!
December 29, 2006 at 4:17 pm
David,
Perhaps the people behind the policy have not delved that deeply into it. I certainly hope that a rejection or missionaries on the basis of continualist theology is not on the way. I suppose that the current policy was aimed at the actual point of practice. I really don’t know. Like I stated in an earlier post (somewhere), I wrote these thoughts to better communicate my views and the reasons that I hold them. I have made reference to the IMB situation, but have not sought to be of influence there.
Steve,
Thanks for your insights from “down under.” We tend to have a pretty myopic view of everything here in the US.
BTW … do you live near the coast? I bet you guys have some killer surf fishing down there. I would love to hear some stories!
December 29, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Geoff,
In your comment directly above this one you wrote, “I certainly hope that a rejection of missionaries on the basis of continualist theology is on the way.”
Did you mean that? Or is that a typo?
December 29, 2006 at 4:51 pm
hahaha geoff,
Are you referring to the custom of Great White shark hunting that occurs at the beach a couplke of miles away?
This from 12 months ago
“The NSW Government has banned the use of four-wheel-drives and surfboards to land great white sharks from the beach.
The ban was announced after a group of men were caught on film landing sharks from seats mounted on four-wheel-drives.
They had earlier paddled offshore on surfboards to drop salmon baits in deeper water.
NSW Primary Industries Minister Ian Macdonald said the ban was immediate, and applied to areas between the Stockton and Hawks Nest beaches in the Newcastle region, north of Sydney.
“Several fishers have been catching and releasing juvenile great white sharks by using a surfboard to swim salmon baits out to sharks, and then landing them from a chair mounted on a vehicle,” Mr Macdonald said.
“Actively attracting great white sharks to beaches is highly dangerous for the fishers and other users of the beach,” Mr Macdonald said.
Any breach of the ban could result in a $22,000 fine, six months in jail, or both.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/shark-sightings-at-record-high–and-rising/2006/10/21/1160851181920.html
Some of the scenes shown on tv were frightening to say the least..
but you gotta give it go.
I got a board, my brother has a 4 WD, and we got the sharks.. come on over Geoff and try it!
I live right near a beach (200 yards away).
http://www.coastalwatch.com/camera/cameras_large.aspx?cam=2900&mode=windows&state=NSW
Its a tough life, but still somneone hsa to do it.
Steve
December 29, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Hey Geoff,
I am sure there is a typo above.
But .. beach fishing?
:)
Are you referring to our recent news stories from a beach about 2 miles from where I am ?
This from 12 months ago
“The NSW Government has banned the use of four-wheel-drives and surfboards to land great white sharks from the beach.
The ban was announced after a group of men were caught on film landing sharks from seats mounted on four-wheel-drives.
They had earlier paddled offshore on surfboards to drop salmon baits in deeper water.
NSW Primary Industries Minister Ian Macdonald said the ban was immediate, and applied to areas between the Stockton and Hawks Nest beaches in the Newcastle region, north of Sydney.
“Several fishers have been catching and releasing juvenile great white sharks by using a surfboard to swim salmon baits out to sharks, and then landing them from a chair mounted on a vehicle,” Mr Macdonald said.
“Actively attracting great white sharks to beaches is highly dangerous for the fishers and other users of the beach,” Mr Macdonald said.
Any breach of the ban could result in a $22,000 fine, six months in jail, or both.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/shark-sightings-at-record-high–and-rising/2006/10/21/1160851181920.html
I got a surf board, my bro has a 4 WD. I got some rope and some meat.. all we nee d is you to do the paddling…
Come on over
I live near a beach:
http://www.coastalwatch.com/camera/cameras_large.aspx?cam=2900&mode=windows&state=NSW
Beach ministry is tough, but you gotta love it.
Steve
December 29, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Wade,
Thanks for catching it.
That was a MAJOR typo. I’m glad you caught it. I’ve already fixed it. I was typing that while my wife was in the middle of battling an uncooperative vacuum cleaner.
Geoff
December 29, 2006 at 6:06 pm
No problem.
Thanks for correcting the typo, but more importantly, thanks for not being the kind of person who actually wishes to reject continualist theologians.
December 29, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Never, never. I guess you could tell my heart through my conversation with David R. I guess that, in some ways, I am continualist in my theology. I firmly believe that God still produces miracles and He still gives supernatural gifts in certain circumstances. I think that the main difference between my views and David’s is our fundamental definition of what “tongues” really is.
By the way …. we won the battle of the vacuum. Thanks for stopping by.
June 12, 2007 at 7:33 am
[...] posted extensively on this subject before (see my posts here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) but I feel compelled to speak to this issue again today, especially in light of the (from my point [...]