Posted on 10/30/2006 8:56:41 AM PST by Rightly Biased
Southwestern Seminary’s theology dean, David Allen, doesn’t expect any surprises from faculty when he sends them a memo soon about a new trustee statement regarding the neo-charismatic practice of private prayer language.
Prospective faculty members have been quizzed on the subject for years, Allen said.
If a current faculty member practices “a private prayer language” as one trustee alleges five of them do, then the pertinent question becomes whether that view is advocated in the classroom.
“I would not bring that professor in and say, ‘You cannot say that outside of class.’ I’m not going to restrict anyone in that way.”
“The statement said we will not knowingly endorse private prayer language,” Allen explained, taking that to mean advocating that practice.
The newly passed statement reads: “As it concerns private practices of devotion, these practices, if genuinely private, remain unknown to the general public and are, therefore, beyond the purview of Southwestern Seminary. 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.”
Allen draws a distinction between the statement by which a seminary operates and the freedom of an individual pastor.
“A pastor at a local church is not an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention. They are by definition autonomous, as is their pastor. However, a seminary is a different animal,” he said, because of the responsibility it has to its churches through elected trustees.
Prior to his election to the faculty and administration, Allen served as a trustee throughout the previous seminary president’s administration and takes issue with McKissic’s characterization that the newly passed statement represents a theological and philosophical shift that will exclude many practitioners of tongues.
“During the entire Hemphill time, as a board member, if a person articulated to me that they had charismatic leanings and inclusive of that was a private prayer language, it would be very unlikely I would have been supportive of faculty status.”
But a faculty member who privately discloses a sympathetic view toward the practice of a private prayer language won’t be hauled into the dean’s office.
“I would not bring that professor in and say you cannot say that outside of class. It’s not going to restrict in that way. If we have people who do that here we’re certainly not going to try to move for their dismissal,” Allen said.
Nor should the statement pose a problem for any of the students, he added.
“We have lots of students who aren’t Southern Baptists and some are charismatic. We do not expect our students to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Under no conditions would any such student be unwelcome here,” Allen stated.
“On the other side of the coin, we can be careful in whom we do hire. We will not hire anyone knowingly who affirms that which the vast majority of Southern Baptists disavow.”
“As long as it remains private, it’s not problematic to me because I don’t know,” agreed Southwestern Seminary President Paige Patterson. “If it does become known to some people, but is not a matter that is advocated or advertised and the reputation of the school is not harmed thereby, then it’s not a problem.”
While the focus of the statement was placed on the hiring process, Patterson said he questions whether there’s even one professor who advocates the practice of a private prayer language.
Patterson disputes McKissic’s claim the school has abandoned its commitment to the inerrant Word of God by banning a practice the apostle Paul said should not be forbidden. He called their difference a disagreement with McKissic’s interpretation, not a denial of God’s Word.
“We don’t forbid tongues. We said what we are going to do in the seminary as a direction. He is confusing our disagreement with him as a disagreement with inerrancy.”
Patterson said a variety of interpretations are held by Southwestern professors, including cessationists like Vice President Craig Blaising and those who would view some legitimacy to what was happening at Corinth while regarding it as “implicitly dangerous.”
“I have never been a cessationist. I don’t believe the sign gifts ceased with the coming of the New Testament. I do not think that the scriptural grounds for arguing that are persuasive, but I do believe that if it is an actual case of the gift of tongues, that it will be the experience of Acts 2 where people speak languages they have never formally studied in order to present the gospel.”
Preaching from 1 Corinthians 14 in a chapel sermon last April, Patterson stated that “Acts 2 portrays the legitimate gifts of tongues” for gospel proclamation and that the Corinthian believers were merely imitating the Acts 2 manifestation in a manner similar to pagan prophets of the time.
Nevertheless, “It would be a mistake for evangelicals to forbid others to speak in tongues ... That doesn’t mean that a person who is building a major part of his faith on something that is so ... downplayed by Paul should be called to be your pastor,” Patterson said.
He said 1 Corinthians 14 seems to give evidence of a private prayer language, but notes that Paul says such prayer leaves the mind out of prayer so that praying with the mind is preferred. Furthermore, Patterson said, it is not synonymous with the groanings mentioned in Romans 8:26—a statement that contradicts one of McKissic’s examples of private prayer language.
While Patterson said he does not believe there is “a lot of necessity” for that type of situation anymore, nevertheless, “God is God and it could happen, but if it happens, I believe it will be [an Acts 2 manifestation],” he said, referring to speaking known languages previously unknown to the speaker and made available to preach the gospel.
I say this issue takes away from what we are supposed to be doing. Winning Souls
Baptist ping
The "haves and have nots" mentality is rarely discussed. Tongues is lifted up as a super gift, when in reality, Paul did refer to it somewhat as a lesser gift.
And NOT for everyone
Do you believe that speaking in tongues is available to Christians today?
I believe that the Bible teaches that miraculous gifts such as speaking in tongues are no longer available today. In the New Testament, these gifts were passed on by the laying on of hands by the Apostles. How does one receive such gifts today?
Nice to see some folks with a sane perspective and some balance vs just meat axe naysaying.
Praying in tongues has enhanced my soul winning immeasurably, thanks.
Where did you get this gift of praying in tongues?
Quix
Please do not misinterpet me
What I meant was argueing about this issue takes away from what we are supposed to be doing.
If you have a private prayer language then I say keep it private and win souls
We are told in proverbs that "one who wins souls is wise"
I long to be wise.
RB<><
In church as a very young teen.
I Cor 12 explains the rest of the where from.
I certainly agree about avoiding grandstanding or any other unfitting thing in terms of praying in tongues.
And about wisely winning souls.
In the 1st century, miraculous gifts were given to members of the body of Christ when the Apostles laid their hands on them.
Yes, that occurred,
in my case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.