Patterson and SWBTS break silence on McKissic

[Sandy]

[pjerwin]

[Ed Pettibone]

[pjerwin]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[William Thornton]

[pjerwin]

I'm glad you can see right into my heart and mind, Sandy. You seem to know things about my motivation of which even I am unaware. I wonder how you acquired this gift.

But, of course, you miss the point. You ask, "What business does Patterson have in circulating a 'lengthy paper' among the IMB trustees?" He has the same "business" and the same right as every other Southern Baptist; any Southern Baptist could do the same thing. It's a function of holding one another accountable: trustees of all boards should be held accountable to those for whom they hold something in trust. That's really the point of such things as Wade Burleson's blog, isn't it?

Patterson did the right thing: rather than using a "bully pulpit" to criticize IMB trustees, he wrote a letter and a paper stating his views on an issue; I could do the same. It's not a function of his office, but of his being a Southern Baptist who contributes to Southern Baptist causes.

BTW: There are several points of divergence between my understanding of Scripture and Patterson's. I am not a cessationist when it comes to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, I just find no biblical warrant for a "private" prayer language. Such may exist, but I haven't yet found it in Scripture. I have, however, found praying in tongues in Scripture as well as the admonition "do not forbid to speak in tongues." McKissic and I may may have a different point of view on the "ppl" issue, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is proper -- according to Southern Baptist practice -- for a trustee of one Southern Baptist entity to use the public platform of that entity to criticize the trustees of another Southern Baptist entity. If McKissic had circulated a paper, lengthy or otherwise, among the IMB trustees, he would have been perfectly within his rights. Heck, if he gone to a meeting of the IMB trustees and spoken as a guest -- perhaps even spoken to them in tongues (with an iterpreter present, of course) -- he would have been within his rights.

Also BTW: No one is seeking to have authority over another's conscince in this instance. However, people must have authority over the practices of their own institutions and the people who hold that institutions interests in trust. To put it on more of a microcosmic level, if the deacons in your congregation made a decision with which a member of the Sunday School ministry disagreed, it would be proper for that SS ministry person to discuss it with the deacons, perhaps even putting his or her thoughts down in writing for the deacons to consider, but it would not be proper to simply take an opportunity to criticize those deacons from the pulpit in a Sunday morning worship service -- even if the member of the SS ministry was right and the deacons were wrong on that particular issue. That's just common sense -- it seems to me, anyway.

[Ed Pettibone]

[T. D. Webb]

[pjerwin]

[T. D. Webb]

[Sandy]

[pjerwin]

[Sandy]

[pjerwin]

[Ed Pettibone]