Of course, now that means I have two problems on campus. The first is that I believe speaking in tongues is Biblical. The second is that I’m endorsed by the BGCT. It’s not the way I wanted it, but it’s the only way I could preserve my integrity.

Now I feel I have to hide these things on campus or be ostracized. Too many times I’ve had to walk away from discussions engaged in by students who sat themselves “in the seat of the scorner” (Psalm 1). I know how they mock pentecostals, and I don’t want to be the butt of their jokes when my back is turned.

By the way, Dr. McKissic, one of the professors told our class after you preached (I’m sorry I missed it) that someone was contacting the seminary while the sermon was going on to complain about it not being available on the internet. The complaintant apparently said something about the seminary censuring the speakers or something like that, and I think mentioned something about the controversial content of your sermon.

The feeling was that this wasn’t just a chapel sermon but the launching of a cause, which they see as someone causing division in the body.

I was just wondering what you thought about that.

Thanks for your question. I was aware that my subject matter was open to various interpretations, but I was thoroughly convinced that my conclusions and testimony were within the boundaries of biblical and Baptist doctrine. Therefore, I thought it would be helpful to the students who many perhaps have not worked through this topic theologically for themselves. I know my subject, the Baptism and Filling of the Holy Spirit, might provoke discussion among the faculty and administration, but again, because the message was biblical and the conclusions drawn were backed by many Baptists and evangelical scholars, I did not expect the response and controversy that my message generated. Honestly, I believe that God wanted this discussion to take place in SBC Life and He wanted to use me and others to address it, for the sake of missions and missionaries to go forth unhindered by cessaionist policies.

Respectfully,

Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

My wife and I knew Dr Gray while at SWBTS in the early to mid 80s; in fact, Jeni worked in his Chair of Prayer office for a while. I also had Dr MacGorman for Greek and NT. I agree that your sermon is consistent with their interpretations of Holy Spirit-baptism. Along with Todd in Benbrook (previous post), we three share similar biblical convictions and experiences.

As I reread your sermon, I realized that this is what it was mainly about — the baptism or filling of the Holy Spirit. Tongues (including your testimony) was only a side issue. But because of the circumstances, PPL attracted all the attention, to the neglect of the larger, more important issue.

I’d like to see the focus put back on the original topic of your message, and then maybe, MAYBE we could gather more agreement on the importance of Spirit-fullness and let tongues take its rightfully less significant role as one of several signs of being filled with the Spirit. But I’m probably dreaming.

I’m also curious: did you have any idea that your message would cause such an uproar or even a wimper of controversy? Did you expect tolerance from Dr Patterson and others of your view on Spirit-baptism and PPL?

It grieves me deeply that the seminary (and denomination) that trained me in the Word seems to be veering too far right and then standing too righteously rigid about traditional Baptist interpretations — to the exclusion of others. Brother, keep humbly but boldly standing for the Word and the Spirit.

Abundant grace and wisdom be yours in Jesus,
Todd Nelson

When I was a student at Southwestern, even in the School of Religious Education (tic) we were taught to make certain that what we believed, practiced and taught was supported by the scripture. I think it is pretty clear that you’ve done that.

There are two other things I was taught at both Southwestern and at the Baptist undergraduate college I attended. One was that the Southern Baptist Convention was made up of independent, autonomous churches and that was a strength much more than it was a weakness. Within a framework of essential teachings there will be divergent beliefs and interpretations of the scripture, and even those that are not consistent with what a practical “majority” of Southern Baptists believe, they are still to be respected. The other was that the primary reason for the existence of the SBC was to bring the diversity of the churches together to find common ground not in exactly matching doctrine but in cooperation for the sake of missions and ministry.

The bottom line is that if they’ll accept your money for supporting the Cooperative Program, then they need to accept your members as trustees, officers and denominational leaders. If your perspective disqualifies you from service, then it should also disqualify you from contributing.