March 6, 2007 Dear Dr. McClain:
Thanks for the invitation to meet with the officers of the Board of Trustees on Monday, March 26th at SWBTS, LDC. If this meeting occurs, the preferred times for me would be between 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm, due to an extremely heavy travel schedule just prior to the March 26 date. I’m willing to be flexible with the time of the meeting (if it occurs) if another time better suits everyone else schedule. I would be delighted and honored to meet with the officers on the above date, time and place if the officers of the Board of Trustees are willing to meeting the following conditions:
- First, I need you to place in writing and forward to me the specific “concerns” that you would like to share with me by March 12, 2007. You mentioned that I have “possibly violated the policy manual of the seminary trustees (in particular, you may refer to pages 65 and 71 in the policy manual).” You must be specific and detailed about the possible violations of the policy manual. What exactly have I possibly violated? What is motivating you to raise these questions? What evidence or proof do you have of possible violations? I’m unaware of any violations. I’ve read pages 65 and 71 of the policy manual and don’t see where I’ve violated anything on either page. Therefore, I need you to state clearly and specifically in writing referencing these pages and the specific paragraphs or sentences that I’ve possibly violated. Or you may place in quotes the possible violations from pages 65 and 71 along with the information or documentation that leads you to believe that I have possibly violated the Policy Manual. Again, I need you to be specific and detailed regarding your concerns and to forward a list of the questions that you anticipate asking me on March 26. It is important that I have all information that I’ve requested here prior to March 12 – so that I can make sure that I’m prepared for the March 26 meeting. If you are unable to provide the information that I’ve requested in this email to my satisfaction prior to March 12, I will not attend the meeting. Please forward each trustee the response you provide to this email, because I want everything out in the open. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO HIDE OR BE ASHAMED OF, SO PLEASE CIRCULATE ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO ME TO ALL OF THE TRUSTEES AND THE ADMINISTRATION. My love and support of SWBTS is well documented.
- Second, I must be allowed to invite fellow trustees and or other Southern Baptist pastors, or church members of my choice who may attend as neutral observers. Please extend an invitation to all trustees who may be interested in attending the March 26 possible meeting. I want it to be open to them whether or not they are interested in coming.
- Third, I must be allowed to record the entire meeting from the beginning to the end. I will bring someone from my staff to record the meeting. I plan to keep the tape recording of the meeting private unless and until something is said publicly that I believe misrepresents what was actually said and done in the meeting. Again, the recording will only be available to protect everyone involved. If there are no matters of dispute or misrepresentations, the recording will never be released publicly.
- Fourth, in response to your request to “discuss with you [me] the appropriate portion of the policy manual dealing with faculty hiring and tenure recommendation process,” I am puzzled. You make it crystal clear, “we will be discussing procedure and policy and not the particular case of Sheri Klouda.” If we are not going to be discussing the appropriate portion of the policy manual dealing with faculty hiring and the tenure recommendation process with regard to Sheri Klouda, I want to know why do you want me to come to a meeting to discuss this? I’m capable of reading and understanding the policy manual as it relates to these matters. I would have no interest in spending time discussing the issue of faculty hiring and tenure recommendation process unless it’s directly related to the Klouda case. I have plenty of questions about these matters in the context of the Klouda case, but I have no questions regarding these matters at this point separate from the Klouda case. Therefore, if this matter is in regard to Klouda, I’m willing to discuss it. If not, let’s skip it. If you choose to discuss this matter given the conditions I’ve set, I certainly would not record this part of our discussion and if you wanted the “neutral observers” to dismiss themselves during this part of the discussion, I would be in accord with that decision.
- Fifth, in the above referenced email you sent me in the fourth paragraph, you state “Third, it is right that trustees expect that the SWBTS administration follow established policies and the law, it is also right to expect that trustees themselves will follow established policies and the law. Article II, item number 12 of the SWBTS Bylaws states, ‘All matters of alleged trustee misconduct shall be considered in an appropriate manner, as prescribed by a majority of the elected trustee officers, within the trustee body’ (page 28).”
Please, specify in detail for me, what “established policies and the law” that you feel as if I’ve possibly violated. Please cite specifically the policy (reference page number and place in quotes) and the law that you think I might have violated. Please give me your rationale and supporting evidence for the possible violations of established policies and the law. Again, please be specific and detailed.
Explain the significance of the page 28, policy manual quotation as it relates to any actions or inactions on my part so that I will be prepared to answer your alleged concerns. Finally, it is also my sincere prayer and hope that we could clarify issues and come to an understanding. I trust that we can work this out for the good of everybody involved and to the glory of God. Thanks for inviting me to the table to dialogue concerning these matters. Again, I am more than willing to come and share in this discussion if you’re willing to accommodate the above conditions.
March 7, 2007 at 8:52 am
Thank you for taking a stand for integrity and requiring those entrusted by our convention to govern the seminary to do so above reproach and with the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and purity. I appreciate your efforts to keep all things in the light. The only reason to avoid the light is when our deeds are evil (John 3.19), and at this important time in our convention’s life, it is imperative that everything be done in the light. You are on the front lines, but there are many unknown pastors who are depending upon you to fight this good fight to preserve the integrity of our convention.
More importantly, I am looking forward to the conference on the Holy Spirit!
March 7, 2007 at 10:07 am
Dear Pastor McKissic,
I just read of the comments you made about gay-rights having ’satanic anointment.’ I didn’t know ’satan’ had the authority to anoint things. That’s interesting news to me. It would be interesting to note where in the Bible (Baptists are known for knowing their Bible, yes?) you get that from.
Also, it is interesting that you said the anti-christ, in Daniel (I didn’t know there was an anti-christ in Daniel… I didn’t know there was an anti-christ in the Old Testament at all, as Christ Jesus didn’t come until about 400 years after the close of the Old Testament prophets and 160 years after the book of Daniel was written) is homosexual.
You have some interesting theories.
It is no wonder that you are being asked to vacate your seat on the board of SWBTS. Perhaps a layman could get away with such eisegesis of Scripture, but for a pastor to try to do that is absolutely incredulous.
I reckon SWBTS will also take you off their Fall preaching-in-chapel schedule, too.
The Peace of Christ pass all understanding,
Rhonda Martin
March 7, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Rhonda,
I would refer you to Daniel 9:26-27. Daniel speaks of his vision of the 70 weeks and within it the Messiah is cut off and he sees a “coming prince” who will enact the “abomination of desolation.” This prince has long been associated with the Anti-christ of Paul’s writings in the Thessalonian letters. For further reference please see the commentaries on Daniel, J. Dwight Pentecost’s work “Things To Come”, or even the explanatory notes found on Daniel in the “the Believer’s Study Bible.” Hope this at least answers one part of your comment.
March 7, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Respectfully BCHatcher,
No, neither of those resources answers my comment. The bad ‘prince’ the author of Daniel refers to was his contemporary– Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes.’
That Greek-backed Syrian ‘governor’ punished Judea/Jerusalem by making an ‘abomination of desolation’– sacrificing a pig on the holy of holies, after his unsuccessful campaign in Egypt in 168 B.C.
How is it that an anti-christ can be read into what you seemingly believe to be a 6th century B.C. document? Daniel 7-12 are apocalyptic visions of a quality not known before about 200 B.C. And most versions/translations err when they not only print ‘messiah’ in vv. 25 and 26, but err further by capitalizing the word:
“Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of [b]an anointed one[/b], a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, [b]an anointed one[/b] shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed.”
[Seventy weeks. i.e., years, were also decreed when Judah came to an end in Jeremiah's ministry, 25:11-12; 29:10. The second century B.C. author is probably borrowing imagery from his predecessor of some 430 years. Seventy years is a common occurance in Scripture.]
The Hasmoneans began to organize support to oppose Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’ (whom they called ‘Epimanes’ — the Crazy One) fairly early on. The good ‘prince’ in Daniel may be represented by one named Onias, from a priestly line.
[u]If[/u] Paul is thinking about the book of Daniel when he communicates to the church at Thessaloniki… what do you think he thought the coming ‘abomination of desolation’ was [i]going[/i] to be?
No, the book of Daniel, at face value, is a composition about which we know the most definite date of any book of the whole Bible: 166/65 B.C. Antiochus sacrificed that pig in 167 and he died in 164. Our author knows what he has done but does not record his death.
If you’re a Baptist, you may recoil at the suggestion of reading Daniel in one hand and 1 Maccabees in the other. I’d suggest you be courageous and do so.
The book of Daniel, though placed among the section of prophets in Christian Bibles, is not a prophetic book, it is an apocalyptic book. May it be possible that one knows not the minor similarities between prophetic and apocalyptic nor the vast differences between them as well? Daniel comes down to us in the third section of the Hebrew Bible, the Writings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketuvim
When one studies the history of the book of Daniel, one discovers that it is unknown before 150 B.C. Another book not in Protestant Bibles, Ecclesiasticus, lists the prophets of the Hebrew Canon of Scripture; Daniel is not in the list(Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, etc. are). When do we believe this book was written: 196-175 B.C.
Biblically, the character Daniel is a wise one, from of old… not a prophet. The Daniel of the book of Daniel is wise as well. The author intends his audience, those living in the deadly persecution of Antiochus IV, to be wise, too.
The peace of Christ pass all understanding,
RM
March 7, 2007 at 11:05 pm
p.s. there is no mention of any antichrists except in 1 John and 2 John, Brian. Where do you see an ‘antichrist’ in the Thessalonian correspondence?
March 8, 2007 at 8:06 am
Rhonda,
Dwight is a nice guy. Therefore, let me say to you there seems to be much you do not see, not only in Daniel or Thessalonians, but from the seemingly worldview you embrace, the entire scope of Scripture.
Let me encourage you to give much attention to Romans 1:18-32. Also, your use of the late date for Daniel betrays a terrible ignorance for true biblical scholarship.
Read much,and drink deep of the Word. It will truly give you a proper worldview and possibly do much for you soul.
cb
March 8, 2007 at 10:34 am
Respectfully cb,
We are not debating the niceness of Rev McKissic. What has been raised as a question is his service on the Board of Trustees of SWBTS. His and McLaren’s correspondence mirrors much of the sort that has happened again and again and again since the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC in ‘85 (Remember Dallas? this one was present). Divide and conquer… from within; that’s where the SBC is right now. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Time will tell. Matthew 12:22-32
And the pastor’s niceness has nothing to do with how you or I read and interpret Scripture with understanding.
Your use of the word ‘true’ in front of biblical scholarship is misplaced and abusive of the word. It assumes some falseness somewhere. Your seemingly glaring lack of knowledge regarding the composition date of the book of Daniel is like a leaky bucket. If you believe in an early date, that belief does not stand the test of scholarship. As has already been said, we know with precision when the book was composed: 166/65 B.C. Very few other books of the Bible can be dated as precisely, Paul’s bona fide letters being the close exception. A cursory look at the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible, which every student of Intro to the OT ought to do in seminary… shows where Daniel belongs with reference to the prophetic books– elsewhere. The book of Daniel is apocalyptic; apocalyptic books did not happen in Hebrew religion before about 200 B.C. It doesn’t take a lot of time to verify what I say here, cb. It is an accident of history that Daniel got lumped in with the prophets. (And I know what Matthew 24:15 says, too. The dividing line between some elements of prophecy and some elements of apocalyptic had not yet been drawn in Jesus’ day.)
In the entire scope of Scripture it is impossible to say that there is a gay man in Daniel. It is fanciful and highly imaginative. It ignores the facts.
Let me assure you that I have given much attention to Romans 1 and 2. The Apostle is doing much like the prophet Amos did– he lowers the boom on the neighbors before he lowers the boom on his own house– all are guilty in Paul’s book. May I suggest that you study what the Bible means by idolatry and holiness, especially with regard to Romans 1:18-32.
I drink deeply every day, dear cb, and you need not be concerned for my soul. Neither is my worldview skewed, thanks.
The peace of Christ pass all understanding,
RM
March 8, 2007 at 10:46 am
p.s. In 2 Thessalonians, we trust that Paul and his correspondents knew who he was refering to when he talked about the ’son of perdition’/'the lawless one.’ We do not know and will not know this side of Glory.
As I may not have already said here (?), the Apostle Paul, whose first two letters were to this congregation… does not refer to his apocalyptic thinking in future letters. he himself becomes less fanciful and more practical, theologically grounded. Christ’s peace, RM
March 8, 2007 at 10:52 am
Rhonda,
Thank you for the well thought out answer. You are correct to point out the difference in dating that you and I use. I will admit that I am not an Old Testament scholar. I do hold to an early date for the book of Daniel while you hold to a later date. Our respective datings vastly influence our decisions as to the appropriate designation and interpretation of said books. I would heartily disagree that Daniel is the one book anyone can nail down a date with accuracy. If we are having this debate than that statement is not entirely accurate. Please read the article below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel
It provides a number of interesting points about the date debate and so on. The dual-fulfillment tendency of much prophecy should cause modern redactors to think twice about dismissing a potential future fulfillment for a prophetic vision. The appearance of Anitoch IV Epiphanes shouldn’t automatically discredit the prophetic nature of Daniel.
Paul’s letters to the Thessalonica church refers to a “man of lawlessness” who must come before the return of Christ. He is found in 2 Thessalonians Admittedly, if one is to be stringently literal, only 1 and 2 John (specifically 1 John 2: 18-23) use the actual Greek word: avtixristos (pardon the paltry attempt at Greek letters). Both Leon Morris and F. F. Bruce, among many others, equate this man with the Anti-christ discussed in 1 John 2:18 (note that I intended to capitalize the “a”). I look forward to you response.
Brian
March 8, 2007 at 11:07 am
Hi Brian,
I am rushing this because of a lunch date with my wife (she’s more important than this ‘debate’).
“The dual-fulfillment tendency of much prophecy should cause modern redactors to think twice about dismissing a potential future fulfillment for a prophetic vision.”
If the book of Daniel were a prophetic book, we could have prophetic expectations of it. It clearly is not a prophetic book, but an apocalyptic book. Apocalyptic literature, of the caliber of Daniel, 7-12 did not exist before 200 B.C.
Wikipedia is hardly a primary or secondary source for serious biblical scholarhship, brother.
peace, RM
p.s. where do you get the term ‘dual-fulfillment’ from? it sounds man-made… anytime we apply man-made theories to the Bible we run tht risk of missing what the Bible may have to say to us, don’t you think?
March 8, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Rhonda,
So anyone who does not hold to you personal interpretation or opinions on the book of Daniel is not qualified and should not be allowed to serve as a trustee on any of our SBC boards???
What other opinions do you have that need to be adopted by the SBC to help us keep unqualified men or women from serving???
Grace to all,
March 8, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Rhonda,
Truly, our wives are far more important than theological discussions. I trust you both enjoyed a great lunch date.
Again, I would present that our differences in the date of the book of Daniel create our differences in accepting the book as prophetic or apocalyptic. I put forth the wikipedia article only because you did the same. The transient nature of the “truth” found on the Wikipedia site does not hold it to be valuable for schlarly endeavors.
The term dual-fulfillment comes from my seminary days. I will readily admit I may very well have misstated the actual term. It came up around many discussions in dealing with prophetic work, especially Isaiah and the seventy weeks passage in Daniel 9. I have typically seen it used to discuss the virgin birth passage in Isaiah.
I would venture to say you nailed it on the head in mentioning that neither of us will fully know the entirety of truth this side of glory. I am guessing it won’t stop the discussion though.
ps – I noticed that you only classified Daniel 7-12 as apocalyptic. Do you believe that these chapters were later written into the body of work after the Maccabean period? Or is the entire work 2nd century in your eyes? If so, beyond the existence of apoclypse as a genre, what are your reasonings?
Brian
March 8, 2007 at 12:58 pm
pss- I would also venture to guess you are not classically dispensational in your eschatology. Neither am I. I would peg you for amillenial, but am unsure. What viewpoint do you typically work from, and how does this impact your view of Daniel?
March 8, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Rhonda,
My comment about Dwight being nice was just that and nothing more. He is a nice guy.
My point with you was that your statement relating to the book of Daniel betrayed ignorance. Your next comment to me confirms your ignorance not only of true biblical scholarship, but of life in general. You are very ignorant and probably by choice.
In other words, you are willfully ignorant. You may know a little Hebrew so work on that from the Hebrew Text and let the mirror of truth shine forcefully through your willful ignorance.
Now, remember I said you were ignorant. Therefore, there is hope. I do pray you are not just stupid, which, of course, would leave little hope of your ignorance to be something you can overcome.
As I said, Dwight is a nice guy. You did not understand what I meant by that implication…..Now maybe you will.
cb
March 8, 2007 at 9:42 pm
cb!
You won’t get my goat! And I won’t honor your ‘response’ either. Debate or ‘get off the pot,’ is a ‘classic’ Southern expression that probably won’t be lost on you. Scholarly exegesis of Daniel by faithful Jewish and Christian men and women of God say I’m not ignorant. I don’t know you from adam’s house cat; who might I trust!?!
The peace of Christ pass all understanding, RM
March 8, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Rhonda,
I have no need for a goat. Nor am I in a debate. I am just stating facts that are not really debatable. True scholarship has proven the late date for Daniel to be,shall we say….”in the pot.”
Also, I do not expect you to trust anyone. I would hope you seek knowledge and then you too will come to the truth as have I.
In addition, I am prayerful you find comfort for your vexed soul. I trust you know the definition for “vexed.”
May God, through His Son, in the power of the Spirit, actually be allowed to grant you the peace which is beyond understanding of which you so deeply desire.(James 1:5-8)
cb
March 8, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Greg,
‘Qualification’ appears in both of your paragraphs to me. If you can find a gay man in Daniel (who eats grits!) I’ll eat my hat…!
Rev McKissic’s qualifications are not really McLaren’s concerns. Southern Baptists in general have been queasy about the ‘lesser’ used gifts of the Spirit ever since the fruits of the Azusa Street Mission moved throughout all of America and came to a head in most all denominations– all mainlines AND the SBC– in the late 60s and early 70s.
Private prayer language is just that as far as McLaren is concerned– private (as most current SBC seminary presidents and trustee chairs will ‘affirm’); speaking in tongues is not something McLaren wants associated with ‘his’ trustees. Perhaps a better screening process could have been employed before choosing Pastor McKissic….
As for any “personal interpretation” I’m not into that. God’s people are not the sum of individual their parts. We are a community. We are connected to one another… Baptists would say, “associated,” yes!
The community of Hebrew Bible scholarship says the book of Daniel is apocalyptic and of 166/65 B.C. I’m with ALL of them. Those who are not with us are separated from us with specific regard to this one book in the Bible.
So, for a people who pride themselves with a high view of Scripture, one would think Baptists would not be afraid of the scholarship, i.e., they wouldn’t keep ‘believing’ that which cannot be substantiated by the facts.
As I said earlier, one little look at the way our predecessors in faith order the books of the Bible we call the ‘Old Testament’ gives us a huge clue to Daniel, i.e., it is not prophetic.
Another powerful clue in the book of Daniel as to its place in chronological history is the highly developed theology of angels; Gabriel and Michael are named and have specific ‘jobs.’ This sort of development comes after Persian and Greek influences, the 4th and 3rd centuries B.C. respectively.
Thirdly, see here:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=836&letter=S#2674
especially the section– ‘Importance for the History of the Bible.’ Sirach, as the book is commonly called, was written between 190-170 B.C. He lists all the Prophets… and he doesn’t ‘know’ Daniel. Why? Daniel hadn’t been written.
The peace of Christ pass all understanding,
RM
March 8, 2007 at 11:43 pm
cb,
I know ‘vexed’ and I ain’t it. peace to you, RM
March 9, 2007 at 1:00 am
Brian,
“I would peg you…”
Ooh, ooh, don’t do that… it’s too much like what they did to Jesus on Golgotha…
“… amillenial”
On page 208 in his ‘Thinking About God’ (1974) Fisher Humphreys, Baptist-through-and-through (Mississippi College and NOBTS, where he later taught) says, “Baptists have been traditionally amillennial.” I appreciate that fact, but I’m not tied/bound to it!
“What viewpoint do you typically work from”?
I don’t “typically” take man-made theories about eschatology or apocalyptic to the Bible… as a rule. If I don’t treat Daniel 7-12 and The Apocalypse (Revelation) as a category all their own in all the genres of Holy Scripture… I don’t fully respect the Bible for what it is. [that genre has a life-span-- ca. 200 B.C. - ca. 200 A.D.]
” lunch date.” It’s always very nice to catch a few moments in the day, rare as they are, to share time together– restaurant coupons go a long way, too!
Thx for your good wishes.
“the virgin birth passage in Isaiah.” Oh, I see. You no doubt know of the controversy surrounding the RSV translation of Is 7.14 after 1952. The LXX is evidently the text the Gospel of Matthew relied upon, rather than a Hebrew text. The NRSV does not stem the tide of controversy: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.” As Christians we may rely upon the witnesses of the New Testament documents wholly(!!!) without taking those beliefs to Scripture which had already had a life of its own since the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.
“you only classified Daniel 7-12″
Chapters 1-6 are not apocalytic, no. But I know of no scholar who seriously doubts the integrity of the book as the work of one compiler/author. Again, see the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Daniel. We know that our author gets details slightly mixed up, historically. The stories of Daniel/Danel, a wise one from of old, had circulated far and wide in the ancient Near East; even Ezekiel bears witness to this: 14:20 and 28:3. We say the Bible is the Bible’s best interpreter, right!
Are the tales in 1-6 older than the visions in 7-12? Yes, of course. However, they seem to have been woven together by one person. In the midst of Antiochus’ severe persecution, the compiler re-tells the tale of one Hebrew who withstands religio-political authority even to the point of death. By re-telling these tales, he lays the ground work for the visions: “God is sovereign– remain faithful (like Daniel did!).”
“… shouldn’t automatically discredit the prophetic nature of Daniel.”
If Daniel had a prophetic nature, you’d be right! Daniel has an apocalyptic nature.
“Paul… refers to a “man of lawlessness” who must come before the return of Christ.”
Paul pretty firmly believed, at the time of the Thessalonian correspondence, that he would see that Day. He changed his tune… and did not visit that idea again in later letters….
gotta get some rest!
The peace of Christ pass all understanding, RM
March 9, 2007 at 9:16 am
Rhonda,
Sorry you lost me… It seems you are deeply passionate about your views on the book of Daniel… All I am asking is since when are anyone’s (yours, mine, McLaren’s, Patterson’s, anyone’s) views on the book of Daniel a justification for exclusion from service in the SBC?
It looks to me like you have just come here to do a “hatchet job” on Brother McKissic…
The issues you have raised are completely irrelevant to this discussion…Brother McKissic’s views on the Book of Daniel have nothing what-so-ever to do with his qualification to serve on the BOT of SWBTS period!
Have you checked out all the other BOT members to see if they line up with “your views”? If not then your true motive is evident for all to see…
Good day,
March 9, 2007 at 10:40 am
Hi Greg,
If one’s view of the book of Daniel is not passionate, why hang around here?
Brother Pastor Rev McKissic has been quoted doing his own hatchett job on himself re “a gay man in Daniel.”
You’re right; that may not have a thing to do with his ‘qualification’ to serve SWBTS as a trustee– God only knows some of the views and opinions of folk who serve in that capacity… maybe a few dominionists, maybe a few Dobsonites….
When one makes public statements, one may expect to be held accountable to them publically. Brother McKissic shows signs of homophobia. Perfect love does away with fear: “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love.” 1 John 4:18
This forum is a public forum. If you don’t like what’s on offer, have grits at your own table!
My public views expressed here on the book of Daniel will stand up to scrutiny, whether you agree with that or not.
I believe Brother McKissic will stand down or be removed as a SWBTS trustee. [I have lived in and observed the conflict in the SBC since not long after Patterson and Pressler, in private, uttered those infamous words: "we're going for the jugular." What do you suppose "motivated" them to do that in '79? Be as honest as you like... it's a public forum.
] It is only a matter of time.
Brian Hatcher and I are having quite a good discussion, if you hadn’t noticed… apart from Bro Mc’s predicament. If you have things to share in regard to the book of Daniel, or any of your own personal, spiritual, biblical passions (does numerology interest you?), please feel free. Trying to guess my motivation is fruitless. Brian and I have fruitful things going on, thanks.
Have a great afternoon, RM
March 9, 2007 at 10:42 am
“your true motive”
Oh brother… (sigh)
March 9, 2007 at 11:38 am
Rhonda,
Brother McKissic shows signs of homophobia.???
So are you against Brother McKissic because of his stand aginst homosexuality? Do you believe homosexuality is a sin? Do you believe homosexuals should be allowed to be members of a Southern Baptist Church? Do you believe homosexuals should be allowed to serve on the BOT of SWBTS?
Just what “motivated” your above statement? And just how does one determine if someone is a homophabic? Can you tell by the fact that one preach what the Bible teaches about the sin of homosexuality that they are homophabic?
And what does someone being a homophobiac have to do with being a board member at SWBTS? Is Dr. Patterson or Dr. McLaren also a Homophobic?
If you don’t like what’s on offer, have grits at your own table!
Excuse me Sister… I thought this was Brother McKissic’s blog site and not yours!
Regardless of what you and Brian are discussing this post is NOT about the book of Daniel… perhaps you need to have your own blog and post about Daniel until you are “blue in the face”… I frankly don’t care what you think about the book of Daniel and I doubt very many others do either…
Oh and seeing as this is a public forum (well not really Brother McKissic could kick us both off any time he desires) I think I will stay for a while…
By the way you have not yet answered my questions in #20… is it because you cannot?
Oh sister…. (sigh)
March 9, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Rhonda,
It is quite a leap to go from “peg” to “nail”, but I will give you that one. The quote you provided is interesting in its proclaiming the majority opinion of SBCers to be amillenial. I would of guessed based on Captain Paigey and the FUndy bunch that strict classical dispensationalism would rule the day. Granted, the book is from the late 70’s before Paige decided he was in charge.
I might offer that you and I are at an impasse on Daniel. Our differences in date and genre shape our arguements and I know neither of us will be easily persuaded. For me, the prophetic nature of the text (and yes I realize you believe it to be strictly apocalyptic, I however do not) offers me a glimpse into a coming future and the enduring promise of a loving God for His people. The application of Ockham’s Razor makes taking Daniel as composed by a single author all at once at an earlier date is the simpliest understanding in my eyes. Again, I fully realize this is not the understanding you hold. I will say this, I don’t find any inkling to take ch. 9 as anything but a symbolic look at the coming history of the world. I see no dispensational root there. In fact, I tend to find them somewhat nutty. BTW,that is a highly technical theological term for dispensationalists.
As for Paul, his first letter to Thessalonica reveals an eager expectation of the return of the Messiah for him and the people of God. However, their reaction was to stop working and be lazy. By the second letter Paul writes to remind them that certain things must occur before the parousia. He shows a developed sense of the end times and identifies especially with a coming figure who would have no respect for the law. One could make the case that Paul, who was a “Pharisee among Phariseess”, and had a deep understanding and knowledge of the OT, is identifying with the passage in Daniel. This same theme would continue towards the end of the 1st century when John viewed the apocalypse in his vision at Patmos. Based on the full scope of the Bible it is possible to see a continued development of a supreme Antichrist to appear at the eschaton.
Gotta put the kids to bed. Have a good one.
March 11, 2007 at 6:24 am
On the run again, so this is a short response to a small portion:
“the prophetic nature of the text (and yes I realize you believe it to be strictly apocalyptic, I however do not) offers me a glimpse into a coming future and the enduring promise of a loving God for His people.”
The book of Daniel didn’t exist in Hebrew Scripture before 190-170 B.C. It gets its first mention in Hebrew scriptural circles in 150 B.C. 166/65 B.C. falls right in between those two dates.
Taking a 1st century A.D. LXX placement of Daniel among the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, when it had never been among the prophets in the Hebrew Bible– the Law scroll was fixed and the Prophets scrolls were fixed– is a bit arbitrary… from the careful historian’s point a view.
My guess is that the editors of the LXX (the Septuagint) take a quite late reference to Daniel [Matthew 24:15 - "So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)] in Matthew’s Gospel… on the strength of this one reference in ALL of the New Testament… and decided to move Daniel from the Kethuvim (the third section of the Hebrew Bible) and place it in between Ezekiel and Hosea (there is no gap between Ezekiel and Hosea in the second section of the Hebrew Bible– the Nevi’im).
Have a great and blessed Lord’s day,
RM
p.s. “He shows a developed sense of the end times and identifies especially with a coming figure who would have no respect for the law. One could make the case that Paul, who was a “Pharisee among Phariseess”, and had a deep understanding and knowledge of the OT, is identifying with the passage in Daniel.”
The ‘man of lawlessness’ is probably an expression from the Qumran (or some other ‘monastic,’ exclusivist) community. It sounds like something the Essenes would have said. And, of course, we’re not talking about Scripture now, we’re talking about what Christians usually refer to as the ‘intertestamental’ period– exactly when Daniel was composed! The Jews had real difficulties with Daniel when it came to whether or not it should have been included in the third section of their Bibles… a decision that was made somewhere very near the end of the 1st century A.D. They had trouble precisely because Daniel was not prophetic as far as they were concerned. Daniel was dangerous/subversive….
won’t likely have a chance to blog again for the next week. take good care, RM
March 11, 2007 at 6:25 am
p.s. Greg thinks I’m female… shows just how ‘close’ he’s reading this blog! LOL
March 14, 2007 at 12:21 pm
SISTER “Rhonda”… Thanks for NOT answering any of my questions… shows just how ‘close’ she’s reading this blog! (LOL)
March 18, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Glad to note that it appears Chairman McClain has backed off on his statement regarding the removal of Dr. McKissic from the board of trustees.
My prayer is that their upcoming meeting will prove to be productive, and that their differences can be resolved.
March 21, 2007 at 8:25 am
Greg,
Did you have a question you want answering?
RM (Really Male! LOL)
April 27, 2007 at 12:11 am
Rhonda is going to lunch with his / her wife?? I am confused as well. If Rhonda is a male, perhaps his name should be Ron Duh?…especially after reading some of this weird interpretational hoop jumping he / she is doing.
I second the motion to get your own blog sister / brother. Coming to another blog and starting a conversation that has nothing to do with the post is frankly bad etiquette…you have also made it kind of weird.
Homophobic Dull Iron