Why Antioch Network of Churches?

Dr. Sam Storms delivered a message entitled, “Why Antioch” on Monday evening March 3rd at the opening session of the Antioch Network of Churches Exploratory meeting.  Dr. Storms was kind enough to provide for us a manuscript of his message in its entirety.  What you’re about to read is the biblical philosophy of ministry of the ANC.  Enjoy!

Dwight McKissic

Dr. Sam Storms

Enjoying God Ministries

 Why Antioch?(Acts 11:19-30; 13:1-3) 

My single, simple question is: “Why Antioch?” What biblical reasons are there to launch and build this network of churches around the model that we find in that ancient city and church?

Antioch was approximately 350 miles north of Jerusalem and is located in what is now southeastern Turkey and is known as Antakya(pop. 40,000). It was the third largest city in the Greco-Roman world, behind only Alexandria and Rome. Its population ranged anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000. But what was most impressive about this city was the birth therein of a community of believing men and women whose zeal for God and the gospel is worthy of our close attention.

I would like to propose for our consideration a dozen characteristics or spiritual features of the church in Antioch, each of which is worthy of our imitation.

 12 Characteristics of the church at Antioch 

(1) The Christians in Antioch cherished and prized the gospel more than they did staying alive (Acts 11:19). We know this because the gospel itself was proclaimed in Antioch because of persecution. These persecuted evangelists would not have hidden this from the people in Antioch. They would have made quite clear that if you choose to follow Jesus you will suffer persecution and tribulation. The people in Antioch willingly and no doubt joyfully embraced the inevitability of persecution and suffering. Evidently the gospel of Jesus Christ was sufficiently precious to these people that no threat of persecution or oppression or deprivation could deter them from embracing him in faith and love.

  

(2) They were energetically and enthusiastically evangelistic (Acts 11:24). “And a great many people were added to the Lord.” This no doubt came about not only through the witness of Barnabas but also those of Antioch who immediately upon coming to faith in turn witnessed to others!

  

(3) They were hungry for and obedient to the whole counsel of God (Acts 11:25-26). From Acts 20:17-30 (esp. v. 27) we see the focus of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus, which no doubt would have been true also in Antioch. He refused to shrink back from declaring the whole counsel of God and those in Antioch would have heartily embraced this as well. No cutting of doctrinal corners. No accommodation to the values of the prevailing culture. No selectivity in what they proclaimed based on what would enhance their status or increase their financial wealth.

  

(4) They were a compassionate and generous people. (Acts 11:27-30). Note well that this monetary gift was from Gentiles to Jews! They refused to let any past wounds or offences or lingering prejudices to hinder their love.

This display of generosity may well have been connected with their practice of fasting (Acts 13:1-3). In Isaiah 58:1-3 God issues an indictment against his people for giving every external appearance of godliness, especially as seen in their fasting. But it was not the sort of fast that God approved. True, heartfelt, godly fasting entails compassion and generosity for those in need:

“Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?” (Isa. 58:6-7)

Evidently the Christians at Antioch believed that the gospel of salvation in Christ required that they devote themselves to the alleviation of hunger and poverty. They did not fear social justice. They pursued it with self-sacrificial abandonment.

  

(5) They were thoroughly and wholeheartedly Christocentric (Acts 11:27-30). When the surrounding community in Antioch sought to identify these people, what word did they choose, and why? They were not merely “theists” or “believers” or “brethren” or “disciples” or “saints” or even “Baptists”! The key was Jesus Christ. This title was probably given to them by the people of Antioch as they no doubt heard little else from this band of people than Christ! He was the foundation of their identity: not any particular doctrine or church structure or denominational program or theory about private prayer language.

They would never have identified themselves as white Christians, black Christians, or Jewish Christians or Gentile Christians or male Christians or female Christians or continuationist Christians or cessationist Christians. They were simply and solely and sufficiently Christians: partisans of Christ and Christ alone.

  

(6) They were committed to a convergence of word and spirit (Acts 13:1). If only teachers had been present they would never have known who was to go or what they were to do or where it was that God was sending them or when they should depart. No Scripture could provide such answers.

On the other hand, if only prophets had been present they wouldn’t have known that going was a good thing. They wouldn’t have known how to test the voice or how to judge the leading of the Spirit; they would have had no one to instruct them about what to say once they got there!

Word and Spirit were not rivals in Antioch. Teachers and Prophets did not compete but cooperated in the work of God.

  

(7) They were sincerely, and not merely theoretically, multi-ethnic (Acts 13:1). Simeon, called Niger, was probably a black African and may have been the same Simon who carried our Lord’s cross to Calvary(cf. Luke 23:26). Lucius of Cyrene was from North Africa, probably present day Libya.

When I say they were “sincerely” and not merely “theoretically” multi-ethnic I mean that this was not just a principle of doctrine they embraced but also something that was implemented in the life and leadership of the church. There must be a reason why these names are listed and not others, and the likelihood is that they constituted the senior leadership of the church, elders and pastors, as well as teachers and prophets.

  

(8) The diversity in Antioch was not merely racial but also social and economic (Acts 13:1. Manaen, described as “a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch” was either raised as an adopted brother or close companion of Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great. He obviously came from a high social standing and was probably quite wealthy as a result of his royal connections.

  

(9) They were a thoroughly God-intoxicated and theocentric. Note their “worshipping” (lit., “ministering”) in Acts 13:2. Their conscious and deliberate focus was on exultation in God and the exaltation of God.

  

(10) They were passionately committed to the enjoyment of God. In other words, the people at Antioch were Christian Hedonists (Acts 13:2-3). I base this on the fact that they were given over to regular fasting, combined with prayer. But how is this evidence of Christian Hedonism?

The key is to remember that fasting is always motivated by deep desire. Whereas there is certainly a measure of physical pain that comes with fasting, I want to insist that, contrary to popular opinion, fasting is not the suppression of desire but the intense pursuit of it. We fast because we want something more than food. We say no to food for a season only to fill ourselves with something far more tasty, far more filling, far more satisfying. That is to say, if one suppresses the desire for food it is only because he or she has a greater and more intense desire for something more precious. Something of eternal value.

We don’t fast because we hate our bodies and look to punish them. Whatever immediate discomfort we may experience, it is a sacrifice that pays immeasurable long-term benefits. We do not fast for pain, but for the pleasure of experiencing still more of Christ Jesus and the revelation of his powerful presence. In other words, fasting is perfectly consistent with Christian Hedonism!

Observe the connection here of fasting with prayer. Fasting sharpens and intensifies our intercessory prayers. Arthur Wallis has noted that

“Fasting is calculated to bring a note of urgency and importunity into our praying, and to give force to our pleading in the court of heaven. The man who prays with fasting is giving heaven notice that he is truly earnest . . . . Not only so, but he is expressing his earnestness in a divinely-appointed way. He is using a means that God has chosen to make his voice to be heard on high” (42).

 Fasting, therefore, is feasting! So what do you eat when you’re on a fast? God! The ironic thing about fasting is that it really isn’t about not eating food. It’s about feeding on the fullness of every divine blessing secured for us in Christ. Fasting tenderizes our hearts to experience the presence of God. It expands the capacity of our souls to hear his voice and be assured of his love and be filled with the fullness of his joy.  

As strange as it may sound, fasting is all about eating! It is about ingesting the Word of God, the beauty of God, the presence of God, the blessings of God. Fasting is all about spiritual gluttony! It is not a giving up of food for its own sake. It is about a giving up of food for Christ’s sake. As Jesus himself made clear in Matthew 6:16-18, either we abstain from food for the praise of men or for the reward of our heavenly Father. The point is, we are always driven to fast because we hunger for something more than food. Fasting, therefore, is motivated by the prospect of pleasure. The heart that fasts cries out, “This I want more than the pleasure of food!” And “this” can be the admiration that men give to people with will power, or it can be the reward we seek from God alone without regard to the praise of men.

  

(11) They were sensitive to and discerning of the Spirit’s voice (Acts 13:2). There were no cessationists in Antioch. They were not afraid of the Spirit’s supernatural voice. Far from legislating against it, they set aside time in worship, prayer, and fasting to tune their spiritual ears to whatever he might say.

How did the Holy Spirit communicate this message? He likely revealed his will to one or several of the prophets who in turn submitted the revelation to the teachers and apostles to be judged. Was it by a strong impression, a vision, a word? Cf. 8:29; 10:19; 15:28; 16:6-7; 18:9; 20:23. Note well that the Holy Spirit spoke in complete sentences!

It’s important to note when the revelation occurred: while they were “worshipping the Lord and fasting”! There is a special sensitivity and openness during such times. Fasting opens our spiritual ears to discern God’s voice. The gentle words of the Spirit are more readily heard during times of fasting. During times of fasting God often grants insights and understanding into his will and purpose, or perhaps new applications of his Word to our lives.

Their fasting became the occasion for the Spirit’s guidance to be communicated to them. Don’t miss the obvious causal link that Luke draws. It was while or when they were ministering to the Lord and fasting that the Holy Spirit spoke. Indeed, it would not be too much to say it was because they ministered to the Lord and fasted that He spoke. I’m not suggesting that fasting puts God in our debt, as if it compels him to respond to us. But God doespromise to be found by those who diligently seek him with their whole heart (Jer. 29:12-13). People who are merely “open” to God rarely find him. God postures himself to be found by those who whole-heartedly seek him, and fasting is a single-minded pursuit to know, hear, and experience God.

  

(12) They had a heart for the nations. They were a missions-minded church (Acts 13:3).

Here we see Saul (Paul) and Barnabas, together with leaders of the church in Antioch, seeking direction from the Lord as to where they should go as a church, in terms of ministry. Their desperation to hear God’s voice and follow God’s will could find no more appropriate expression than through bodily denial. As they turned away from physical dependence on food they cast themselves in spiritual dependence on God. “Yes, Lord, we love food. We thank you for it. We enjoy it as you want us to. But now, O Lord, there is something before us more important than filling our mouths and quenching our thirst. Where would you have us go? Whom shall we send? How shall it be financed? Lord, we hunger to know your will. Lord, we thirst for your direction. Feed us O God!”

 What God said to them in the course of their fasting changed history. This revelatory word was spoken in a moment of spiritual hunger for God’s voice to fill the void left by mere human wisdom. The results, both immediate and long-term, are stunning, for prior to this incident the church had progressed little, if at all, beyond the eastern seacoast of the Mediterranean.  

Paul had as yet taken no missionary journeys westward to Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, or Spain. Neither had he written any of his epistles. All his letters were the result of the missionary journeys he was to take and the churches he was to plant. This occasion of prayer and fasting, it would seem, “resulted in a missions movement that would catapult Christianity from obscurity into being the dominant religion of the Roman Empire within two and a half centuries, and would yield 1.3 billion adherents of the Christian religion today, with a Christian witness in virtually every country of the world. And thirteen out of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament (Paul’s letters) were a result of the ministry that was launched in this historic moment of prayer and fasting” (John Piper, A Hunger for God, 107).

  

 

Press Release – Antioch Network of Churches

 

Diversity, Unity Characterize Formation of Antioch Network March 4, 2008 

Texas – March 4, 2008 – - Representing diverse denominational and racial backgrounds, 42 senior pastors, 7 staff ministers and 1 layperson gathered for a two day season of prayer and reflection concerning the formation of the Antioch Network of Churches. The group gathered at the invitation of area pastor, Dwight McKissic, Sr. of Arlington’s Cornerstone Baptist Church. 

Several presentations were made during the meeting to help guide the conversation about forming the network, which McKissic characterized as a “vehicle to help mobilize and resource churches to fulfill the Great Commission.” 

Evangelical theologian and prolific author, Sam Storms, opened the meeting with an exposition of the biblical pattern for church planting found in the New Testament Book of Acts. Listing twelve descriptive components of the church in Antioch, Storms articulated the biblical rationale for intentional efforts to network churches in collaborative efforts to reach the nations. 

Oklahoma pastor, Wade Burleson, moderated a lengthy discussion about the parameters of doctrinal fellowship that will characterize the Antioch Network.  Recognizing the need for simplicity and clarity in a confessional framework, Burleson moved the meeting toward what he labeled a “consensus statement.” “A consensus doctrinal statement is needed to affirm our passion for Jesus Christ and the good news about His person and work,” Burleson noted. “Because we treasure church autonomy, we respect churches that go further in their doctrinal statements, but it unnecessary for a network of autonomous churches who desire to cooperate in ministry to expect conformity on tertiary doctrinal matters.” 

The group affirmed the following statement: 

“The Antioch Network of Churches will serve Jesus Christ by encouraging fellowship and ministry cooperation between churches of diverse denominational heritage and by affirming the autonomy of local churches to partner with like-minded believers as the Spirit leads. We are thankful for and intentional about retaining our preexisting identities, yet we do not suppose that those identities preclude our joint ministry with others who share our passion to proclaim the gospel.” 

Paul Littleton, pastor of Faith Baptist Church in Sapulpa, OK, presented a paper on emerging church theory to familiarize the group with strategies and ministry philosophies of other church networks who are seeking to pursue the same goals of cooperative ministry. Citing the great need for racial reconciliation between churches, Littleton observed that few existing networks have experienced success in planting churches “whose DNA is multi-racial.” “As far as I know this would be among the first formal associations of churches that demonstrates the reconciling power of Christ from the outset. This isn’t a call to forsake our other associations.  Perhaps the foundation we lay today will lead our respective associations to awaken to the reconciling power of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” Littleton noted. “If nothing else, may a world that increasingly lives at odds with people who are different, see a very real and powerful expression of the oneness that is ours in Christ. The power of that witness will speak more loudly of the beauty of Christ than a million tracts, dozens of media advertisements, or ten thousand sermons.” 

Ralph Emerson, pastor of Rising Star Baptist Church in Fort Worth, led the conversation about an organization structure and strategy for the network, which will aspire to share resources and nurture relationships among churches that result in planting churches committed to bold gospel proclamation and application. 

No formal organizational chart was adopted, though the group elected an exploratory leadership team to finalize the confessional framework and coordinate long range planning. The twelve member exploratory leadership team will be comprised of 6 African-Americans and 6 Anglos and will include men and women. The exploratory leadership team will meet in April to plan the future direction of the network. 

The rudimentary doctrinal statement drafted by the Antioch Network follows, though its final form will be presented by the leadership team at a later date. 

“We affirm the authority, sufficiency, reliability, and consistency of God’s infallible revelation in both the Words of Holy Scripture and the Person of Jesus Christ. 

We affirm that the one true God exists eternally in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that these, being one God, are equal in deity, power, and glory. We also affirm both the full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ. 

We affirm Christ’s virgin birth, His substitutionary death for sinners, His resurrection from the dead, His second coming, and His gift of eternal life to all who are in relationship with Him by grace through faith alone. 

We affirm that God has ordained the proclamation of the gospel message by His people in the power of the Holy Spirit, who is both the Gift of God to the church and the Giver of diverse spiritual gifts. We also affirm baptism as the public testimony for those who have come into covenant with Jesus Christ in Lord and Savior. 

We affirm that persons apart from a relationship with Christ will face God’s judgment.” 

The Antioch Network is also looking to explore relationships with the Lott Carey Baptist Foreign Mission Convention and the Global Connection Partnership Network. The Lott Carey Foreign Mission Convention was established in 1897 by a freed slave, to help churches extend their Christian witness to the ends of the earth through education, health and ministry. The GCPN is a community of churches partnering with churches worldwide to reach all peoples for Christ. With a commitment to have “all things in common” Acts 2:44, they seek to share strategies, resources, people, knowledge and the responsibility of the Great Commission.    

For Information Contact:         Veronica Griffith – 817.468.0083 ext. 203

                                                   Email:  vgriffith@cbcarlington.org    

                                                                               # # #

 

An Open Letter to Rev. Wade Burleson Concerning His IMB Tenure

Dear Wade,

“To Whom much is given much is required.”  The sovereign God was responsible for your almost three year appointment to the IMB Board.  I believe that God had a strategic purpose for your time served at the IMB.  You already have been greatly used of God to gain the admission that there was no anecdotal or any other evidence to suggest that there were abuses of missionaries speaking/praying in tongues on the field.  Therefore, there was no need for the new policies forbidding missionaries to speak in tongues which as you know directly contradicts the Scripture (I Cor. 14:39).  This admission alone made your service on the board purposeful and impactful.

The modification of the “tongues” policy that moves toward making a decision about missionary candidates on a case by case basis as it relates to private praying in tongues would not have happened without God using your voice and keyboard to nudge the IMB Board to this position.  The revised policy was a step in the right direction and we have you and other board members to thank for that. 

Some of us are still members of the SBC because of your voice and others on the Board who opposed the unbiblical policies of the IMB.  God used you to encourage and promote missionaries around the world and to take a meaningful trip to China.  I believe the Lord will say to you one day face to face (specifically concerning your tenure at the IMB) – “WELL DONE, THOU GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT, WELL DONE.”  The future of the IMB, and the “tongues policy,” Dr. Jerry Rankin –(who admittedly prays in tongues in private)- and the many missionaries who also pray in tongues as well are in the hands of the same sovereign God who appointed you to the IMB.  The baptismal policies (that I know are even more important to you) you also addressed biblically, tactfully, and courageously. I will simply trust God to do what He wants done in His timing as it relates to any changes toward these policies. 

Because of your wonderful service to our Lord, the IMB and the SBC, when I think of you Bro. Wade, I’m reminded of what the Apostle stated to Philemon, “I thank my God always, making mention of you in my prayers, because I hear of your love, and of the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all the saints; and I pray that the fellowship of your faith may become effective through the knowledge of every good thing which is in you for Christ’s sake.  For I have come to have much joy and comfort in your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you brother” (Philemon 1:4-7).

Brother Wade, I’m sure you will follow the leading of the Lord as it relates to writing a book about SBC issues.  This Scripture came to mind as I am pondering your decision and praying about the book: Mordecai said to Esther, “For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”  If you choose not to write the book, I know you’ll be driven by a pure heart, determined to do what you believe is the will of God.  If you choose to write the book, I know you’ll be driven by a pure heart, determined to do what you believe is the will of God.

God has given you much, you have given the SBC and the IMB much.  Know this that your labor has not been in vain.

 You Are a Brother Beloved, 

Dwight McKissic

 

Why I’m Voting for Mike Huckabee

I’ve known Gov. Huckabee for over 30 years.  Gov. Huckabee and I graduated from the same college and attended there two years together.  Gov. Huckabee and I were fellow Baptist pastors in Pine Bluff, Arkansas in the late 70’s.  We were friends in college, we are friends today.

Mike Huckabee has always been a man with great communication abilities, people skills and leadership qualities.  He is a uniter – not a divider, and one who has always earned the respect, appreciation and support of African American friends, parishioners, voters and colleagues.

As a matter of fact, he received 48% of the Black vote in Arkansas – unprecedented for a Republican. As governor of Arkansas he awarded the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff (HBCU) 2 million dollars from his discretionary fund to assist in building them a new football stadium.  The overall funding that UAPB received from the Arkansas State Government during Gov. Huckabee’s term in office far exceeded the funding received during Bill Clinton’s governorship in Arkansas.  Gov. Huckabee appointed over 300 African Americans to boards, commissions and state employment positions during his tenure as Arkansas governor.

Gov. Huckabee is a proven Christian leader and a man who will serve our country well.  Color nor gender will drive my voting decision.  Convictions, character, competence, capacity and experience are factors that will drive my decision. The only person in this race who holds to biblical conservative values as it relates to pro life, pro family and lower taxes is Mike Huckabee.  In this election I am left with one primary choice and that is Mike Huckabee – the man we should elect to be President of the United States of America.   

 

Embracing The Power of The Holy Spirit

Embracing the Power of the Holy Spirit

By

William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

     Who could argue that Charles Dickens’ poetic and prophetic description of England in 1855, “It was the best of times and the worst of times” in his classic historical novel, The Tale of Two Cities, does not accurately and eloquently capsulize and summarize the current state of affairs in the African American community? The “brighter day ahead” for which our African American forbearers prayed and about which they prophetically sang, is the current reality for most in the African American community.

      While the Civil War settled the question of natural slavery for African Americans, the emancipation from physical slavery did not bring emancipation from the enslavement of illiteracy, poverty, and economic injustice for the freedmen. Nearly all Black people were uneducated and lived in poverty coming out of slavery, and many of them chose indentured servitude as the only way to provide for their families. By 2004, however, only 25 percent of African Americans lived in poverty. Homeownership among African Americans has shown a steady increase from 42 percent in 1990 to 48 percent of African Americans owning homes in 2003. The percentage of African Americans investing in the stock market increased drastically between 1998 and 2002, from 57 to 74 percent. The average monthly savings for African Americans increased from $200 per month in 2001 to $237 per month in 2002. In 2002, the number of Black-owned businesses stood at 1.2 million. This represented a 45 percent rise since 1997. In 2005, 1.1 million African Americans over the age twenty-five had advanced degrees—such as master’s, PhD, MD, or JD—compared to about 677,000 in 1995.  We’ve witnessed significant and substantial gains in politics, business, education, and household incomes. Even in the field of religion we have witnessed an African American rise to a high profile executive cabinet level position in what was historically a prominent Anglo Pentecostal denomination—the Assemblies of God. Many of the largest and fastest growing churches in America are led by African Americans who erected facilities that comfortably, seat thousands of people and collectively employ thousands. Indeed, these are the best of times.

     However, the decay, decline, dysfunction, disconnect, disengagement, and dearth in the African American community is also quite apparent. In contrast to the Assemblies of God, the highest ranking African American employed in the Executive Committee office building for the Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville, TN, is the head custodian.

     Nearly 70 percent of all children born in the African American community today are born into single parent homes. In 1960, 80 percent of the families were two parent families among Blacks in America. In some cities, Black males have high school drop-out rates of more that 50 percent. About one-third of the homeless are Black men. African Americans make up nearly 50 percent of the prison population, although they make up only 12 percent of the general population. Back in 1950, there were twice as many White people in prison as Black. Today, there are more Black people than White in prison. Divorce among African Americans is 50 percent higher than it is among White Americans. Although, we have witnessed the advent of mega-churches in the Black community, we have also seen an increase in crime, drug addiction, and divorce. It’s evident that fornication, adultery, homosexuality, immoral cohabitation, covetousness, greed, gluttony, gossip, bitterness, anger, pride and prayerlessness and a host of other sins are also prevalent in many African American churches from the pulpit to the back door. Indeed, these are the worst of times.

      If the African American community is to rise from the moral, spiritual, family, and community decline we find ourselves in, there is only one hope. Our hope cannot be in another Civil Rights movement. Our hope must be in a move of the Holy Spirit. The prophet declared, “Not by might, not by power, but by my Spirit saith the Lord of hosts”. The problems of the African American community are so intense, acute and systemic, that nothing short of a Pentecost can restore wholeness, holiness and family restoration to our community once again. God said, “In the last days that He would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh” (Acts 2:17). That inevitably includes African American flesh. My prayer is, “Lord, do it again and do it now.” We need the Holy Spirit to convict us of our sins and convince us that Jesus Christ is the only hope for our salvation. We need the Holy Spirit to convert us, clean us up, wash us, renew us and fill us once again. Our community is in such dire and desperate straits, we don’t have time to debate the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. We need His delivering power, His saving power, His sanctifying power, and His anointing. We need Him to break yokes, lift heavy burdens and set the captives free. We need to embrace the Holy Spirit in His fullness including the fruit of the Holy Spirit so our gifts and anointing will not elevate us to heights where our character is not strong enough to sustain us.

      In days gone by, the Lord raised up men and women to lead the Civil Rights movement because in many ways that was our pressing need. What we need now is to pray that God would raise up men and women who can lead us to a fresh encounter with the person, power and presence of the Holy Spirit. We need Him in His fullness. We need Him in His power and that’s when we’ll see a change in the neighbor “hood”.

      My prayer is that God would burden the heart of at least three thousand African American believers who will give God one day in prayer at one place at one time (Acts2:1) confessing the sins of our nation (Neh 1:6) and of our race and seeking His face for revival, restoration and joy in the Holy Ghost (Ps. 16:11, Ps. 85:6, Rom 5:5). Exercising the privilege and power of prayer we can pray in the Spirit with words understood, words not understood and even without words to effect change in our community that delivers us from the muck and mire and set us on a street called straight. The only hope for our community is a Holy Spirit revival. We must embrace Him now, “For the effectual and fervent prayers of the righteous availeth much” (James 5:16, I Corin 14:15, Jude 20, Rom 8:26, John 11:33). It is time for the Ethiopians to stretch out their hands to God (Ps 68:31, Ps. 19:14).

     May this generation experience the outpouring of God’s Spirit upon our families, communities and nation even in a greater measure than the 1^st and 2^nd Great Awakenings and Azusa St, as we yield our hearts, minds bodies, soul and Spirit to the Living God. May the Spirit of the Living God fall fresh on us.

-30-

 

Defense of Wade Burleson

  

IN DEFENSE OF WADE BURLESON

AND

A TRIBUTE TO PETER LUMPKINS

By

William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

In response to a question that was also, the title of a blog post that I authored “Are Persons Who Pray In Tongues In Personal Devotions Welcome In The Southern Baptist Convention?” and a specific request for Peter Lumpkins to respond to the question raised in the title, Brother Peter Lumpkins gave the following reply in a comment thread on SBC Today:

“Dwight,

If you are expecting a ‘yes/no’ response from me concerning your question, I’d get me a big glass of buttermilk and cornbread were I you, for a long time awaiteth thee still.

Indeed the last thing needed in a dialog like this is yes or no, at least from where I sit. Nor will I allow another to draw my own lines for acceptance/non-acceptance, thank you very much.

Understandably, you have made your demarcation line ‘tongues’. And, it appears you are prepared to live or die–be welcome or unwelcome, received or rejected, affirmed or denied–whether or not others accept ‘tongues’ If this is incorrect, please answer precisely why you keep asking that same question about ‘tongues’.

Nor do I necessarily accept your definition of ‘welcome’. You write “I define “welcome” as being eligible to serve as an entity head without receiving opposition based on ones private prayer life.”

For me, I do not include serving as ‘entity head’ within a five mile radius of being welcome. There are lots of things that may or may not prohibit me or others from being ‘entity head’.

Grace. With that, I am…

Peter”

After reading Peter’s comment above, Wade Burleson then wrote a blog post entitled, “On Cornbread and Buttermilk: Racism in the Southern Baptist Convention.” Burleson states in his post that he was “stunned” when he read the following comment by Peter, who was answering my original question: “Are Persons Who Pray In Tongues In Their Personal Devotions Welcome in the SBC?” Burleson in his post highlights this section of Peter’s response to my question:

“If you are expecting a ‘yes/no’ response from me concerning your question, I’d get me a big glass of buttermilk and cornbread were I you, for a long time awaiteth thee…”

In addition to stating that he was “stunned” by Peter’s comment, Burleson further lamented,

“The very concern that Dwight raises within his on-line letter is proven by and unfortunate comment that epitomizes white, Southern aristocracy over African Americans”

The implacable conservative blogging community (without exception other than Les Puryear) rushed to Peter Lumpkins’ defense and Wade Burleson’s attack. This community all pronounced Peter Lumpkins innocent and Wade Burleson guilty.

Bart Barber referred to Wade’s post about Peter as a “sad case”…The nature of his ‘cornbread-buttermilk’ comment was evident to me the first time I read it: Derogatory in the spirit of a rhetorically charged argument, but not racial at all in its implications.” To Bart’s credit and somewhat in alignment with Wade’s viewpoint Bart characterized Lumpkins’ statement as “Derogatory in the spirit of a rhetorically charged argument….”. The title of Barber’s post was, “Taking His Lumpkins”, which implies that Burleson’s post was an unfair or unfounded attack on Peter Lumpkins. In one context though Barber found Lumpkins’ remarks as “derogatory”.

Robin Foster referred to Wade’s post on “cornbread and buttermilk” as “political expediency.” This certainly calls into question the innocence and purity of Wade’s motives by Brother Robin.  As a matter of fact, Robin entitled his post (that he later took down in an effort – to his credit – to bring closure to this discussion) “The Games We Play For Political Expediency”.

Tim Guthrie stated, “The attacks on Peter Lumpkins are a proving and defining moment in this debate.”  Guthrie summarizes that Wade’s post and the SBC Reform movement in general should be viewed as “rebellion” not dissent.  Guthrie acknowledges that these are “strong words”.  Robin Foster commenting in the comment section of Guthrie’s post stated, “What happened to Peter is inexcusable.”  An anonymous commenter on Guthrie’s comment section said,

“What Wade tried to do to Peter Lumpkins is beyond words to me. … From my observations … Wade seems very underhanded.  Everything he does is for his own personal gain, but he makes it appear to be for the benefit of others.”

This anonymous writer also calls for Wade to apologize to Peter along with Ron P. and others who called for Wade to apologize.

David Worley weighed in on Peter Lumpkins’ comment section on his original post in response to Wade’s “Cornbread – Buttermilk” post.

David said,

“Wade ought to be completely ashamed of such an out an out, blatant attempt to personally attack you, he has tried to make something out of nothing, something he seems to love to do. … Peter, I’m sorry that you have been personally attacked in such a slanderous, low life way”

I also recall, David, also referring to anybody who would consider Peter’s “cornbread – buttermilk” remark as racist as basically unintelligent.  I recall Robin Foster referring to Peter’s remark as “unfortunate” although he did not attach any sinister motives to Peter’s remark.

Wade Burleson has been scandalized, vilified and his SBC denominational life has been “eulogized” behind his post.  Words like “exploited”, “manipulated”, “dishonest”, “race baiting”, “publicity hunting” and “squat”, have been hurled toward Burleson as a result of his post.  His intelligence and integrity have been called into question repeatedly behind this post.  ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.  Whatever happed to communicating with “civility, clarity and charity” in the blogsphere.  Well, the “clarity” is without question here.

Burleson is a man with a strong constitution and has weathered much stronger attacks before.  He has not asked for nor does he need my defense.  I simply can’t stand a man being unnecessarily piled upon and bashed like this – in my judgment – without a sufficient cause.  I admire a man with Wade’s character, courage, communication skills and his willingness at great risk and harm to himself to  put his neck on the line to serve, protect, defend and encourage others.  Quite frankly, one of the reasons I remain a Southern Baptist is because of the example of Christ and if I may so, Martin Luther King that I’ve seen in Wade Burleson.  WADE and RACHELLE, KNOW THAT YOU’RE, LOVED VALUED AND APPRECIATED by me and the Cornerstone Church.

Peter Lumpkins is a man I’ve never met but have enjoyed a long phone conversation and an exchange of a couple of emails.  I think Peter missed a golden opportunity to lay this matter to rest when he didn’t adhere to Robin Foster’s inquiry about withdrawing his post.  And, yes Peter, I too have not adhered to some of Robin’s advice.

Peter, after our wonderful conversation, my assumption was that you would post a wonderful article as you did basically stating that I accepted your explanation, and I was going to ask Wade to withdraw his post, which I did and he did and that would be the end of this – until our lunch meeting in Atlanta later this month where we could meet each other face to face and continue the fellowship and dialogue.  I still look forward to our Atlanta meeting.

However, when I read your “joy in the morning” post I was disheartened when I saw the attack on Burleson continue.  Peter, you stated

“While things are at peace with Pastor McKissic and myself, this blant political maneuver by Mr. Burleson to grab attention for himself and to be the ‘hero of the downtrodden’ by righteously defending those whom he perceives to be treated unjustly at what price?  The godless slandering of another?  No thanks, Mr. Burleson.  Our loving God possesses more loving methods at His disposal than doing wrong in the name of right.”

Peter, before I address the “cornbread – buttermilk” remark, I want to let you know how much I appreciated the wonderful things that I learned about you on Robin Foster’s blog.  WOW!  I don’t impress easily but I must say that I was impressed.  Some people have made symbolic stands related to race, like standing against the Confederate Flag as my friend Tim Rogers had done.  Dr. Paige Patterson stood against the use of the Confederate Flag at SWBTS.  I also commend him.  (Tim is a genuine friend so please don’t interpret the prior comment negatively).  Brother Robin’s “Galatians 3:28 Leader” concerning you was one of the best articles I’ve ever read on racial justice and putting actions behind words.  The SBC could use your example and leadership here.  Kudos!  Love and respect to you brother.

Peter, since you understood this principle, and put into practice in the academy and church you worked in Georgia, why did you express in the full quote at SBC Today that started this that you did not allow all Anglo employment in high places at the E.C. to determine a statement about African Americans being welcome at the pinnacle levels of leadership in the SBC?  Your example in Georgia – seem to contradict your ideology expressed at SBC Today.  I still would love for you to give a definitive answer to the question, originally asked at SBC Today that you refused to answer.  I assure that I will press you for an answer when we meet.

Finally, let me address your “cornbread – buttermilk” remark.  I did not realize that your comment was potentially explosive until I walked in my secretary’s office and she was obviously emotionally jarred.  I asked what was the matter and she asked me had I read your “cornbread – buttermilk” remark?  I remembered having read it, but honestly, I was so anxious to read a more substantive, definitive answer to my question, that your remark initially went “right over my head.”  But after I ministered to my secretary and attempted to calm her down, because her immediate response was identical to Wade’s I then went back to the computer on my desk and read it consciously and soberly and then I fully understood her reaction and later Wade’s reaction.

Let me illustrate: If Dr. William J. Shaw, president of the NBC was in a”blogversation” with Dr. Frank Page, president of the SBC discussing a theological/ecclesiastical/convention issue and in the midst of the dialogue, Frank Page stated (hypothetically speaking),

“You might as well get some cornbread and buttermilk, because I’m not going to answer your question”,

would I be incensed and enraged, if I read that in the newspaper or the blogs.  Absolutely!  I would be baffled to understand, why would Dr. Page speak to Dr. Shaw with such a “derogatory”, dismissive and disrespectful tone.  And yes, I would question, would he have spoken this way and used those choice of words in a discussion with an Anglo preacher or president of a sister convention.  If Frank Page explained that there was not racial intent to his remarks, I would give him the benefit of the doubt as I have done with you.  However, I would then question, where has Dr. Page been that he did not recognize that the imagery of a Black man eating cornbread and drinking buttermilk in the South, carries with it a racial stereotype similar to eating watermelon, red Kool-Aid, fried chicken, chitterlings and pig feet.  Yes, I understand that these are Southern foods consumed by all races in the South, but pictures of Aunt Jemima and the African American brother whose name escapes me, have been on cornmeal boxes for years because, these images were associated with Blacks.  I take your word for it that you didn’t know about this racial imagery but I assure you, the vast majority of Black America over 45-50 years of age immediately recognizes this imagery.  Was Peter Lumpkins’ remark offensive?  Yes!  Did I choose to be offended?  No!  Because of how Black America view the imagery you used, Wade does not owe anyone an apology, if anything, he is owed an apology.  Since I believe both of you are totally innocent, perhaps the two of you will prayerfully consider apologizing to each other for choosing to interpret each others’ remarks in the worst possible light. 

ENOUGH.  We’ve made peace  I accept your explanation.  I pray that you and Wade have a healing in the relationship between the two of you .  I invite and encourage they implacable and irenic conservative bloggers to try and schedule a prayer meeting together in Indianapolis in June – where we don’t discuss politics, we simply pray.

And yes, when we meet in Atlanta, I look forward to enjoying a meal with you of fried chicken and collard greens.  I’ll let you drink the buttermilk.  J  LOVE YA, MAN.  I trust that I’ve said nothing to offend you Peter or Wade in this post.

Dwight

 

MY RESPONSE TO TIM GUTHRIE’S POST ON THE TBN INTERVIEW

I’m disappointed that some bloggers have misrepresented what I said on TBN. Thank God that the video recording vindicates me and documents the fact that I in no wise advocated moving the SBC to “a open charismatic position”, unless you consider the positions of the late SWBTS professor Dr. Jack Gray, Dr. Jack McGorman, Dr. Ken Hemphill, Evangelist Billy Graham “to be an open charismatic position.” The position that I stated on tongues is the position I’ve always stated at SWBTS Chapel, KCBI Radio interviews and debate at the SBC in San Antonio, on my blog and elsewhere. Please don’t hold me accountable for what any other guest on TBN might have stated or how they prayed. I stand by what I said 100%. Debbi is right, I said nothing that I have not already stated in SBC venues. Unless one consider the results of the Lifeway poll which indicated that 50% of Southern Baptist Pastors who believe that a private prayer language is a legitimate gift of the Holy Spirit is inaccurate, then I was advocating a Baptist and biblical position, not an “open charismatic position.”

My “ just do it “ comment was in reference to praying in the Spirit, which I clearly expressed that I’m not convinced that all believers must pray in tongues in order to pray in the Spirit. Whether one defines praying in the Spirit as praying with words understood under the influence and control of the Spirit (Ephesians 6:18; Jude 20), or praying  with words not understood under the influence and control of the Spirit (I Cor. 14:2) or even without words under the influence and control of the Spirit which would include silence, meditation, groans, moans or sighs(Romans 8:26,27; John 11:33,38)—my  answer to the host question regarding the necessity of all believers to pray in the Spirit was—“Just Do It”, meaning, praying in the Spirit based on any one of the three ways I defined it above. I believe when persons pray in English or their native tongue under the influence of the Holy Spirit they are praying in the Spirit. I do not believe that it is necessary to pray in tongues in order to pray in the Spirit and I made that clear. Unfortunately, you chose to misrepresent my viewpoint.

There was no attack by me or anyone else on the panel from my vantage point on Dr. Paige Patterson. Here again, I’ve been falsely accused by you. There was simply a restating of the facts—no attack. Certainly if you don’t consider Dr. Patterson’s press release stating that my chapel message was “harmful” to the churches was an attack on me, then I don’t understand why my referencing his public press release would be an attack on Dr. Patterson.

The only desire that myself and the panelist on TBN have for the SBC is that we experience a revival in America likened unto the 1^st and 2^nd great awakenings. I hope that you would correct this post or take it down—because it simply is not true. Finally, one of the problems with this subject matter is the fact that the SBC has no official position on praying in tongues in private. I believe it is high time that the SBC adopts an official position and that would settle the controversy in the SBC surrounding these issues.

 I close with quotes from two men in the SBC that I value and respect dearly who addressed the issue of tongues long before the current IMB tongues controversy. However, I find their comments relevant today. Dr Billy Graham stated:

    “ Although there is honest disagreement among Christians about the 

     validity of tongues today. I personally cannot find any biblical jus-

     tification for saying the gift of tongues was meant exclusively for

     New Testament times … Indeed, tongues is a gift of the Spirit …

     Today there are Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, and

     Methodists, as well as Pentecostals, who speak or have spoken in

     tongues.” ( Billy Graham, The Holy Spirit (Dallas: Word, 1988), pp 226,234.

  

Dr. Jimmy Draper stated in The Church Christ Approves regarding tongues:

    “Primarily a private gift.—The restrictions on the public use of this

    gift are such that the primary use has to be private. Paul said, “I

    thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: yet in the

    church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that

    by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in

    an unknown tongue” (I Cor. 14:18-19). He apparently spoke in

    tongues in private, but in public he preferred to speak his natural

    language.” (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1974) p. 57

  Dr. Draper also stated in The Church Christ Approves:

  

      “Only the sovereign Holy Spirit has a right to forbid or command

      in personal devotions!” (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1974) p. 55

  

As it relates to the issue of tongues in SBC life today, many who serve on our trustee boards and post or comment on blogs have taken on the role of in Draper’s words “a sovereign Holy Spirit.”  How unfortunate for the SBC.

 

SBC Competing Visions: Implacable vs. Irenic Conservatives

Go to http://www.sbcoutpost.com/ to read the above article.

 

Notes for Debate On Tongues with Russell Moore

While I’m preparing to do a post in the near future on the competing visions in the Southern Baptist Convention for those who log on to my Blog looking for something new, I thought I would share with you the notes that I used to guide my discussion/debate with Russell Moore at the Criswell College booth at the recent SBC Convention.  I hope this clarifies any misunderstandings about my belief and I would welcome dialogue on this matter. 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________ 

Statement on Praying in Tongues in Private By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.

Southern Baptist Convention

San Antonio, Texas

KCBI Radio Interview/Criswell College Booth

June 11, 2007

 Opening Statement The inerrant, infallible word of God addresses the subject of praying in tongues in private. It is my goal to provide the scriptural basis for the validity and legitimacy of believers gifted by the Holy Spirit to pray in tongues in private. It is not my belief that every believer has the gift of praying in tongues. It is not my belief that believers who pray in tongues are spiritually superior to believers who do not pray in tongues. It is not my argument that tongues is the evidence of the baptism or filling of the Holy Spirit. It is not my position that believers should pray or speak in tongues publicly unless there is interpretation. My thesis is praying in tongues in private is a valid and vital spiritual gift that the Sovereign Holy Spirit equips certain believers with to edify the believer and the church, to glorify and communicate with God uniquely in prayer for His own sovereign purposes.  A Biblical Definition of Praying in Tongues in Private 

1.      Paul clearly envisioned the gift of tongues included prayer to God (1 Cor. 12:10; 14:2, 13-14). Since Paul said, “He who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God,” we know for sure then it is prayer. Furthermore, Paul makes it clear the person speaking in tongues in worship can control it and speak to himself and to God. If a person, speaking in tongues in worship can speak to God then, again, it is prayer. The Bible says in 1 Cor. 14:28, “…and let him speak to himself and to God (emphasis mine).  THE STANDARD HERMENEUTICAL APPROACH IS IF THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE MAKES SENSE, WHY SEEK ANOTHER SENSE?

2.      Praying to God in private tongues involves praise, “If you bless with the spirit,” thanksgiving, “At your giving of thanks” (1 Cor. 14:16), and general communication with God (1 Cor. 14:2).

3.      Praying to God in tongues is not intended to be understood by man because the believer speaks “mysteries” to God (1 Cor. 14:2). The word mystery in the original language means “a hidden or secret thing not obvious to the understanding.”

4.      Praying in tongues, in private, is speaking to God in a language not understood by man, “For no one understands him” (1 Cor. 14:2).

5.      The person who is praying to God in tongues does not understand what he or she is saying. That person is praying as Paul said, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful” (1 Cor. 14:14).

6.      Since the Bible describes tongues as speaking to God and not to men, whether or not the speaking to God would be with words understood (a language known on the face of the earth) or not understood (unintelligible or indeterminate speech) is somewhat irrelevant. Whatever the speech consists of, it is still prayer to God (1 Cor. 14:2).

7.      Praying to God in tongues in private edifies the believer (1 Cor. 14:4). Paul said, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself….” An edified believer edifies the church and glorifies God.

 Summary Statement 

Tongues is praying to God with words that may or may not be understood by man, but certainly understood by God that edifies the believer, glorifies God, and blesses the body of Christ.

Let’s suppose that praying in tongues in private is a gift of the Holy Spirit. I would hate to be responsible for quenching the Spirit and prohibiting called missionaries to the ends of the earth to preach the gospel simply because of their private prayer practice that they believe is based upon God’s inerrant and infallible word.

 

Setting the Record Straight About My Resignation and My Displeasure with the Media Reports

Resignation 

Letter

June 20, 2007

Dear Dr. McClain:

It was a delight seeing you in San Antonio. Our relationship got off to a rough and rocky start in the aftermath of my chapel sermon, but from my vantage point we finally experienced genuine healing and reconciliation. I accepted our mutual words of grace and “putting the past behind” as genuine. I deeply appreciated the affirmation and mercy that you extended toward me in our April trustee meeting, which in turn bought an extension of mercy and longsuffering from others. Know that I genuinely and deeply respect, value and appreciate you for who you are and the work that you do. I regret whatever pain and frustration that I caused Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary from the very beginning of my tenure as a trustee until today. As you know, Dr. Patterson and I have also discussed our mutual misunderstanding(s) and pain related to my actions, and his response, and we also experienced a time of genuine healing and reconciliation. Although as with you, he and I still view some issues quite differently. My love, respect and appreciation for Dr. Patterson remains strong in spite of these differences.Know that my love for SWBTS will also remain. I am in part who I am because of the training I received at SWBTS. I shall forever be grateful for the training I received there. Our church has made an annual or bi-annual contribution to SWBTS for the past ten years and we will continue to do so. In 1983, our church was birthed through the cooperative efforts of NAMB, BGCT, and the Tate Springs Baptist Church of Arlington, which was at that time pastored by Rev. Charles Clary, a SWBTS alumnus. I maintain a good relationship with Brother Charles to this day. He preached for us last year, and we’ve supported his mission work in New Mexico. Little did I know when I shared with him my beliefs, practices and teachings as it relates to praying in tongues in private, which was prior to his sponsoring our church as a mission, that ours was a match made in heaven. My sense of belonging in the Southern Baptist Convention has been reaffirmed due to the recent Lifeway poll, which revealed that a majority of our people accept my views and practice on this issue. I had never before thought that Southern Baptists were afraid or uneasy with my views on this issue, that is, until my August 29, 2006 chapel sermon when I discovered how intense and how substantial (although, according to the Lifeway poll in the minority) the opposition to my position and practice was or is. Nevertheless, because our church was birthed through the church planting efforts of the SBC and Brother Charles, and because the Lifeway poll and the recent affirmative vote of the EC motion on the role of the BF&M in Baptist life, our church will remain Southern Baptist for the foreseeable future and I will continue to morally, prayerfully and financially support the SBC and her entities as long as I see hope that the convention is moving in what I consider to be the right direction. The Lifeway poll regarding “private prayer language,” the EC, BF&M vote at the recent San Antonio convention, and the recent revisions of the IMB “tongues” policy that reflect a step in the right direction are all positive changes that breathed new life into me. Actually these actions energized me as it relates to my appreciation of and affiliation with SBC. Ibelieve God used me to contribute in some small way to assist in bringing about these positive changes. It is my prayer that IMB, NAMB and SWBTS will soon reflect the biblical viewpoint that Dr. Patterson so eloquently articulated in his SWBTS report in San Antonio and that is, restrictions and Pauline regulations with regard to public tongues and freedom and privacy with regard to private tongues. If the IMB had never adopted their tongues policy our convention would not be embroiled in this controversy, which will surely continue until the Indianapolis convention next summer. If our policies reflected the results of the Lifeway poll, I believe it would offer a truer picture of Southern Baptists as a whole. Nevertheless, I remain committed to the SBC and hope to see you in Indianapolis at the convention if not before.Finally, I’ve come to the purpose of this correspondence: Effective the above date, I am submitting my resignation as a trustee of SWBTS. I shall always be grateful and honored for the opportunity to have served the SBC and SWBTS this past year. As stated above my love and support will remain. However, my involvement as a trustee has been a huge distraction from my ministry priorities for the past nine months. I’ve devoted too much mental, physical, emotional and even spiritual energy to matters resulting from the aftermath of my chapel sermon. I’ve been distracted and consumed with SBC/SWBTS matters the past nine months in a way that I haven’t been the past 24 years of pastoring an SBC church. It has taken a tremendous toll on my family and ministry, and my wife believes it has negatively impacted my health. I simply want to return to the place I was prior to being a trustee.The time and attention that I’ve given to SBC/SWBTS issues since my chapel sermon, I must now once again devote to my family and the Cornerstone Church. Furthermore, I don’t want any possible future relationships or involvements with other missions or ministry opportunities to in anywise be misconstrued as a conflict of interest with my role as a trustee at SWBTS. I do not want my exercise of freedom of speech or freedom of associations in any way to create conflicts of interest or violations of SWBTS policies. Therefore, I must resign.This letter is much too long, but because my relationships with you, SWBTS and Paige Patterson are so precious to me, I wanted to make sure that I communicated to you from the bottom of my heart so that it would hopefully reduce significantly any potential misunderstanding growing out of my resignation. Dr. McClain, know that I’m available to assist as a friend of SWBTS in any way I possibly can. I’ve always done whatever SWBTS has asked me to do from the time of Dr. Dilday through the Patterson presidency. If asked, I will continue to do so. Enough said! God bless SWBTS, Dr. Paige Patterson, the Board of Trustees, and may He bless you.I’m forwarding copies to the persons listed below because I want them to learn of this from me first based on their office or our historic friendships.Sincerely in Christ,Rev. Wm. Dwight McKissic,

Sr. Senior Pastor

My Response to Media Accounts 

June 22, 2007 - 

 The Star Telegram reporter Bret Hoffman called my home about 10:30 pm Thursday.  I told him as I told Sam Hodges of the Dallas Morning News my letter says all that I want to say at this time.  Reporter Sam Hodges of the Dallas Morning News stated, if I did not talk to them, my side of the story would not be reflected therefore what I really wanted to say might misrepresented.   When Brett Hoffman asked about Dr. Klouda I said, “No comment” and that was the total extent of our conversation concerning that issue.  I have made no recent comments on the Klouda case and don’t necessarily plan to address this issue directly.   Be assured that I have no attack pieces planned for SWBTS.  I do plan to do a post of my reflections on the SBC in the aftermath of the San Antonio convention in 10 days, but it will be in the same tenor and tone that I presented in my resignation letter. Unfortunately, Brett Hoffman pulled articles from the past to use for his wording concerning the Klouda issue.  Be assured the same spirit found in my letter is the one I maintain.  I have no reason to be adversarial or antagonistic.   I regret the media’s exploitation of this situation.  A good friend that I choose to leave unnamed revealed this to the media.  Although he stated that it was “off the record” and I believe him I was very disappointed that he shared this and I have told him so.  The reason I did not want the media to be notified of this was so that I could avoid this kind of unbalanced reporting and unnecessary attention that my resignation could possibly cause.  I’m very sorry.  In no way do I want to cast any negative aspersions on SWBTS as a result of my resignation.