There was a lot of anticipation leading up to this vote and a lot of disappointment from my friends and family after the votes were counted. But I truly feel like Question #1 was the wrong question to ask. The real question that should be asked is, “Should the government have any authority in deciding who can and who cannot be married?”

In my opinion, the government has no say in who can be married. When I think of marriage, I think of it in Christian terms. I am married to my wife before God – not before the government. If the government one day decided that my marriage to Kati was invalid (or illegal) it would not make me any less married to her. I think this entire movement is completely flawed because it is based on a false idea. Because for 200 years married people have given the government the right to determine who is and who isn’t married. But the government does not care about what “marriage” is… to the government, “marriage” is a tax status, a certificate, a formal partnership. Basically to the government, a marriage is just like a Limited Liability Company.

In this post, I do not plan on taking a position on whether or not same-sex marriage is acceptable. But I do believe, in a country that claims that all people should be afforded the same rights, than same-sex couples should be given the same rights as all other couples. In my opinion, the best way to do this is to fight to stop the government from recognizing “marriage” at all. If the government wants to keep track of the tax status of formally united couples, then there should be a “certificate of unity” (or whatever they want to call it) given to any couple who chooses to do so and the government can determine who is and who is not qualified to get such a certificate.

This way, anyone who wishes to “marry” can do so before God, on His terms. This might not work at all, but I think it is the best solution. You can campaign to Republicans who want smaller government and you can campaign to homosexuals who want equal rights. What do you guys think about this as a possible solution?

Launched in July 2008, the Amethyst Initiative is made up of chancellors and presidents of universities and colleges across the United States. These higher education leaders have signed their names to a public statement that the problem of irresponsible drinking by young people continues despite the minimum legal drinking age of 21, and there is a culture of dangerous binge drinking on many campuses. 1

As it currently stands, 18 year olds are allowed to smoke, drive, join the military, get married, open lines of credit, vote, etc. but you are not allowed to drink a glass of wine with dinner, or have a beer with friends. The Amethyst Initiative was started as a way to prevent Alcohol abuse among young adults. Their theory is that if 18 year old College Students are allowed to drink, then they will drink more responsibly. The reason why they do not drink responsibly now is because they’re not allowed to do it at all.

I started to drink when I was about 16. We drank and got drunk. It wasn’t a weekly occurrence for me, but when we drank, we did it with the idea that we were going to get drunk. I believe the Amethyst organization believes that if we were allowed to drink, then we wouldn’t need to find excuses to buy an excess amount of alcohol to get drunk. It would be a more casual thing for everyone. It seems to make sense, in a way.

By the way, Amethyst “is derived from the Ancient Greek words meaning ‘not’ (a-) and ‘intoxicated’ (methustos). According to mythology, Amethyst was a young girl who incurred the wrath of the God Dionysus after he became intoxicated with red wine.” 2

Personally, I think that drinking at 8 is fine. There are whole countries that have no limit on the drinking age, many of which have lower alcohol related tragedies than America. I also believe that God does not condemn drinking alcohol.

What are your thoughts on all of this?

Here are some more articles about this:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/08/18/college.drinking.age.ap/
http://gpbnews.blogspot.com/2008/08/ga-college-presidents-want-to-cut.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,418822,00.html

Here is the email:

Integrity In Ministry: A Word From The President’s Heart

By

Daniel L. Akin

For 30 plus years I have been burdened for the personal integrity of those in the ministry. The reasons are simple. Integrity is a biblical requirement (1 Tim 3:1). And, the respect for those in ministry is at a low ebb, especially in our nation. Of course one major area of importance is how ministers conduct themselves with the opposite sex. I have always challenged fellow pastors to make a rock solid, non-negotiable commitment: “I will never be alone with a woman who is not my wife.” This commitment and conviction has not always been applauded. I have been accused of being a Pharisee, legalist, sexist and Neanderthal. I was once accused of having “psycho-sexual hang-ups in need of therapy!” But praise God and by His grace, I have never been accused of adultery because in almost 30 years of marriage, I have never been alone with a woman other than Charlotte. I have no plans to change this.

Sexual temptation is a powerful reality, and a wise person will never forget that no matter how much you love Jesus, “the wrong person plus the wrong place plus the wrong time will equal the wrong thing happening.” Look no further than to the tragic story of King David, a man the Bible says was after God’s own heart.

Sexual immorality exacts a heavy price tag. It will cause you to dishonor Christ, wound the church, break the heart of your mate and lose forever the respect of your children. That is a price only a fool would pay.

This issue was brought to my mind again in a recent blog by my friend Ed Stetzer. By the way, I am excited to tell you that Dr. Stetzer is going to join our faculty as a visiting research professor. Personally I am thrilled we will get to share him with our friends at LifeWay. In Ed’s blog he referenced the “The Commandments for Saddleback Staff” by Rick Warren. Here is Rick’s list.

1. Thou shalt not go to lunch alone with the opposite sex.*

2. Thou shalt not have the opposite sex pick you up or drive you places when it is just the two of you.*

3. Thou shalt not kiss any attender of the opposite sex or show affection that could be questioned.*

4. Thou shalt not visit the opposite sex alone at home.*

5. Thou shalt not counsel the opposite sex alone at the office, and thou shalt not counsel the opposite sex more than once without that person’s mate. Refer them.

6. Thou shalt not discuss detailed sexual problems with the opposite sex in counseling. Refer them.

7. Thou shalt not discuss your marriage problems with an attender of the opposite sex.

8. Thou shalt be careful in answering emails, instant messages, chatrooms, cards or letters from the opposite sex.

9. Thou shalt make your co-worker your protective ally.

10. Thou shalt pray for the integrity of other staff members.

*The first four do not apply to unmarried staff.

These are wise words for any minister of any sex or age. These are principles that will help us in finishing the race well for King Jesus. Integrity as it relates to your sex life is not optional for the minister of the gospel. It is essential. Take the high road in this area. Be cautious and be careful. Stay close to Jesus and stay close to your mate. End your race with no regrets. It will glorify God, and you will be glad you did. I love you, and thank God for the honor of serving you here at Southeastern Seminary. What a blessed man I am.

Apparently this was all started become a young Christian woman was accused of blaspheming Muhammad. A young man who was 20 died, the article does not say if he was a Christian or not. Here are the other reported losses in this article:

• On the following morning the youth attacked her house accompanied by a crowd
• triggering a rampage in which police and Christians were attacked and their homes and churches destroyed.
• Elsewhere, a Baptist church and a Deeper Life church were set ablaze
• A car owned by a local Christian that was parked close to the churches was also destroyed in the blaze.
• six Christian-owned houses had been razed to the ground

Although it is devastating to lose your buildings, cars, sense of security, etc. to senseless violence, I ask, “What was Lost?”

In the olden days, when Rome ruled the world, it was quite common to convert all the people of a nation to Catholicism. If you were a citizen, then you were Catholic. This was when the church and state were one. My question to you all is this: Do we really want the United States to become a Christian Nation?

If everyone in the United States were a Christian, there would be a few issues that we’d have to deal with. First, who would they share the gospel with (apart from their newborns)? Second, who would they disciple as new believers? Third, how would they influence the world?

It seems to me that God already has a nation… or a “Kingdom” and he has sent it into the world. A “Christian Nation” would not only be impossible from a obedience stand-point, but also would be impossible from a logistical stand-point. If everyone in the U.S. were Christian, then there would be no one in the U.S. For all would be obedient in sharing the gospel and discipling the Lost. So the U.S. would be empty and then ultimately be filled with non-believers.

What do you think? Should the U.S. strive to become a Christian nation? Are there more logistical issues with being a Christian nation? Are my concerns invalid?

There is no direct command from Scripture or from God (that I know of) to prevent a Christian from being directly involved in the government. However, I sense that it would be wisest for a Christian to refrain from being too involved.

With that said, I would also like to say that I feel that it is extremely important for a Christian to know and understand what is happening in their governments (and the worlds governments). It is important to helps us know and understand the issues, be able to discern the truth, and even be able to be able to foresee and prepare for future events. We can take an active role in the goverment most of all by being prepared for the future.

I would like to thank everyone who took part in this series. Your comments and challenges were excellent. I think we had some very civil conversations through this series. Considering the topics, I think it went very well.

For a reference, here are the topics I discussed in this series:
Christians and the Government – An introduction to the topics.
Christians and Politics – Should Christians be involved in politics and hold political offices?
Christians and Voting – Should Christians exercise their American given right to vote?
Christians and Lobbying – Should Christians protest and lobby their government?
Christians and Military – What role should a Christian play in their governments military?
Christians and the Pledge – Should Christians recite the pledge or pledge their allegiance to a country?
Christians and the Court – Should a Christian be a judge or part of a jury?
The Other Side – A recent article from BP News taking the opposite position from my own (esp. regarding voting).

I hope you all enjoyed this series. As I said, there was some really great conversation, I appreciate all your participation!

Here is the article:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)–Evangelicals have a pitiful record when it comes to voting. Over the last 30 years, on average only half of eligible evangelicals took the time and made the effort to go to vote in a general election for a president, and far fewer bothered to vote in the primaries.

It’s fair to ask, “So what?” Does this really matter to God? Is He really concerned about the primaries?

At one time I had concluded that perhaps it didn’t. I knew God absolutely was concerned about moral issues in our nation, such as abortion and homosexuality, and as a pastor I passionately represented those concerns in various ways. But I assumed that He probably wasn’t so concerned about such mundane things as elections and voting.

That was until a politically active Christian brother challenged me to study God’s Word on the matter. I did a word study on “justice,” which took me to the Hebrew word “mishphat,” which took me to the first chapter of Isaiah. What I found there rocked my world. From Isaiah 1:10-31, I found undeniable and irrefutable principles regarding our role and responsibility in the civil arena — principles that should drive us to our knees, and then to the polls.

In Isaiah 1:10, the mighty prophet declares: “Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah!” The Lord, in this scathing rebuke, equated the rulers of Judah with the rulers of Sodom. But what had they done that would justify such a harsh comparison?

Isaiah revealed their wickedness in 1:17, where he declared that the nation had failed to “seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.” Isaiah continued the indictment in verse 23, where he proclaimed: “Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widow’s case does not come before them.”

This alarming indictment was because of Judah’s civil sin. The national leadership had failed miserably in key areas of civil responsibility: justice, deliverance from oppression and protection for the helpless. They had also allowed their rulings and policies to be influenced by bribes and “gifts.” God explicitly identified this failure as “evil” in Isaiah 1:16, and equated these civil sins with the depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah in 1:10.

But why would a fair and just God include the general population of Judah in this indictment? These failures came from Judah’s national leadership, not the average person on the street. When we look closely at Judah’s broader history, we find that God had indeed given the people a key role in deciding their leadership.

In Deuteronomy 16:18-19, Moses commanded the people to: “Appoint judges and officials for each of your tribes in every town the LORD your God is giving you, and they shall judge the people fairly. Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe.” God assigned the people the responsibility of appointing fair and just civil leaders in each local area — leaders who would not be tempted by bribes.

In Isaiah’s day, God not only held the leaders accountable for their civil immorality, He held the people accountable for their actions as well.

The principle we draw from this passage is this: When the citizens have a voice in the selection and direction of their civil leaders, God holds both the leaders and the citizens accountable for the civil sins of their government.

It was true of Judah, but is it fair to suggest that God applies this standard to us today? Consider the following:

The citizens of the United States elect the leaders of our nation — leaders who set civil and social policies for our nation, including policies on moral issues such as abortion, “gay marriage,” euthanasia, assisted suicide, and more. The decisions of these leaders directly impact the moral direction of our nation. Therefore, the people’s vote (or failure to vote) ultimately determines our nation’s civil, social, and moral direction.

Furthermore, the president is responsible for appointing members of the federal judiciary. These judges interpret laws and make legal decisions that affect the entire nation. Therefore, the citizen’s role in each election directly impacts every level of government.

Because the American system is a representative form of government, there is an obvious relationship between an elected leader’s actions and the citizens who elected the leader — or who allowed his election by not voting.

It logically follows that God holds the citizens accountable for immoral governmental policies.

God has established universal standards of justice that He expects all nations to uphold and enforce — and the United States is not exempt from these standards. If our government refuses to uphold and enforce them, we shouldn’t be surprised at the judgment that is certain to follow. But even more sobering is the reality that when the citizens choose their leaders, He holds the citizens corporately accountable for the actions of their leaders.

Our vote — or failure to vote — has a direct bearing on not only the election, but on how the Lord will deal with our land. If we fail to vote for candidates that most closely reflect God’s standards — or if we fail to vote — we should not expect to escape the consequences.
–30–
John Revell is editor of SBC Life. This is adapted from “Sinful Silence: When Christians Neglect Their Civic Duty,” by Ken Connor and John Revell.

What do you think?

The third part of the United States is the Judicial part, which includes the Supreme Court and the 9 Justices. The purpose of this branch is to interpret laws according to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme court s the highest court int eh country and only hears cases pertaining to issues related to the Constitution. They have lower courts located in each state to hear cases involving federal issues.

Court has always been a weird subject for Christians. Mainly because there is some pretty obvious teaching about courts in the New Testament. These teaching generally come in the form of what Christians should do with one-another (i.e. not to sue one another but bring their “cases” before one another). I think most conservative Christians would probably agree that we should not be suing each other. This tends to run into some problems in America because we generally hold an entitlement attitude.

What I really want to discuss are the verses that talk about how we Christians should interact with the world. In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul tells us that we really have no business judging “outsiders” – God will judge the world. Now I don’t believe that Paul is specifically talking about the court system here. He is most likely talking about our attitudes towards the lost. However, I think this philosophy should definitely leak into our understanding of our court systems – not only as judges but as juries.

I also sense that this idea of not judging the world leaks into the other government realms, politics, voting, lobbying, etc.

What do you think? I have really been enjoying the conversation going on in this series.

This is the the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In the Pledge you are pledge your allegiance to two things, the Flag (of the United States of America) and to the republic (of the United States of America).

But what does it mean to pledge your allegiance? According to the dictionary Allegiance is “the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign.” This seems like a very awkward thing to do. There are several reasons why I believe one, especially a Christian, should not say the Pledge of Allegiance, or pledge their allegiance to a nation/group/people.

1. If you pledge your allegiance to the U.S. and the U.S. decides to kill all the Irish (just a random example). What position does that put you in? If you go against their wishes, are you going against your pledge?

Some may say that the pledge is to maintain a certain mindset and that if the U.S. goes against that mindset then you are free to take the necessary actions to correct the coarse. But isn’t that really in the eye of the beholder? Doesn’t that really make the pledge of allegiance useless? If anyone can define for themselves the circumstance to which they are pledging, then the pledge becomes meaningless.

2. As Christians we need to remember that we are not really members of this nation, we are part of the kingdom of Heaven. In fact, I have no problem with saying a pledge of allegiance, if it is pledging your allegiance to God and to His kingdom. Being a member of the Kingdom of Heaven means that we are only delegates of the nations we currently reside in.

3. What about other nations? If you pledge your allegiance to the U.S. only, than what does that say about your involvement and consideration for other nations and their people? If you pledge your allegiance to all nations, then what happens if one attacks your nation of residence?

Ultimately I think it is a bad idea to say the Pledge of Allegiance. At the very least because of its potential to put you in murky waters… and at the very most because I believe we should only pledge our allegiance to God.

Thoughts?

The problem is the bible makes no real distinction to support the Just War Theory. Probably a better solution would be to help the citizens of this nation to flee from their nation and find peace until they can return to their homes safely. But this post is not really about whether or not the Just War Theory is a valid or useful theory. What does pertain is whether or not you believe Christians should be a part of the military. There are several problems that arise when Christians join the military.

A Christian who partakes in the military during a time of war is placed in a position where he must hate, kill, or work against his enemies. This is a huge problem in the face of scripture (love your enemies, etc.). He either has to disobey his government or he has to disobey God. I believe that a wise Christian would not purposely put himself in a situation like this.

We know that God used Israel as a nation to destroy other nations. He also used other nations to destroy Israel. This is probably one of the biggest and best arguments for allowing Christians to join the military, unfortunately I sense that it falls flat on its face. The biggest reason is that we have a more recent revelation from God telling us to love our enemies. We also have a better understanding of what God was doing/showing us through the Nation of Israel. I am still confident that God uses nations to bring down and raise up other nations. But as Christians we are not called to be a nation temporally, rather we are a part of a new, better nation.

In the United States there is a draft, drafting its citizens to fight during war periods. There have been many people who have fled during these drafts, and I believe there are ways to get out of the draft (legal ways). I believe it would be best for a Christian to either find a legal way to not be part of a war, or to be a part of the war as someone who does not harm others.

In Luke 3, John the Baptist is talking to people about how they can live repentant lives. In verse 14 he talks to a Soldier, which reads, “{Some} soldiers were questioning him, saying, “And {what about} us, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse {anyone} falsely, and be content with your wages.”

It is interesting that he does not tell them to stop being soldiers. I could make up a million reasons why he did not tell them to stop. Unfortunately for me, I do not feel I have the liberty to make stuff up. The best thing I can say is that I sense that the majority of the evidence in scripture points towards my position and that there are a few verses that seem to go against my position but are not clear enough to do so.

Thoughts?

From time to time a big ticket item hits the nerve of Christian “leaders”. They make calls to people who make calls to people who make calls to other people. Eventually we have all of American Christendom refusing to shop at Walmart because they won’t say Merry Christmas, or refusing to buy a Ford because they support Homosexual rights, etc. There are more “political” examples too, such as, Christian groups lobbying to keep Mexican immigrants out of America.

All of this seems to go against what we need to be doing as Christians. Similarly to running in a political office or voting, these sort of things end up working against us. Not only are we seen as a nuisance to other non-Christians, but we end up ruining and breaking possible future relationships. A great example is immigration. I know many American Christians who want all Mexicans to be removed from America. It seems that this mindset is more American than Christian… not not even very American considering America’s history. I wonder how many of them have considered the consequences that has on their ability to witness to and disciple Mexicans. Not only are you trying to force them out of this country, but you are essentially cutting them off from you as a source for the gospel.

What we need to remember is when we lobbying against something, vote against something, or run against someone/thing then we are causing a division between us and them that usually has nothing to do with the gospel. It is one thing to show someone they are in sin and explain the gospel to them… it is another to take a different stance on Social Security than half the public and have that be the stumbling bloc that prevents you from sharing the gospel with them.

Thoughts?

In the United States, all U.S. citizens are given the right to freely vote. There are probably many who would agree with the Roman citizens of old. If you don’t vote, you are ignorant. Then again, there are definitely some who think only those above a certain IQ or who have proven themselves to be highly intelligent should vote. I am not particularly concerned with these schema. The question I want to answer most is, should Christians vote?

In my past post, Christians and Politics, I basically said that I felt that Christians should not hold any political offices. For similar reasons I believe that Christians should not vote. Here are my thoughts.

First, voting puts Christians in a position to be against the world in a way that does not lead them to the gospel. I may have told this story before, but four years ago I was walking down a street in Maine. Someone had trampled over all of the Bush signs and a few of the Kerry signs. Thinking that it was unfair, I started to fix all of the Bush signs and also the Kerry signs.

As I was fixing the Bush signs, I had people honking at me, flipping me off, and cursing at me. As I was fixing the Kerry signs, I had the same. One guy even pulled over and told me that if I voted for Bush than I could expect to be out of a job. None of these people knew that I was just fixing all the signs, but they saw that I was fixing one candidate and decided that they hated me for it. I was not that into either candidate, I was just trying to be a nice guy. This caused strife and division between me and the world. The strife had nothing to do with the gospel.

Second, when a Christian votes, he will (or should) vote according to his conscience. For instance, he may vote to keep homosexual marriage illegal. Doing this does not help homosexuals in any way. It is not sharing the gospel with them. It only makes them more reactionary against Christians. Now, I do not think homosexuals should marry, but whether or not they do is not my concern… it does not change who I am and what I think marriage is. Voting to keep homosexual marriage illegal does not change who a homosexual is either. What I mean is, whether or not someone is homosexual does not change just because they cannot marry. It would be better to put my resources towards sharing the gospel with homosexuals than to put my resources towards forcing homosexuals to act according to my beliefs. Without Christ a married homosexual is just as bad off as an unmarried homosexual.

Third, at least because of the second reason and possibly because of the first, a Christian voting ultimately goes against separation of Church and State. A Christian will probably always vote in a way that supports his belief system or his religious system over something that goes against his system(s). Although it is not a government sanctioned religion, it is allowing the people to almost make it one.

I think the ultimate reason for not voting is because it places our faith in programs and people instead of placing our faith in God. We should trust that God will rule our lives justly and mercifully.

What do you think about Christians voting?

A quick look at your history books will reveal that what the Puritans desired was quite different than what actually ended up happening. You will see that they became the persecutors and killers. Not only did they cause trouble between the natives, they persecuted other Christians and even other Puritans.

Today, the United States is often seen as a Christian nation from outsiders, it is obvious something quite different to those who live inside. Part of this confusion comes from the fact that mostly people who founded this country were people who in one way or another came from a Christian tradition. The problems that always seemed to happen when the church and state mixed was obvious to the founders of the United States. The first amendment of the United State’s constitution was written as a way to safe guard the state and church.

The first amendment reads,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first part of this text is what is commonly referred to as separation of church and state. Although this text really only helps prevent the state from interfering with the church, it also infers that the government will not hold any one religion above any other – at least, officially.

Separation of church and state is a big deal to Christians. But how far does it go? Does it or should it protect the government from the church? I do not think it does, but I think it should. This is the problem I see with Christians and Politics.

If someone is a Christian and they hold a political office, they will, vote, make laws, etc. according to their conscience. This may not necessarily seem like a bad thing, but the conscience of a Christian is (or should be) much different than the conscience of the world. If the U.S. has a president in office who is a Christian, how can he separate himself from Christ and still be president. In my opinion, a Christian President would do everything in his power to make Abortion Illegal – but wouldn’t that law go against the nature of the world?

In the United States, the president is suppose to listen to the voice of the people – but wouldn’t a Christian President be forced to listen to only one voice, God’s? You may be asking yourself, “is that really a bad thing?” No, not in itself. It would be great if all were Christians, if all listened to God’s voice, but that is not the world we live in. If it were, we wouldn’t need a president or a government – God would be our King and would govern us.

If the U.S. had a Christian President he would have to do one of two things, make decisions against his conscience and for the people or vice-versa. One would go against the whole point of appointing a president, the other would go against a Christian’s world-view.

Based on my understanding of government, God, and man, it is my believe that a follower of Christ should have no role in politics. They should not seek to be president, governor, senator, or any other office. To do so would put them in a situation that is both unfair to the world and unfair to the church. Instead, a follower of Christ should seek to serve the public in spite of the government – not through the government.

Most of these ideas stem from thinking about the Roman Catholic Church. For over a thousand years Roman Catholicism played in world history as a major state power. The government and the church were essentially one after Constantine’s conversion. The Pope was able to coerce Kings, Queens, and their Lord’s to act according to his will. Many atheists refuse to listen to the Christian message because of the crusades that slaughtering many Muslims, Slavs, Mongols, and even other Christians during the medieval period. There are also many controversy with the Catholic Jesuits in the which was a Catholic group started by the Catholic Church. The list could probably go on and on with bad examples that we can see from history.

The main point I want to make in this post is that for over a thousand years, the church and the state were united. When the state did something in history, then the church also did something in history. If the state made a bad or immoral decision, then the church ultimately got blamed. When non-believers look at history, they do not see a normal state with expected corruption. They see a state claiming to be made entirely of converted Christians and they see some of the most horrifying corruption ever.

This series will be about how I think American Christians should act and react to these things. I hope you enjoy this series and I hope you interact with what I have to say.

When you are talking about this topic from the Bible you will almost always be confronted with the concept of speaking in tongues. Mr. McKissic was no exception to this rule. He talked about tongues and endorsed the use of tongues as a spiritual gift by the Holy Spirit. During his sermon he made mention of the current policy set in the International Mission Board (IMB) not allowing any missionary the right to serve in the IMB if they practice the use of tongues or a private prayer language. The policy can be found at: http://www.imb.org/core/story.asp?storyID=3834&LanguageID=1709

There are some who completely disagree with this move by the IMB and Mr. McKissic is one of those people. In his sermon he talked about the use of tongues and that he himself was a practitioner of tongues in his private prayer life. He believes that this policy disqualifies a lot of Baptists who would make excellent missionaries. I have to agree.

So why did I title this blog “Roman Baptists”? Well, it is a little play on words. After the sermon, SWBTS discontinued the ability to download his sermon for free. They did this for two reasons (according to their website). First they did not want to look like they support him in questioning the authority of the IMB and second they fear that his views might be “harmful to the churches.”

Basically it reminds me of Catholicism (at least old-school Catholicism) – if you don’t agree with them, they’ll shut you up. Basically they feared that your views might tear down their institution so they did what was necessary to protect their “precious” institution.

Read an article about this here.
Read SWBTS statement concerning Mr. McKissic’s sermon here.
Read Mr. McKissic’s sermon here.
Read a letter Mr. McKissic wrote to Dr. Patterson (the president of SWBTS) concerning this issue here.