In my sabbatical from most all things controversial in the SBC, I've happened across a few blogpost titles about Dr. Patterson allowing a Muslim to enroll at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I had not once considered reading them until yesterday. Planned on doing that today, but still had not gotten around to it.
I've really tired of the beating and finger-pointing and posturing and simply had no desire to peek into the pages of the latest attack on Paige Patterson. I've even kinda adopted the same feelings as he shared a few years ago when he was asked to be part of another controversial SBC matter.
When I first read the flying reports about the man I affectionately refer to as Dr. P., I sat back and scratched my head a bit. However, knowing what little I know about Dr. P., I deeply trusted that he must have an eternal purpose in mind for the situation. Lord knows the hoary headed old fella is tired of the battles in the convention; he's said so himself when he was dealing with all those young and restless yuppies (my descriptor), wanting to change the name of the convention to Great Commission Baptists/link. (Irony of ironies that the same who wanted to be known as "Great Commission Baptists" now seek to block a non-believer from hearing indepth teaching about the commission itself, isn't it?)
Until reading Peter Lumpkins' post today I didn't know that it be "the man from Enid" who had his knickers in a knot over the situation. For me, given the source of what Peter describes as "the dumbfounding outrage against Patterson himself for desiring to practice what God knows we all need to practice more—connecting one-on-one evangelistically", I am not surprised there is yet one more attempt to take down the old man in Dallas. I do wonder if the man north of me enjoys stirring the waters of controversy regarding the honorable Dr. Patterson, though. I wonder if he has never quite been able to free himself from the chains of ire he has held for Dr. P for nigh onto a decade of my life.
More than the fact that a president of one of our seminaries has dared to allow a professing unbeliever in the midst of we baptized, white-robed and righteous Baptists, it makes me wonder if perhaps doctrine is more an issue with the naysayers than the actual audacity of the white-haired saint in Texas. After all, Dr. P believes we should share the gospel message to all, believing that whosoever believes on the name of Jesus, confesses his sin and turns from his wicked ways will actually receive eternal life provided by the shed blood offering for all who trust in Him. Jesus. The cross. The blood. The propitiation. The justification. The sanctification. And eventually, the glorification.
Is Dr. P's critic more inclined to believe it's already a done deal? that this Muslim has already been predestined to his lot in life and therefore his presence at our holy of holy seminaries puts both in jeopardy? That the Word he studies will just come back void, anyway? Could this Muslim possibly taint the propriety of our seminary's campus? Could he defile the seats upon which he sits in various classrooms? Could the air he expels in class somehow infect the masses of good men studying how to share the gospel in its wholeness and entirety? Is SWBTS in jeopardy of being destroyed because we've allowed some "Trojan Horse" into the camp?
I don't think so. It's no more sinful to allow this unbeliever to study the depths of faith in God than it is to invite a Muslim to our churches to hear the gospel preached and the Bible taught in our Bible studies each week. I well remember the day I assured a Muslim lady it would be perfectly okay to bring her little Muslim boy to our VBS and equally as proper for her to sit with him in class to help interpret what the teachers were telling him about Jesus each day. Was I wrong, too? God knows.
[Another writer weighs in on Paige Patterson's decision to allow Muslim to attend a Christian seminary...HERE]
Recent Comments