Tolerable criticism?

I really do not wish to engage this issue for very long, but it has been gnawing at me for a week or so. In a recent post on his blog, Jeremy L. Green of Joshua Convergence glory has taken the mantle of Merriam-Webster and defined for his readership certain terms that constitute a part of a “Liberal Lexicon.”

Before I state my immediate concern, I should note that my first reading of Green’s glossary-of-sorts revealed the degree to which Mr. Green should have consulted a dictionary himself for the correct spelling and/or definition of the word “depreciatory.” I assume that Mr. Green meant “deprecatory,” but that is beside the point.

In his post, Green chose to define the neologism “McKissicgate,” which must have been employed at some point by some person to refer to the recent censorial edict by the president of Southwestern Seminary that limited public access to the chapel sermon of his own trustee, Dwight McKissic of Arlington, TX. I will be writing more about this later.

But Green, whose presence in the Southern Baptist blogosphere has grown into a blind — if not bland — apologetic for all things Pattersonian, is also a “special status” student and aspiring doctoral candidate at the Fort Worth seminary. Here is how Green speaks of Dwight McKissic, a trustee at the very institution where he now pursues his own theological education:

“McKissicgate” – this is a derogatory term employed by moderates and liberals of the decision made by Dr. Patterson to not allow a certain chapel message to be posted to the official SWBTS website due to Dr. McKissic’s criticism of a sister agency’s Board of Trustees. This term is employed in spite of Dr. McKissic’s apparent attempt to 1) ridicule the IMB’s Board of Trustees, 2) betray the trust invested in him by Dr. Patterson and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 3) incorrectly attribute his practice of speaking in tongues to cultural influences, and 4) essentially portraying Southern Baptists as racists because they overwhelming disagree with his erroneous interpretation of speaking in tongues.

Green suggests that McKissic attempted to “betray the trust” of the seminary president, “ridicule” the IMB trustees, appropriate a culturally-bound hermeneutic, and portray Southern Baptists as “racists” on account of his “erroneous interpretation.” Essentially, Green accuses an authorized, duly-elected trustee of the institution where he now matriculates of ignorance, racist bias, and betrayal.

And here we thought Patterson didn’t allow students to speak in unflattering terms about institutional authorities and ministries? We thought that was a violation of the student code of conduct? We thought such action necessitated Patterson’s unilaterally-imposed disciplinary action?

But no, this does not happen. Instead, Patterson sits quietly while a student under his watchcare enters the blogosphere to accuse the character and malign the motives of the highest of seminary authorities — a sitting trustee.

Now of course, I believe that Green should be allowed to continue blogging, and I don’t have any problem with the way that Green chooses to express himself. He often resembles a kindergarten boy marching around the garage wearing his daddy’s boots, but I rather enjoy the sight.

And sometimes I wonder if Green sees the current crises in the Southern Baptist Convention like a rutting season for all young bucks aiming to get a piece of the action before it’s too late. Nevertheless, I hope he continues blogging and thinking and studying to show himself approved unto God. Maybe next time the Joshuas converge, he can scrape his antlers like those whom we’ve had the good fortune to watch via YouTube.

I merely want to point out — once again — the inconsistency of Pattersonian adjudication. He measures with two scales. He plays with loaded dice. He condemns one to his death, and another he enthrones. He chooses to bless and curse whomever he will, solely because it is his good pleasure.

Watching Patterson work leaves one wondering what makes him disdain Calvinists so. They are merely affirming the kind of sovereign governance over the universe that Patterson prefers for his own institutional administration.