Conservative Teaching @ a Liberal Seminary

I never saw it in the Sword. I never read it more than an issue or two.

With due respect to you my friend (and I genuinely meant that as I am sure you know), I think this is a bit of a straw man. I don't have an answer to it because I don't think it is the right question. Broadly speaking, when you are a part of the institution, I think you have crossed the line. A one day or one week lecturer is not a part of the institution, particularly if they are there for the express purpose of refuting the institution or the positions held. So I think that raises a non-issue.

I also think an academic setting is different in some ways than a ecclesiastical setting, though those lines are real thin sometimes in seminaries. So I don't have a cut and dried answer. For me, it would depend on the individual circumstance.

Obviously each must make the decision for themselves. But the Bible says to mark, confront, and avoid them, not even to give them a greeting. I think there are a number of people who are trying to be more Christian than Christ himself. I think that is questionable at best.

 

I agree with you. However there have have been some conservatives in liberal suits. Just take a look at the Whitsitt controversy. I have also seen some of the SBC politicians of today conveniently changed their theology to match the political arena. I have seen some of their articles that are no longer available as they once were.

 

I do know this and appreciate this, and the feeling is mutual.

Well, I disagree here. I think it's a pointed question because each are pointed possibilities, if you will. Some speakers are invited in for a day (chapel or a guest lecture for a course), some come in for a special lectureship (think the Mullins Lectures or the old Beecher Lectures for the opposite spectrum) that last several days. Others are brought in for a semester to teach a class, while others will teach as part of a year-long (or longer) sabbatical.

I'll lay my cards on the table. I think lecturing on a temporary basis is one thing. I think joining the ranks of an institution is likely an altogether different matter. That said, I think of a Mark Noll at Notre Dame, for instance, who may indeed influence some away from Catholicsm and God may well providentially have him there to speak the truth, lovingly, so that by any means he may win some. I think of Timothy George & David Dockery who influenced SBTS during its darker times. Al Mohler is another. (thank God for them. If they didn't do their part in the reformation/resurgence, where would the seminaries be today?) I do think there are some circumstantial influences which may come into play which is why I agree when you say: "

You do bring up an interesting point when you say:

I wonder about this. Is this indeed the case? Is it one thing for a conservative to join the faculty of a seminary, but another for a conservative man to assume the pulpit of a moderate/left leaning church? In all cases, to me, motivation is the key. If you're there to refute error, make full proof of your ministry, and proclaim the truth for the good of salvation and sanctification of souls, then that's one thing. To be there just to be there, just to have a ministry or professorship is an entirely different matter. Remember that we have to weigh the admonition to mark those who teach in opposition to the truth (interesting that that verse also tells us to mark those who divide) with the teaching of the salt/light and the example of Jesus who spent an awful lot of time correcting false teaching.

And then a further matter comes up. To me, it's one thing for a person to teach at a seminary or school that has different views on women in ministry or eschatology. To use Mohler's framework, I can't see being (for me) on the staff of a church/school that erred on first-level doctrines. Second level doctrines? Depends. Third level? Well, I can live with it as long as they could.

This makes me think of something else. I may share it publicly or I may just PM you.

Interesting. Have any examples? :smilewinkgrin:

GB wrote:

I have heard this but never seen evidence. Mohler indeed was one who has been accused of this when he studied under Molly T Marshall. However, I've never seen anything other than positional papers which everyone writes as a seminarian and read quotes that were wrested from context. Besides, it doesn't make logical sense. You don't change to the minority party in hopes of gain. Why would someone willingly change their theological thinking to "conservative" for gain when the moderates/liberals had such a militant control? So they could have done to them what was done to them? I just think it's a bromide. I was at SBTS during the transition and saw things from the inside out as a staffer on the inside. I saw what Mohler and those who agreed with him were subjected to by some. But that's another tangent. Back to the lecture at hand.....:laugh:

 

An author of one of the commentaries whom I had as a professor at SWBTS told me personally that Lifeway completely changed his commentary in parts to say what they wanted and not what he really wrote. I had him for class as a professor before the Dilday explosion and then afterward also. On one occasion I asked him about what I read because I was sure that he said something quite different in class. When we went outside that is when he told me about the issue he had with Lifeway. He also told me of one other in the seminary who agreed with him but never said anything publicly about the issue. That particular person is heavily involved in the SBC as one of the top leaders. None of them were ever what I would call less than conservative.

 

This is not a new thing. Things get edited to the extent of who your editor is. Lifeway is one of the worst for this. Conservatives have had this happen and have criticized them and B&H even moreso. Lifeway is almost understandable because they are writing for the SS crowd (Don't get me started about Lifeway).

I remember back in the mid 90s when an assoc was voting to disfellowship a church because of the ordination of a woman so she could get chaplaincy endorsement. I wrote a letter to KY state paper Western Recorder when uber left Marv Knox was reigning over the paper (who would write articles/columns about SBTS without ever stepping foot on the campus or interviewing people). My letter was severly edited to make me appear as coming from an ultra-fundamentalist camp. I was never contacted to see if the letter was even mine. After it appeared, friends asked "Did you actually write this? This doesn't sound like you." I called WR and asked to speak with Knox. He refused. But his secretary laughingly said that I was chosen as the "scapegoat of the week" and that's why my letter got butchered to what the editor wanted it to say. Friends of mine who worked at MTown told me this was standard practice and Knox thankfully left for Texas. WR still leaves some to be desired, but it's no longer Pravda as it was under Knox's iron grip.

My point: Editors will always edit. They have to. That's their job. Some "job" more than what they should :tongue3:

 

Tom, thankfulness here might be a matter of perspective. Now all George Strait's ex's and Marv Knox live in Texas.
:tonofbricks:


A Texan.

 

I know....Texas had to lose for Kentucky to gain :laugh:

 

Rather than leaving it as a purely subjective matter, it could be helpful to ask some questions to help with discernment.
1. What is the purpose of teaching in a liberal school?
2. What is the effect upon (a) others and (b) one's self?
3. Does teaching in a liberal school aid or further the cause of liberalism?
4. Are there any guiding Biblical principles as to separation, etc.?
5. Could the cause of Christ be better served by teaching in a conservative, believing school?
Well, what do you think?

 

When I ask my friends where they would send a child to study theology often I get much the same answer. The answer usually indicates that not many schools are very good any more. Most schools over time lose sight of their original focus and begin to major on nickels and noses rather than godliness.

 

Paidagogos, you hit on what I was alluding to earlier. Motivation is critical. Salt and light is one thing. Seed scattering can be useful. Just having a paycheck or a position is altogether different.

And GB is correct as well. I go back to the purpose of even the formation of some seminaries. Is it for the glory of God, the gospel of Christ, at the leading of the Holy Spirit for the cause of the Kingdom? Or was it simply to have your own little corner of the world? Seminaries of all stripes are guilty of this.

 

Homework?

Let's face it; most people don't do their homework when embarking on a venture. They may have good intentions and a vague purpose in mind but they don't do the hard work of clearly defining goals. After defining a clear set of goals, a well thought out topdown development should follow with intermediate objectives and final procedures directed toward the ultimate goals. IMHO, there is usually a disconnect between goals and what we actually do. Then, we wonder why we stray from our original purpose. What do you think?

 

What's the outcome?

Rhett, I would be interested in hearing your assessment of your experience. We can all learn and benefit from your experience. (BTW, your experience with liberal colleagues seems a triffle different from mine. Perhaps I am more confrontational, but my experience has caused me to sharpen and harden my views. It was beneficial but in a different sort of way.)

1. How has this affected your outlook? In other words, how has the experience changed you and your viewpoints?
2. What are some of the positive outcomes of this encounter?
3. What are some of the negative outcomes of this encounter?
4. Would you rate this overall as positive or negative?

BTW, I would also be interested in hearing something of the perspective on "death and dying" from the more liberal viewpoint. This is a serious interest, not for ridicule or argument, because I am currently working on this topic from a Biblical counseling (I am not of the Elizabeth Kubler-Ross persuasion) perspective. For example, what do you say to a dying (i.e. terminally ill) unbeliever? Do you tenderly and lovingly confront him with the Gospel? Do you discuss heaven and hell? Do you try to persuade him or her to become a believer or do you "respect" his unbelief? What does one do?

I am open to suggestions of resources for study and critique.

 

Thank you, Rhet. This was interesting, helpful, and enlightening. The problem, I suppose, is how far to go without compromising something basic. Openness is good and necessary but we cannot be equally open to all things. For example, I do not accept the current "openness" among some supposed evangelicals toward Islam as an alternative way to God. My theology recognizes faith in Christ as essential. The flip side of the coin is the ingrown and inbred sort of Christianity that becomes an authority unto itself.

Thank you for your reply.

 

What I find sad is the fact that liberals see the misinterpretation of scripture by conservatives and view them as ignorant. They tend to not believe anything the conservatives say. However conservatives do the same thing to liberals. Both sides can be wrong but not all sides can be right. Usually I find that the truth is not found on either side but somewhere else.

When Jesus was asked for what reason a man can get divorced, His answer was not found on either side of the religious parties.

 

What I have found is that when push comes to shove the majority of my "running buddies" were not there when I needed them most. It was the people whom I was discipling and some leaders who were there. The majority were not found.

It is easiest to reach those who are cold or hot. Lukewarm people are very hard to reach. Cold people will tell us what they think and we can have a discussion with them about real issues. Lukewarm people are good religious people who think they are okay when they are not, but do not know it. Think about who Jesus condemned in the gospels--the religious self righteous who did not realize how sick they were.

If that theological school is inviting you because they want the students to hear a conservative point of view then that is different than the opportunity to take shots at you and disrespect you. It shows they are open to learning and discussion.

 

I swore I heard Oprah say that once