Forcibly Removing All the Tulips at SWBTS

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n26_v111/ai_15790125


Associated Baptist Press, an independent agency that reports Baptist news, said the charges would have centered on Marshall's "failure to relate constructively" to the Southern Baptist Convention and alleged deviation from seminary positions on such issues as atonement, universalism, God and holy scripture. Marshall joined the Southern faculty in 1984 and was granted tenure in 1988. She has been a target of theological conservatives in the nation's largest Protestant denomination since the beginning of her career but until recently had received the support of seminary administrators.

Marshall called her alleged doctrinal violations of the seminary's 135-year-old "Abstract of Principles"--theological principles that must be held by faculty members in the officially creedless SBC--a "smoke-screen."

Marshall said she had sent seminary president Albert Mohler a memo on August 16 in which she outlined her beliefs regarding each of the 20 principles under question. But, she reported, Mohler's response did not deal with the substance of her comments. "Given a chance to respond to a clear presentation of my views, there was none," she told Associated Baptist Press. "Hence, the issue is not theology."

 

The accusations and (it is a good word) smoke-screens used to belittle our sister in Christ, Dr Molly Marshall have been deeply disingenious. She is a world class scholar who has written wonderfully about the hope and promise of Christianity.

I don't have any problem with female faculty members in any school of seminary. The arguments made by Drs. Patterson have floundered (imho) hermeneutically and practically. While our seminaries are training arms for our churches they are not to be regarded as a church in themselves. Their reasoning is specious.

BTW, while at SWBTS the two of the best professors I had were Drs. Karen Bullock and Sheri Klouda. Both were fine pedagogs and I have some of the best retention of subjects taught in their classes.

If we really believe that women are not to be allowed to have their own interpretation of Scripture or can make a meaningful contribution to theology and spiritual maturity we have gone down a dark road of misogyny that dead-ends at blatant chauvinism.

 

Exactly. And her path subsequent to this (as far as I can determine) showed that Marshall has continued down the path she started there, thus verifying that her resignation/termination at Southern was entirely justified.

She did not teach the Bible on some fairly important issues.

 

Where are any of the SBC seminaries on the forefront of Christian thought and scholarship? They aren't and haven't been for some time. I didn't decide that, the Christian world as a whole has decided that. They have refused to deal honestly with the impact of post-modernism other then to write endless drivel about how "awful" it is, moving themselves out of relevancy. I don't expect them to become post-modern in their outlook but I have yet to see how they are attempting to penetrate the post-modern culture without feeling the need to destroy it. In my book and the books of many others that makes them irrelevant.

 

The Christian world as a whole? Who makes up that?

Perhaps that is because you are irrelevant? I don't mean that to be personal, but my claim that you are irrelevant is as argumentatively based as your claim that Southern is irrelevant. Until you tell us the standards for relevancy, and who decides it, and the standard on which it is decided, we have no way to judge your claim.

So again, the questions remain:
What do you mean by relevant?
Who gets to decide that and by what standard do they judge?
How did they stop being relevant?

Let's add this one: Who do you think is relevant?

 

Hmmm... I don't know exactly to what you are referring, so I'll assume the best about your allegation.

However, one particularly ridiculous line of circular reasoning I have heard over the years surrounds the issue of associations once a professor is forced out of an SBC seminary:

When a professor who has been branded as theologically-defective (often with the inaccurate label of "neo-orthodox" or "liberal") takes a position at a non-SBC school that is more to the theological left of their former SBC school, it is often presented as evidence that the original charges against the professor in the SBC school were correct, even if reasonable standards of fairness or protocol were ignored in their condemnation and termination.

This line of thinking completely ignores some basic facts:

• Most, if not all, Baptist seminary professors believe they have a calling from God to teach and train others with a theological education, so denying them the opportunity to do so in an SBC seminary is unlikely to prevent them from doing it somewhere else
• In today's SBC, a professor who is forced out is anathema in all SBC seminaries
• SBC seminaries tend to be right-wing, and most seminaries even farther to the right are unlikely to consider anyone the SBC has labeled as "liberal" or "neo-orthodox", therefore the only other seminaries choices will be those who allow a broader and/or a more left-ward perspective than an SBC seminary
• SBC seminaries actually operate in a very different way than most of the rest of the theological world in that most seminaries are connected with a university and are interdenominational training centers with many different points of view represented in the theological faculty. Therefore, just like with Jesus, we cannot judge a seminary professors theology based on the company with which he or she keeps, ESPECIALLY if our actions drove that professor out of mainstream SBC life!

 

I have posted everything I am referring to so you know exactly what I am referring to. I know nothing about Molly Marshall other than what I found and what was posted here by others. I had never heard of her until JC brought her up.

All you need to do is look at what she believes now. I am not sure what your point is. If she takes a position at a school to the theological left of the SBC school, then it does verify that there were issues. How can you dispute that?

I don't think the point is to prevent them from doing it elsewhere, although if the reports are correct about what she believes, she should not be teaching anyone, and she should repent.

that's something for you SBC types to figure out. I have nothing to do with the SBC.

Not sure what your first point is, but in terms of theology, Jesus said we can tell people by the company we keep and should in fact separate from false teachers so that we do not keep the wrong company and encourage unbelief. Jesus said that even to greet someone who was a false teacher was to participate in their false teaching. Jesus set the bar far higher then merely teaching in a school.

 

Marshall said she had sent seminary president Albert Mohler a memo on August 16 in which she outlined her beliefs regarding each of the 20 principles under question. But, she reported, Mohler's response did not deal with the substance of her comments. "Given a chance to respond to a clear presentation of my views, there was none," she told Associated Baptist Press. "Hence, the issue is not theology."

 

My brother had her as a professor at SBS and still speaks highly of her.

 

Of course she would say that. But it may well be (and likely is) that her outline of her beliefs confirmed to Mohler that she was outside of the historic position of SBTS. Furthermore, we don't know that Mohler didn't respond to the substance. It may be that there was a response, or that there was really nothing to respond to. For her to say it wasn't about theology is just stupid, quite frankly. It was absolutely about theology. If she doesn't get that, then she is way out of her league as the president of an institution. But I suspect she gets it and just doesn't want to admit it.

She advocated for women in the pastorate, which is a direct theological issue, and one that the Bible speaks very clearly to and which she rejected the Bible's teaching on. There were other isssues as well, from what I can tell.

From what I hear she was very charismatic and well-loved. However, those are not qualifications for teachign at SBTS so far as I know.

We have to acknowledge that doctrine matters.

 

You said you knew nothing about herbut now you're condemning her beliefs. From your experience, what are her beliefs?

 

Clearly you have been influenced by an SBC seminary - this is exactly what they do ! They would be so proud. It wouldn't matter who I said or what "proof" I offered because you just continue to do what you have done - who says, by what standard, etc. Then if per chance I hit on someone that is OK you would then question the context, tell me I'm not understanding it right or ultimately and oldie but a goody from the SBC playbook, question my actual status as a believer.

I tell you what, why don't you ask around the world of academia for yourself, what seminary is producing students most prepared for 21st century ministry - SBC seminaries will not rate very high.

Which I'm sure is ok with you since those liberals don't really know what they're talking about anyway - right!

 

For the record I am not a graduate of an SBC seminary, I earned my degree from MABTS (the ugly step child of SBC seminaries:smilewinkgrin: ). To refer to seminary as "academia" only and not include the invaluable non-academic training one receives misses the boat. Seminary is a place to get "tools" that will help the individual do the work of the ministry. In that sense, SBC seminaries have been very consistent in how they train and educate. Languages, Biblical theology, systematic thrology, evangelism, discipleship, preaching, teaching, counseling, etc, etc, etc... are all pursued disciplines in every good seminary.

A seminary does not change what it teaches to accomodate the cultural pursuasion, but rather seeks to teach the same timeless biblical principles while acknowledging the culture when appropriate. Jesus will always be relavant, regardless of place or time. It goes without saying that seminary alone doesn't prepare you for ministry, it's getting your hands dirty doing the work of the ministry that is the best educator (actually that would be Jesus). While other schools are bobbing and weaving to be more "relavant" in the eyes of some. Graduates from the 6 SBC schools (and even lowly MABTS) are walking away from the seminary experience very well equipped to spread the name and fame of Jesus Christ.

 

Short answer - He doesn't have a clue.

Shorter answer- He made it up.

 

I'm joing the debate late----hope you guys don't mind

Seems I have read something about budget shortfalls at all of the six SBC seminaries----and have read what a few of the six have done to adjust to those shortfalls

I am a grad of NOBTS and do like best the way that Dr. Kelley has handled the budget crunch-----there will be no layoffs---everyone will retain their jobs------staff has been asked to take a certain percentage pay cut(I believe a 3% salary/hourly cut, but don't quote me on this one)

Professors have been asked to take a larger cut-----I believe a 10% pay cut(again, don't quote me on this)

And Dr. Kelley was going to take the biggest pay cut of all---I believe he was in line to be cut by 15%(don't quote me---but I think I remember somewhere along those percentage lines)

As for whats going on at SWBTS(Brand X) with "Patterson & Friends"---I hear stuff coming "down the pipe" all the time-----like there is all the hype/talk/rumble of the addition he made to the President's home---to fit his hunting trophy mounts---etc

As for being a professor at one of these SBC institutions??? I don't think you'd be able to hold a machine gun on me to be one----no way on God's green earth could you pay me enough to be a professor

 

Please go back and read. I was very clear that after you brought her up, I googled her and learned some things about her, including her positions and her present place of employment. I think each time I have said something, I have said that it is what I understand, or what I have read, or what I have heard (used metaphorically for "read").

She is clearly supportive of women in pastoral ministry, which is unbiblical. She appears to hold unbiblical positions on things like the atonement and inspiration as well.

 

Really? How is that clear? The fact is that it isn't. I have not been influenced by an SBC seminary. I have repeatedly said I have nothing to do with the SBC. I have never been in an SBC church. I have never set foot inside an SBC school. I have never been in the same town (to my knowledge) with an SBC seminary aside from a family vacation in the summer of 1973 of which all the memories I have are in pictures because I was too young. I couldn't name more than two or three professors at an SBC school (I think Mathews and Schreiner both teach at Southern). I could name a few presidents. I have severe disagreements with the SBC on some issues. I don't even know anyone personally who is in the SBC that I know of.

So you are wrong on that.

And what is that? Ask for you to support your claims? That is all I have done. I haven't even disagreed with them yet. I don't know what exactly you believe about them (except that the SBC seminaries are apparently evil).

No, if you said what standard you were using and what definitions you were using then we would have something to talk about.

But rather than support your argument, you attack the one who questions you. Now that sounds very fundamentalistic of you: Ignore the substance, attack the person.

You don't know that, which is again very fundamentalistic of you ... Talk about something you know nothing about. The truth is you don't know how I would respond to your arguments. YOu have yet to make any.

At the risk of incurring your misplaced wrath yet again, what do you mean by "the world of academia"? Who do you include in that? And what do you mean by "prepared for 21st century ministry"?

Until I know what you are talking about, I can't really respond.

In many cases, they don't. But that's another issue.

So rather than attack the messenger, why not offer some arguments and support here? Stop being a fundamentalist and just getting upset and ranting about me. Be academic and offer some argumentation and support for your position.

 

Nice page from the good ole playbook. Examine the journals for yourself where are the authors coming from? Note the books being published and then actually sold/read, note the attendance numbers, note the overall influence of Southern and SWBTS in the larger Baptist and then Christian world - by any measure they are in decline. I not making it up that is the reality.

SBC students may be prepared to diagram a sentence, or expound a verse but more and more they are less and less prepared to 21st century ministry. What is working, they aren't teaching. They aren't the only seminary out of touch, there are plenty of others, but we weren't talking about them.

Also, just for the record, I am Golden Gate grad

 

Books and attendance are not evidence of being out of touch. That is just wishful thinking.

 

What does this mean? You keep making these very nebulous statements, but you are not defining any terms and not offering anything other than your own opinion.