Southwestern adopts statement asserting male headship

We need to put what Paul said in context with our conversation.

The context for my comments was your comment regarding the use of tongues. Paul did not advocate kicking tongue speakers out of the church.

In fact, he said:

"Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues..." - 1 Corinthians 14:5

"I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all." - 1 Corinthians 14:18

"Therefore, my brethren... do not forbid to speak in tongues" -1 Corinthians 14:39

Now you and I likely interpret those verses differently than many tongue speakers, and I think that everyone can agree that Paul was advocating some parameters on tongue speaking, but kicking people out of the church was not his counsel.

I do not believe that a private prayer language is evil. Apparently Paige Patterson does not think it is evil either. He has had no condemnation for tongue speakers, although it is clear he has differences with them.

We don't have to make every theological issue a question of wholly good vs. wholly evil. There are honest differences of opinion, based on our interpretation of scripture and the experiences offered to us by the Spirit and through our own life experience which shape our theology.

We don't have to fight and consume each other over every little thing. To do so is to completely miss the point of Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 12-14.

 

Paul did at times advocate expelling some from amongst the church (1 Cor 5:11-13; 2 Thess 3:6, 14; 2 Tim 3:5; et.al.) Let's not go to either extreme. Owning a Wii shouldn't get you disciplined, but then some churches wouldn't excercise church discipline against Osama Bin Laden if he was gay and abused his children

 

Patterson has been a lot more tolerant of theological diversity than most of his supporters would be comfortable with. For instance, he fully supported having a professor on teaching staff at Southwestern who held the following positions:

- hardline five-point Calvinism
- support of women in church leadership/teaching/pastoral ministry (including "senior pastor")
- the use of a private prayer language (the professor discussed it because it does intersect with New Testament theology and contemporary practice)
- annihilationist theology

Granted, these views were not well-known outside of the immediate seminary community by the people in the pews or at the annual Convention meetings, but all of these views are well documented in print, presented and advocated in class, and known by Paige Patterson.

 

The second and fourth go against the Baptist Faith and Message, and should not be tolerated. Anyone working as a professor at any of our Big Six seminaries, should at a MINIMUM, be required to uphold the BF& M. Is this gentleman still working there? If so I will be organizing a letter campaign...

 

His funeral was held at the seminary yesterday.

Dr. E. Earle Ellis held these views. He was a close personal friend of Drs. Patterson and these views have been public for well over a decade. He was one of the top New Testament scholars in the world and his writings were well known in the field. I also knew him personally and discussed some of these issues with him.

Dr. Ellis was a research professor (also taught classes) that served "at the pleasure of the President", so there was no tenure issue to prevent Patterson from doing anything about it. Simply put, Patterson apparently either found value in having Ellis on staff and/or let his personal friendship with Ellis overrule his stated standards. Certainly having Ellis on staff gave Southwestern quite a bit of credibility in theological circles, but that certainly seems hypocritical when Patterson is releasing professors because they are female, or censuring trustees or the head of the International Mission Board for professing that they exercise a private prayer language.

I have mentioned this inconsistency before, although I did not mentioned Ellis by name because Ellis was fighting some significant health issues at the time and I did not want him distracted from taking care of his health in the event that there was a public uproar.

 

Well. I am sure God has already corrected our brother's understanding of these issues.

However, on Paige's side, this is inexcusable. Not one single professor, who disagrees with the BF&M, should be allowed to teach at the Cooperative funded Big Six. This is simply common sense.

 

I doubt Dr. Ellis was ever asked to assent to the Baptist Faith and Message. He wouldn't have agreed to teach according to something he disagreed with and he wouldn't violate a commitment he had made to the institution. Since he served at the pleasure of the seminary president, he was likely exempt from the regulations imposed on other professors.

But at the same time, Dr. J.W. MacGorman was not asked to sign the Baptist Faith and Message until the seminary had completed their fund-raising effort for the conference center named in his honor (long after almost everyone else had been required to sign). Only after Southwestern had used his name to obtain the funds they needed did they try to compel him to sign. He refused to sign and was released from teaching.

So the seminary leadership appears to impose the personnel requirements very selectively.

About a year or two ago, I specifically asked Dr. Ellis why he is allowed to teach at Southwestern (listing the positions I described in the previous post). He replied (somewhat cryptically), that he wasn't sure, but it probably had something to do with him being "more conservative than the president of the seminary." In another conversation regarding the controversy over Dwight McKissic and his use of a private prayer language, he commented, "I wonder what they are going to do about me."

Apparently nothing.

In fact, at his funeral yesterday, there was a specific allusion to a biographical sketch of Ellis, published about three years ago, written by another SWBTS professor that mentioned Ellis' conversion experience and then a later experience where he first exercised the gift of tongues. The biographical sketch was referenced by name, Ellis' account of his conversion was recited, nearly word-for-word, and his initial and subsequent tongue-speaking experience was referenced as "the signs, the evidence, and the work of the Spirit attended to him all of his days."

 

Maybe friendship and respect for fine theologians is far more important than sniping over less significant matters.

Dr. Ellis was a fine theologian and outstanding educator, perhaps we should, for respect, allow this conversation to go away for a few more days.

 

Sure, but we are not supposed to be respecters of persons (in the sense that we treat others with more deference because of their acclaim or what they can offer me).

Absolutely. He was also a fine person and a devoted member of our congregation. He was also a fierce advocate of truth, as he understood it.

I certainly understand the sentiment. The only reason I'm bringing it up now is because I am so irritated by the way that the Pattersons and Baptist Press have been trying to whitewash the life and legacy of Dr. Ellis to serve their purposes.

It is incredibly disrespectful of anyone to misrepresent them at their funeral, especially in areas where they worked very hard to communicate their convictions clearly and took bold, unpopular stands. Dr. Ellis made no effort to hide his convictions, rather, he took every opportunity to present them forcefully, with supporting scriptural references and explanations. While I disagreed with Ellis on a number of issues, he was patient, thorough, and careful in his explanations.

I'm sincerely convinced Ellis would have also been offended by the way that the SWBTS leadership took great pains to avoid mentioning where Dr. Ellis went to church (University Baptist Church - a church often vilified by SWBTS leaders), excluded all but one University Baptist member from participation in his funeral (the lone exception was Dr. MacGorman who gave the invocation), and studiously avoided anything that didn't fit the mainstream of the so-called "conservative resurgence" ideals. Dr. Ellis was certainly extremely conservative, but he would have been relentlessly attacked by "conservative resurgence" adherents if his views were more broadly known outside of the SWBTS community and the circles of New Testament scholarship. And Paige Patterson made his reputation by exposing the allegedly liberal/heretical views (often, they were not even accurately reported by Patterson) of professors and leaders in the SBC with which Patterson disagreed.

Ellis didn't mind a bit of controversy for the sake of the truth, so I believe I'm honoring him by trying to set the record straight after a full week of Patterson and Baptist Press propaganda.

 

Wow. Wow wow wow.

 

Yes, this has wandered somewhat off the primary topic, although the primary topic is the addition of qualifications to the Baptist Faith and Message to which the seminary faculty are required to conform.

A discussion of the way those additional qualifications (not to mention the BF&M) are NOT actually enforced does, in my opinion, broadly fall under the topic. However, I am not the moderator, so I'll abide by the moderator's decision.

Ah, yes...

Verifiable public information/actions = Patterson bashing / gossip

 

Well the respecter of persons has more to do with salvation than our gracefulness and respect given a person who has recently passed away.

And I appreciated your comments in the other thread. If have not communicated it appropriately I apologize.

Welcome to the spin cycle rodeo.

I was not at the funeral so I will have to take your word for it. This kind of business is never very good. That's why at my funeral (hopefully in many, many years) I'll make sure I have a hologram of myself to set these ten people in the crowd straight...

I wouldn't say Dr. Ellis is "extremely conservative" but I would say he was a conservative. The unfortunate thing is that in the current regime there is only one set of views that is is welcomed.

I have always respected Dr. Patterson, while genuinely disagreeing with many of his positions, and would be surprised that his handling of this situation was anything but graceful. But like I said, I wasn't there, so I will have simply remain at a respectful distance.

I don't know if this helps, but BPNews and Dr. Patterson don't mean much to most Baptists I hang out with. These Baptists, which comprise the pews and chairs of denomination, don't understand the hullabaloo or see any reason to pay attention to discredited pseudo-news sources like BPNews. I haven't read it in years.

I can't see what caused this, but...really, you expect an honest engagement from some of the folk around here?

Why engage the issues when you can just call people liberals and communists and be done with them...even though the accuser has never stuck their big toe into the waters of intellectual engagement.

BTW, Thanks for the reply!

 

Not at all. A person who denies a school's statement of faith has no business teaching there: regardless of how educated they are, or how well they teach.

Who want's someone teaching heresy to their students, in a compelling persuasive fashion? That does not make sense.

 

Heresy is a very strong word that I don't believe is appropriate in this case.

Certainly, in the context of indoctrination, it certainly does not make sense. In the context of education, there can be significant value in multiple points of view being presented in class. No one should get the impression that Earle only presented one point of view fairly.

Something that is often forgotten in these discussions in that seminary students have brains, and we certainly hope they are intelligent. Seminarians need to learn how to sift what they believe to be true from various viewpoints presented to them in the classroom, so that they can be prepared to handle these issues when they are leading in the churches throughout the world. A true seminary education is not memorizing an outline or making sure that a student learns all the fine points of "official Baptist doctrine" (whatever that might happen to be at the time), but learn how to uncover truth and error, fed themselves upon the word (and Word) of God, and learn how to teach others to do the same.

 

Annihalationism is heresy, though not damnable.

Many First year Seminarians have never been exposed to theology at all. They have secular undergrad degrees, and are very ignorant of scripture. Adherence to the Baptist faith and Message, should represent the bare minimum of what any cooperative funded school should require of it's professors. A person spending money on attending a SB Seminary, should not have to deal with instructors outside the VERY broad strokes of the BF & M.

 

See this, this right here is why people need to take a moment to be respectful of others.

You don't know the man, probably have never read the man, nor understand the man's theology. You have no clue yet you are happy to make backwards pronouncements upon his life and ministry.

You clearly have no idea what heresy means. Hopefully in your time at Liberty you will learn. Annihalationism is not a heresy.

You may disagree with it, and frankly you probably don't understand the finer points of the theology, but it doesn't meet the Church's definition of heresy.

Why is it so cursedly difficult for people to be charitable around here?

 

This is a fine point. If one only exposes themselves to a small fraction of the breadth of Christian theology they will suffer intermidable theological inbreeding.

A robust theology is oe that has read all the vantages points, understands where they stand, offers graceful disagreement, and celebrates unity.

If you want to be another mindless automaton be all means you're in good company with many. But I submit that it is intellectual and spiritually bankruptcy to do so.