What School Would Liberal Baptists Support?

Joshua,
Barna's report was not indicative of a particluar strain of Baptists. However, I am not surprised that many SBs are doctrinally confused due to the fact that up until the last decade or so, the SBC seminaries were lost at sea doctrinally and confessionally and the churches naturally followed suit. Thank God this problem is being corrected and the seminaries have found their souls once again. The same will be true of the churches.

Appreciation for the 2000 BFM is not limited to conservatives, by the way. Recently, the Kentucky Baptist Convention (Mostly controlled by moderates) expressed support for the BFM of 2000 as well as other confessions and creeds.

The overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists are still grieving over the loss of our state schools like Wake Forest, Mercer, etc., but rejoice over the recovery of the seminaries. The Bible has been returned to its rightful place, and Christ is once again Lord.

 

Joshua wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Non-fundamentalists talk about Southern Seminary the same way you mentioned that fundamentalists talk about Baylor <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was with a particularly angry liberal last week who spoke about "All the problems at Southern nowadays." I asked him what problems, and he told me he didn't know. I asked him when he last was on the campus. He said he's never been. The only problems at Southern are lack of housing and lack of parking

Thanks Joshua for your gentlemanly conversation. I hope I'm half the gentleman you are.

 

Tom,

I hope that there was no tongue in your cheek as you called me a gentleman .

As for Southern, I hear plenty of legitimate gripes from former Southern faculty and alumni. They usually include the following:

- the faculty purges
- anything that comes out of Al Mohler's mouth
- declining enrollment (despite number fiddling to include Boyce in the seminary's enrollment)
- the absolute insistence that faculty must tow the fundamentalist party line
- a library full of books despised by the people who are now charged with their care

Joshua

 

Joshua,
I was not tongue-in-cheek at all. I'm very serious. You're a kind individual, even if you are dead wrong most of the time

The enrollment at SBTS is not dwindling. I know that for a fact as I worked in offices that handled such data. They're not building more student housing, adding additional classes and faculty, and the like because they have piles of extra money lying around

The faculty changes have been good ones and have been mutual, save for maybe one or two cases.

I don't agree with everything that comes out of Dr. Mohler's mouth, but to hate everything the man says is not very open minded. I don't despise everything Molly Marshall says, though I'm sure I disagree with her the overwhelming majority of the time.

I totally agree that the faculty must teach in accord with the Abstract of Principles. You have to have cohesion. Besides, the left demanded adherence to their doctrine. Why shouldn't conservatives?

Obviously, if you're conservative you're going to agree with most of what is happening in the SBC and if you are not, you will not. That's pretty much the bottom line, isn't it?

 

Tom,

I know lots of conservatives who deplore what has happened to the seminaries (look at Daniel Vestal, for instance) but few fundamentalists . I agree, though, that our respective postitions on the SBC takeover/"resurgence" depends generally on where we are on the theological spectrum.

Regarding the seminary numbers, one of the criticisms I've heard from alumni is that the new numbers include the swelling undergraduate enrollment, unlike past numbers.

Bob - I forgot to mention Union in NY which is a popular place for Ph.D.'s.

 

Joshua
I thought Vandy was becoming the new Mecca for Ph.Ds.? Nashville is a great town!
Russell

 

True, Vandy is one of the hot spots, but I thought I mentioned it with Duke and Emory. If not, I'm slipping.

Joshua

 

Brother J,
I'll let you by this time. I know your busy these days it is Advent and all. I wish I could come here you preach Sunday. Post the sermon and I will call it even.
Russell

 

The idea that the undergraduate numbers are included in seminary enrollments in order to inflate the data is a myth. None of the colleges at our seminaries has been around long enough to have a large student body. I know the increase at Southern has been in the M.Div and Ph.D. programs. Even if the undergrad enrollment was included, it wouldn't account for the dramatic increase because there has always been an undergraduate element there (in diploma programs and at the associate level).

I'd have to disagree with your assertion that conservatives don't necessarily like what has happened at our seminaries. I have never met a conservative who did not appreciate what has went on, though some might have been concerned about the way this or that was done. Typically, moderates and liberals have been the ones doing the complaining. But again, as we have pointed out, this all depends on perspective. My perspective was influenced by what I saw during the final days of the liberal reign and the newer days of the conservative influence.

 

Couple of folks mentioned Duke, Emory, and Vandy as places for scholarship. Interestingly enough, I was at our local ministerial association gathering this month, and these institutions came up. Even the ardent liberals from mainline denoms stated that particularly Emory and Vandy were too liberal even for them and could not be considered places of geninue scholarship. I'd study in the doctoral program at Duke if I could study under Will Willimon

 

Tom
Have you read the report from the BGCT that they did on the SBC Seminaries? Their data does not back up you assertions, it in fact supports what Joshua is saying. The report includes the surveys filled out by the Seminaries themselves.
I have to agree with you on Willimon. Have you read "Resident Aliens"? It is a book he co-authored with Stanley Hauwerhaus.
Russell

 

Which report? Post the link and I'll be happy to take a look at it. Of course, when you look at a BGCT report, you have to remember that they were trying as much as possible to discredit the six SBC seminaries in order to push their own. As I said earlier, my take and my info comes from working in and with the admissions offices of our six seminaries and from taking classes there. Most of the people decrying the so-called misery of SBC seminaries these days haven't stepped foot on a campus in years, if ever. Take a look at the recent "Review and Expositor" to see the brand of "theology" they are now involved in.

As for the book you mentioned, I don't believe I've read that one. Dr. Willimon is a gifted communicator as well as a writer. I like his willingness to speak out, even if it's against his own mainline traditions.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:

But what about those on the "moderate" or "liberal" end of the spectrum? What schools do YOU support or encourage your men to attend if they want a Bible education?

Thanks.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Essene: I don't have a son or daughter to send, so I send my money to BTSR.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
But what about those on the "moderate" or "liberal" end of the spectrum? What schools do YOU support or encourage your men to attend if they want a Bible education?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob, I just noticed that you said "men." All the CBF-aligned baptist seminaries train men and women to be pastors .

Joshua

 

Tom Vols to Deitrich B(onhoeffer?)
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You could learn much from people like Joshua and rlvaughn who, though might share your political-theological views, differ from you in that they are quite gracious in their demeanor and conduct.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoa, Tom! While I appreciate your good words and have no problem being identified with Joshua's knowledge, demeanor, and conduct , I would like to make clear my own position.

First, political: I am a conservative Republican precinct chairman who does not necessarily always tow the party line and votes for whomever he wishes. I would probably be a Libertarian, but everyone knows they don't have a snowball's chance of winning anything.

Second, theological: I am generally to the "right", but cannot be neatly fitted into the three main subsets defined by Bob G. - fundamentalists, evangelicals, and liberals. I am a part of a small minority of Baptists that some scholars consider "primitivists" (not Primitive Baptist, though they are, but also included are old-time missionary Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, some Regular and United Baptists, Union Baptists, and Two-Seed Predestinarian Baptists). One main area in which we differ from the main body of Baptists is in a detailed attempt to recreate New Testament church order, often seen in such practices as acappella singing, feet washing, informal services, unpaid ministry and rejection of such "new" innovations as seminaries, Sunday schools, youth programs and mission boards. These are not altogether the "heart" of the matter, but probably some of the more obvious to outsiders; and all primitivists would not even agree on the points mentioned above.

I know this is totally off subject but I had to defend my "reputation", such as it is. To further tarnish any "reputation" I might have left, I must say I have been identified over the past year with Mercer University, providing material to Bob Gardner for their historical collection.

To make a feeble attempt to act like this has anything to do with Bob's original post, I offer the following: a primitivist would not send men (or women) to any seminary for a Bible education, but rather to a local Baptist church. Seriously. I think most primitivists would agree that this is God's ordained institution designed for the purpose of religious or Biblical education. It does not follow that we object to education, or to anyone attending an institution of higher learning.

 

I would encourage Liberals to attend B.Y.U . Since Liberals are not interested in the truth they would fit in well with the student body. And B.Y.U. has a great football program!!!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jimmy:
And B.Y.U. has a great football program!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After Hawaii rang up an even par 72 on them last night???? I think a 72-45 loss to Hawaii pretty much disqualified their BCS suit.

Oops ... wrong forum

 

I think B.Y.U. is going ahead with a lawsuit....against their defensive coordinator
But I'm just bitter. My Vols had their tickets to Pasadena ripped out of their hands by a bunch of angry Tigers from the Bayou.