Forcibly Removing All the Tulips at SWBTS

Actually, the reason for the "decline" in enrollment at the (6) SBC seminaries can be attributed to more than a few causes. Initially, there has been a dramatic increase in online education and seminar style teaching. This has had a huge impact on traditional enrollment in graduate and post-graduate programs.

Secondly, there has beed an increase in the number of schools offering programs. Just 10 years ago SBC students had 6 1/2 choices (I'm including Mid-America here as the 1/2). Now other colleges and universities are offering post-graduate programs that are competeing with the Big 6. Here in W. TN, Union University has opened a Master of Christian Studies that would be on par with an M.Div and is opening a D.Min program in the coming year. As I consider a Doctorate program myself and with MABTS off my list, UU is right at the top.

Thirdly, it would be hard to ignore the economy at this time when looking at the enrollment situation. A seminary education is difficult enough but with money tight, men and families are having to make other choices as the Lord leads them.

I do not believe that relavency issues in the 21 century has much to do with the ongoing pursuit of Biblical Scholarship which for all intents and purposes is what an SBC education is all about.

 

I think the Molly Marshall incident was discussed in this presentation at about the 35:00 mark. Part 1 of this presentation is here. These were interesting presentations that are worth listening to.

Dr. Marshall was offered a trial at which she could defend herself, which was the process outlined by the school's policies to remove a professor. Rather than face the trial, she resigned. So she could have defended herself, but she chose not to.

 

OK, everyone is in decline, so there must not be a problem, got it.

Seminary is more then language study and theological naval gazing. This is the time of preparation for ministry and sadly the SBC seminaries are preparing ministers with an old model that lacks relevancy in our day and age. What good is to know the right things yet be unable to communicate them in ways that make sense to the surrounding culture? This is not a concern for them. Southern is Calvinist so it doesn't matter, it will all work out in the end and SWBTS is 1950's fundamentalism reborn, so forth divide and conquer.

They are out of touch and SBCers should be concerned as it turns out the SBC is shrinking very fast. Read Ed Seltzer

 

I keep asking this and perhaps you are just ignoring it to be obnoxious, but what does this mean? You keep making these statements but don't give any indication as to what you are talking about.

Perhaps I am old fashioned to expect a conversation to progress based on argument and substance, but it would be nice to understand what you are trying to say.

 

Do you realize you are just regurgitating the same tired liberal rhetoric that has been the staple of liberalism for many years past? So tell me where is anything you are suggesting new ?

 

Subjective opinions with no facts... got it.

Question... how does a seminary instill creativity into students? Your issues with the seminaries are non-starters. Seminary is a training ground and in that you are absolutely correct, but it is not "art school". Creativity and ability to communicate a message lies with the individual who is doing the communicating, not with the school where they got a degree.

I had to learn how to prepare and proclaim a proper expository message and my seminary experience gave me the basic elements, but how I employ those elements is up to me. The SBC is a diverse place with lots of different people doing much of the same work in different ways. As long as the principles are the same, methods can vary from place to place and from person to person. You are painting with an awefully broad brush trying to pigeon hole the SBC into convenient boxes to prove your point. Forget Patterson and even Mohler for a moment and consider the 40,000+ churches and pastors that exist in the SBC. Is there no consideration for them... they are the ones that define what the SBC is and what it is doing, not Patterson or Mohler.

 

This sounds like the Spanish Inquistion. Would you subject yourself to a trial to defend your theology to the President of the theological seminary who is known to have biases and personal objectives?

Are you aware that Dr. Marshall served as a professor and then President of Midwest Baptist Seminary in KC?

 

Biases and personal objectives? What are these biases and personal objectives?

Wasn't he hired to return the school to its historic position under the Abstract of Principles?

Is it possible that Dr. Marshall knew that she had no standing on the facts and therefore didn't contest it?

It is interesting, JC, that I don't hear you contesting any facts of her beliefs and positions. Is there a reason for that? Is it possible that Mohler was right that she did fall outside the bounds of the doctrinal position of the school, and therefore was ineligible to teach there?

Yes, but I am not sure what you point is.

 

Please pray for our seminaries and our seminarians and those who run the seminaries.

Let us not forget to do that.

 

What is the purpose of seminary? Prepare for ministry.
Is there more to ministry then exegesis of a passage? Why of course
Are the seminaries teaching any of the "why of course" stuff? Very few, perhaps some counseling content
Will that keep them relevant? Why of course not. Many are already irrelevant

The SBC seminaries where brought up so my focus has been on them. I could have just as easily pointed out other seminaries lost in a sea of old modern thinking models be they liberal or conservative.

Attempting to navigate through the post-modern 21st century with 20th century modern methods is not going to work. The it's all predestinated just preach the Bible more nor the pastor is king do what he says models of yesteryear are going to adequately reach the people that desperately need the light of Jesus

 

You have no objective proof to back up your statements. You are just stating your opinion. Put up the evidence or you are just like everyone else. We all have a nose and we all have an opinion.

 

Mohler was hired to support the new power structure controlling the convention. If I'm not mistaken, he was the pastor of a small church in Indiana for a brief period of time and NEVER taught in a seminary. His major qualifications were he was assistant to Dr. Honneycut and supported the new power structure.

 

I'm listening to the "sermon" by Dr. Mohler you pointed to. This is the worst excuse for a sermon I've ever heard. He spends most of his time belittling Christian counseling and social work. Dr. Mohler needs to read MA 20 about the Judgment and take it to heart.

 

There is the CBF now and seminaries that support it's liberal agenda. Why force liberal professors to stay put in SBC seminaries? I'm glad they cleaned house.

 

It was actually an old power structure. The liberals were the new power structure and with the convention's return to biblical orthodoxy, the liberals were pushed out so that the old power structure of fidelity and orthodoxy could be reestablished.

Um, it's not really a sermon. Sorry to break it to you. It was his recounting of the issues surrounding Southern and its return to orthodoxy.

First, he didn't. He actually talked about that relatively little. However, Christian counseling and social work need to be belittled because they have rejected the biblical foundation. They offer no real hope because they don't deal with real issues. But that's another thread.

This is hilarious coming from you. You have done nothing in this thread but pass judgment. And now you have the audacity to judge someone else for it? What a joke ...

This is typical of liberalism ... You are all against judgment coming at you, but you like to pass out judgment. It's called hypocrisy.

Mohler was right. The liberals were wrong.

BTW, I notice yet again that you do not address the substance. All you can do is attack Mohler and the conservatives.

 

I would certainly hope so. Don't forget that the new power structure was actually voted in by the messengers of the convention. Dr. Mohler was hired by the trustees to do exactly what he did. The new conservative trustees were elected by the Convention to do exactly what they did. The Committee on Nominations was appointed by the President of the Convention to nominate those trustees who hired Dr. Mohler.

Of course this was a power struggle. And yes, it was over power. It was over the ability to exercise power to place people in positions of responsibility who would return the SBC to its theological roots.

Let me ask a question of the Moher bashers. Would you have signed the Abstract of Principles in order to teach at Southern Seminary, even though you do not believe it? Some professors did. Would you sign the Abstract, knowing that you were going to ignore it in your classroom? One professor did.

Dr. Marshall could have quickly and easily affirmed both the Abstract she signed and/or the Baptist Faith and Message. Wonder why that didn't happen.

Would you have allowed a Lesbian Affirmation Service to take place on the campus?
There was one at Southern, according to President Mohler.

The use of the term "power structure" is deliberate. It is meant to imply something sinister and evil on the part of the conservatives. But not on the part of the power structure that was replaced. They were pure and undefiled, of course.









.

 

Seminary, etc.

To all:

I have seen some very ill advised things written here--mostly about seminary. As a graduate of Southern Seminary, how should I take the following statements:

go2church,

With all due respect, you couldn't be more wrong. Frankly, I don't think you know what you are talking about. Have you attended one of the six SBC seminaries? Do you hold a degree from one of the seminaries? Have you sat in the classes, listened to the professors, or read the books assigned?

I would be very surprised if you have.

As a Southern Graduate, let me speak to the following issues:

1. Calvinism as it relates to Missions

I find your last statement particularly disturbing. Southern has an entire division dedicated to training and sending missionaries. The school is called "The Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism, and Church Growth."

Every student is absolutely required to take a class in personal evangelism and every class requires at least 10 student reports of gospel sharing. If you don't share the gospel, you don't pass the class.

Secondly, I participated in nearly every chapel service (Tuesday and Thursday) for seven years. Without fail, we had a missionary commissioning service every year--mostly for students going on mission trips over the winter break or the summer.

Thirdly, at Southern it has never been taught, nor will it ever be, that missionary work (home or foreign) is not essential due to God's sovereign choices.

Finally, your terribly ill informed statement shows you neither understand Calvinism nor the absolute commitment to missions that Southern and all the SBC seminaries as well as all SBC agencies have.

2. Models of Ministry

Southern takes great pains to teach their students to be relevant without compromising biblical principles. Again, every student must complete a class called "The Ministry of Leadership." In this class we investigate, evaluate, and discuss many different and diverse models of ministry. In fact, there is a large-scale project in which a group of students must pick a church, evaluate the community, and design a church to reach that particular community.

So, your assertion that a seminary education is all Augustine, Luther, and Calvin along with Greek and Hebrew is absolutely wrong.

Dear friend, I certainly hope you will not speak derisively of thinks about which you do not know. The brothers and sisters in Christ in the SBC and her seminaries do deserve better than that from you.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

If you had read earlier posts you would know that I am a Golden Gate grad. Really not speaking to the classes you took or the chapel services you attended, but to a larger point of modern verses post-modern ministry to which the SBC as stated, in one form or another, time and time again they think has to be "destroyed" in order for the gospel to thrive. I don't think that to be the case. The rest of your post is what I would expect

 

The declining numbers and closing churches aren't proof that something is wrong? Have you read anything Ed Setzer has been producing? Besides any "evidence" I would offer would be considered not actual evidence, supporting of the "liberal agenda" and/or unorthodox so would it really make a difference to you?

 

Angry and jealous liberals who lost cannot help but criticize that which they lost. That's what's behind these unsubstantiated attacks.