Paige Patterson removed as President of SWBTS

I am not quoting raw enrollment. I am quoting FTE (Full Time Equivalent) student numbers. The seminary receives funding according to FTE rates, not the raw number of full-time and part-time students.

Back in the early days of the Hemphill administration, Dr. Hemphill held a "brown bag" lunch for students to explain the upcoming changes in the fee structure for the coming semesters. I attended that meeting. Hemphill explained that they were going to boost the FTE numbers by raising the matriculation fees to such a level that it made it relatively expensive for students to attend part-time instead of full-time. The thinking was that part-time students needed to "get serious" about their education and set aside other responsibilities (like earning a living) and take a full load each semester. As a part-time student, I expressed to Dr. Hemphill that I did not have the luxury of not earning a living while going to school and that taking a full load would simply mean that I would make poor grades and not fully learn what I needed to learn. He suggested that my wife could take a job and support me while I was in seminary, but I had no wife to do so.

What was the result? I had to skip a semester to earn enough to go part time the following semester and it slowed down the pace of earning my degree even more, without doing much to help their FTE numbers. I knew some students who simply dropped out of seminary or transferred to the Brite Baptist Studies program at TCU or to the newly formed Truett Seminary in Waco. I think that was the primary cause of the dramatic losses during the Hemphill years.

 

Apparently there was a slight uptick for 2016-2017 from that low of 1249 to 1393. A bit of good news, but still not a sustainable level of students.

 

This is the writer's interpretation of events, and we know all these things were in play and in the news. The SWBTS trustees, themselves, do not give that reason for removing Paige Patterson. Some of it might have been considered and discussed in their meeting (but it was private, so we don't know), but their official statement is here:
Statement Regarding Dr. Paige Patterson
which includes,

 

So the "calvies" have predestined the seminary to have lower enrollment?

But seriously, there has been a rise in Calvinism in the SBC -- especially among those who are inclined to go to seminary -- and they overwhelmingly choose Southern Seminary because of their Calvinist posture. That's completely understandable. Why would a Calvinist want to go to a seminary organized according to the personality of Paige Patterson?

As a result, Southern has become the largest SBC seminary while Southwestern fallen from the largest to below Southeastern. Southern is on an upward trend, while Southwestern continues downward.

 

You are correct. My eyes wandered down a line. The number I posted was for Southern.

 

Sorry, my wandering eyes went down a line and picked up the numbers for SBTS.

 

With all the talk about total, FTE, whether they count undergrad and PhD candidates, it seemed like quite a maze.

 

Most definitely a maze.

 

What is calvinists, or feminists and media, and those liberals who hated that he turned SBC conservative again?

 

Why would Calvinists want to do anything to him for?

 

I know that Dr Mohler has been making a big effort to return the SBC to its Particular Bap[tist roots, but why would that be wrong thing, and why would Calvinists want to have Paige patterson kicked out just for that>

 

The SBC has always been composed of Particular Baptists and General Baptists. Toward the beginning, Particular Baptists were in the majority. Then, for about 100 years or so, General Baptists were the majority. Now the pendulum is swinging back toward the Particular Baptists.

I have no issue with Mohler sticking to the founding documents of Southern Seminary and making it a stronghold for Calvinists, but there should be room for all in the Southern Baptist tent.

Don't take RevMitchell seriously. He always finds a scapegoat for things he doesn't like. For this, he's selected Calvinists, even though it makes little sense.

 

Just seems that my fellow Calvinists here would actually like that Paige took the School and Convention more conservative.

 

The calvinists in the convention are somewhat theologically conservative but completely socially liberal.

 

Couple of pieces of information:
(1) Paige Patterson opposes Calvinism.
(2) Calvinism and biblical "conservatism" (whatever one might mean by that term) are not the same thing. They often go together, but they are different things. The Presbyterians give us plenty of examples of persons who self-identify as both Calvinists and liberals.
(3) Southwestern seminary was already quite conservative under Ken Hemphill. Those who did not fall in line with the so-called "Conservative Resurgence" were already gone before Patterson came to Fort Worth.

 

That would seem to be oil and water, as the Calvinists I know are conservative in both areas!

 

So what did he mainly institute there that was getting peop[le now so riled up?

 

For the most part, I think the real issue is that the school is failing to attract full-time students. It simply can't continue as it has been or it will not exist in a couple of years except for some real estate in a sub-prime section of Fort Worth.

The primary issue with Patterson, other than his activities plotting and leading the takeover of the SBC agencies with Paul Pressler, is that he publicly pursues what is called a complementarian view of women in church life. (I believe you hold the same views.) That has resulted in most professors on campus promoting only one view of women in ministry. Privately, he was fine with E. Earle Ellis promoting and publishing a rigorous theological defense of women in ministry (including "senior pastor) while serving at the pleasure of Paige Patterson as a professor. Few people outside the seminary community knew about that though, so it didn't catch up to him. Patterson also fired Sheri Klouda from her role as Hebrew professor for being female, and has said various things about women over the years that are inappropriate.

The Pattersons also began the Women's Studies program that focuses on hospitality. The program has rankled more than a few people over the years because it is thought to reduce the ideal role of women to be homemakers. I think some of that is overblown, but I don't have any personal experience with it so I can only speak from second-hand sources and my general impressions of it.

 

There's another broad brush accusation.