Question

In a Baptist General Convention of Texas study of the SBC seminaries a few years ago, they discovered that the census counts did include the undergraduate programs (as well as a number of irregularities and fraud at one seminary) that served to inflate the numbers.

Speaking only for myself, I don't hold grudges against folks who are on "the other side" - especially since I used to be on that side!

I will not, however, allow unsubstantiated charges and allegations to go by without challenging them and will not deny what I know to be true from firsthand and very reliable secondhand experience.

That said, there is little reason for us to be ugly toward each other.

 

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:

Do you know where I can get a copy of that study? What is the name of the seminary that was fraudulent?

 

Do you know where I can get a copy of that study?</font>[/QUOTE]Sure.

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/pdf/pdf_page.html

When I wrote that, I was specifically thinking of Midwestern. But upon review of the report a few minutes ago, I was reminded that Southwestern apparently misrepresented their enrollment in 1997-1998. (See the report, page 20, endnote #25)

A good archive of information can be found here:

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/5_19/pages/decision.html#reports

 

I was aware of some of those things because a close friend of mine was working in the administrationat SWBTS until he found some things that were not up to the standard that they were supposd to be. So they saw fit to remove him. He is now working in administration at a junior college with much less hassles, better pay and void of liars.

 

Southern
-Total FTE: 98/99 (1,531) - 02/03 (2,326)
-NonDupl Headcount: 98/99 (2,321) - 02/03 (3,250)

Southeastern
-Total FTE: 98/99 (1,325) - 02/03 (1,588)
-ND Headcount: 98/99 (1,757) - 02/03 (2,398)

New Orleans
-Total FTE: 97/98 (1,190) - 01/02 (1,688)

I couldn't find numbers for Southwestern or Golden Gate. Midwestern's numbers were very small and they have remained pretty constant over the past 5 years, with a slight decrease (less than 100 student difference).

I think this shows that the seminaries are growing.

 

Well, most examples I have examples of are from Southern....surely you won't say that there was no liberal activity at Southern, right?

I do know of a person who was on the faculty at SWBTS back in the late 70s/early 80s and he stated that the faculty would ridicule and verbally attack anyone they deemed conservative. He mentioned the issues of inerrancy, literal hell, and the historicity of genesis.....hmm, those topics seem familiar from the other seminaries. No, SWBTS was free from liberalism.

Of course you will chalk that up to hear-say and write it off as "reconstructionist drivel"...but I am sure that nothing short of you hearing it from the prof/students mouth firsthand will convinve you of it. Look, my uncle graduated from SWBTS and he is borderline neo-orthodox but considers himself conservative...I can only imagine what else came out of SWBTS from that time frame that would consider themselves moderates or even liberal.

 

I do not think that that is it. In 1996, there were approximately 9700 students at the seminaries. At present, there are well over 13,000. Far from declining or needing stablization, they are actually growing. This is not meant to stir the pot; I just wanted to clarify.

Lon </font>[/QUOTE]Not "grinding an axe" or even being critical, I am simply pointing out that the addition of bachelor's level programs has stabilized the enrollment at the seminaries. There are some additional programs which are quite innovative and make seminary education accesible and convenient to students (which SBC seminaries used to abhor) that have added to the enrollments and increased the revenue.

I don't doubt that the enrollments have increased since 1996, because the Bachelor's programs have largely been added since then. That was my point, that the Bachelor's programs helped stabilize and increase the enrollment.

According to the SBC annual book of reports for 1988, when the so-called "liberals" were still basically in charge of the seminaries, more than 19,000 students were enrolled in all six, with more than 5,800 at Southwestern (5,000 on the Fort Worth Campus alone) and virtually all but a small handful of those were in Master's level degree programs. If it dropped to 9700 in less than a decade, under the "conservative resurgence" leaders, then that's quite a fall. Bringing it back to 13,000 with other programs, like the Bible college degrees, has stabilized the drop.

I understand that Southeastern offered two free credit hours per two year period to any local pastor who wanted to sign on to get some additional training, and that these pastors were counted in the total enrollment figures. I have no problem with that. In fact, I think that's quite a generous and innovative move that the denomination should fund, since it would only contribute to the training of its pastors. I also understand that student's wives can take one two hour course per semester free of charge, to keep up with their spouse's training. If that had been available at Southwestern when I was a student, my wife would have been there with bells on. And of course, those are also counted in the enrollment figures.

In years of researching and digging, I've never seen even one specific charge of "neo-orthodoxy" or "liberalism" leveled at any faculty member or administrator at Southwestern. There were always a lot of accusations, but nothing specific was ever brought to light. Even when President Dilday was fired, the reason given by trustee Ralph Pulley was, "Because we have the votes and we can do it," and not because of any specific theological charge. Largely, it was because Dilday had passed up Pulley's brother in law for a prestigious position in favor of a candidate that was better qualified.

I'm not as familiar with what happened at the other seminaries, but the only one I've ever actually seen in print was a charge that related to Midwestern Seminary back in the '60's.

I think what you will see is that the current SBC leadership has put itself more in line with Independent, Fundamentalist Baptists, rather than with the true conservative mainstream of the SBC's churches, and that's where the real theological conflicts have been at the seminaries. That would also explain why more of the mainstream SBC churches aren't sending their theological students to SBC seminaries any more.

 

Rosell,

You seem to know quite a bit about the SBC and the seminaries (more than myself, I am sure). I have some questions. This is not meant to be mean-spirited. I am just curious.

You said, "Even when President Dilday was fired, the reason given by trustee Ralph Pulley was, "Because we have the votes and we can do it," and not because of any specific theological charge. Largely, it was because Dilday had passed up Pulley's brother in law for a prestigious position in favor of a candidate that was better qualified."

Questions: Where might I find this particular quote by Pulley? And, where can I find documentation on your saying that there was no specific theological charge? And, where can I find documentation on the last sentence?

You said, "I think what you will see is that the current SBC leadership has put itself more in line with Independent, Fundamentalist Baptists, rather than with the true conservative mainstream of the SBC's churches, and that's where the real theological conflicts have been at the seminaries. That would also explain why more of the mainstream SBC churches aren't sending their theological students to SBC seminaries any more."

Questions: What is your definition of Independent, Fundamentalist Baptists? How would that definition differ from what you called the true conservative mainstream of the SBC? In what way has the conflict between these two ideologies been at the center of the controversy at the seminaries? Additionally, please document that. Finally, can you provide documentation for the last sentence?

Thanks.

Lon

 

Of course a "moderate" is not gonna find any charge of anything neo-orthodox or liberal.

Like I said, I know of some serious liberal teachings that happened at Southern....do you deny that is true?

Based on what my uncle believes (SWBTS grad) and what has happened in the Texas state convention...I firmly believe that there was some bad teaching going on there.

BTW, the current SBC leadership better reflects the majority of SBC churches than any of the past leadership did. What do you mean by "mainstream"?

 

I'm sorry...that was poorly worded.

Do you deny that there were liberal teachings/profs at Southern Seminary?

 

Not based on my comments, but based on what you know about what has transpired at Southern over the past 20 years....do you think that the school was liberal?

 

That’s circular reasoning. Until you can give a specific example at Southwestern, we have no objective facts to discuss.

Personally, I’m not nearly as familiar with Southern as I am with Southwestern. But since the allegations of “liberalism” at Southwestern are completely baseless, I tend to look at similar charges with suspicion. If you have any evidence, please present it. If not, then there is nothing to “deny”.

Your uncle’s beliefs may or may not represent the points of view presented at Southwestern. Before the so-called “conservative” takeover of Southwestern, the seminary was not an indoctrination center. There was a healthy diversity of opinion and conviction represented in the faculty and student body.

And what do you think has “happened” in the BGCT? There are so many lies told about the BGCT that you may have bad information.

Your belief (especially if it has been based on all the lies that have been told about Texas Baptists) is not evidence.

 

No matter what I write you will explain away...so why waste my time?

Most of the things I have heard about SWBTS are from conversations with pastors who went there back in the day. So, I am sure you will chalk it up to hearsay.

I think a lot of the things that went on at Southern have been pretty well documented. But there are even more that are not as easily verified. Some of these teachings include denial of miracles, denial of trinity, denial of virgin birth, denial of historicity of Genesis, denial of the resurrection, homosexual professors, gay marriages performed on campus, wife-swapping on campus, etc.

So, you have never heard ANY charges about liberal teaching at Southern? Or do you just not trust anything unless you see it or hear it straight out of the prof/student's mouth?

 

I see you have a very low opinion of us. I am willing to listen and take your seriously, but apparently you assume we are dishonest people.

I’ve heard all sorts of things about leadership in the “conservative resurgence” (sic), some of it extremely damning and immoral, but I don’t dare repeat it without evidence because that is hearsay – it is not fair to those folks because they don’t have a chance to defend themselves. There are too many liars running around who don’t care about truth and won’t put anything down on paper because they know their lies will be exposed by knowledgeable people or those who are being slandered.

So you’re telling us that with all of the commentaries, journal articles, and books out there that were written by SWBTS faculty, you (or anyone else) can’t point to any verifiable bit of “liberalism”? That, along with my personal knowledge and experience at SWBTS, tells me that the charges are completely false.

I’ve seen one or two things, like a master’s (or doctoral) project that claimed to represent the results of a survey of theological stances among students. I’ve tried to find the full project so I could verify how the survey was conducted, what size sample was used, how the respondents were selected, etc. but have only been able to find the “results”.

Unless I can determine that the survey was taken according to standard guidelines so that it was not intentionally or unintentionally skewed, I have to take its assertions with a grain of salt.

I’ve actually met one professor at a Texas Baptist school (NOT at SWBTS) who believed this, but he was let go after his views became known.

Never heard such a thing.

Never heard such a thing. The closest thing to it was a professor who reminded our class that the most important aspect to the conception of Jesus was not that his mother was a virgin, but that His Father was God. (He affirmed the virginity of Mary, but some of the folks in my class got themselves worked into a frenzy because they apparently thought that the virginity of Mary should be the focus of the Incarnation.) I suspect that a lot of your anecdotes have their origin in these type of situations.

Which can probably be understood as the fact that some professors did not hold to a 24 hour/6 day interpretation of the creation narrative. (Guess what, I suspect a number of the new professors hired by Paige Patterson don’t either.)

Never heard anything like this. In fact, several of the professors that I had who had the most “liberal” reputations explicitly said in class that those who do not believe in the resurrection are of “antichrist”.

Sounds like a sin problem. SWBTS has never tolerated known homosexuals as faculty.

At Southwestern? Nonsense.

Actually, I have heard of this. A former professor of mine told me that while he was at Southwestern and New Orleans seminary in the late 1960s, there were a number of “hippie-types” who ‘felt the call’ to go to seminary since they could avoid the draft. At one point, he and his wife were invited to a wife-swapping party. He declined and informed the administration. Apparently, several folks suddenly because eligible for the draft again.

I’ve heard charges, I’ve just seen little or no evidence. (Frankly, you’ve made unsubstantiated charges about Southwestern… Anyone can make charges – it is quite something else to actually have objective evidence.)

Show me a reliable document that can be verified (like a commentary, a book or journal article) or give me the name of someone who is making the charges so that it can be verified. I’m a writer/journalist by profession. It is in my nature not to believe wild charges unless there is credible evidence. I am also a Christian. It is in my nature to assume the best about someone else until I have credible reasons not to do so.

Furthermore, I have been lied about more than I care to remember. Liars and gossipers destroy others with their sinful actions. As a believer in the Person Who is Truth (John 14:6), I am called to speak truthfully and to defend those who are falsely accused.

 

Which can probably be understood as the fact that some professors did not hold to a 24 hour/6 day interpretation of the creation narrative. (Guess what, I suspect a number of the new professors hired by Paige Patterson don’t either.)
</font>[/QUOTE]Just read the New American Commentary on Genesis by Kenneth Matthews copyright 1996. Paige Patterson is listed as one of the consulting editors. Matthews does not support a 24 hour day. He does not believe it was a literal day (pages 148-149). Does that make him a liberal?

 

No, it does not. However, denial that Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc. were literal historical figures does make one a liberal.

I can't comment on what was going on at SWBTS and SBTS, but yesterday an individual who was a professor at SEBTS 15-20 years ago told me that was precisely the common view on that campus at that time. A few months ago another person who was a student at SEBTS about 15 years ago shared similar stories about the theological atmosphere as well as reports of faculty endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle.