Southwestern adopts statement asserting male headship

Well if the SBC truly has a problem with it there is a recourse. Frankly with the establishment of the homemaker's degree I think Drs. Patterson pretty well sketched out their position on this (and many others) issue. I just wish that Dr. Paige Patterson had the fortitude to do this before he got rid of two of the female faculty from the school of theology. How he treated them was simply a sad, sad testimony to he method. Now if this had been in place prior to his dismissal than he would have a more sensible positio.

SWBTS is going through a very sad time. Declining enrollment was put to death in a grand ceremony, but continued to happen.

I find it ironic that the very founder of the institution could not, at this point, find a place on its faculty because of the continued narrowing of theological parameters.

 

There is nothing I have written here that I wouldn't hesitate to say to him directly if asked. Also its not gossip if its true.

 

The news concerning Southwestern has been well documented and reported by many different news agencies, nothing that has been mentioned here was not first mentioned by another news agency. It's not gossip just because it paints someone you like or speaks for your "side" in less then positive light.

Southwestern has consistently narrowed its parameters of accepted belief past what the SBC itself has defined for itself. This should be alarming to SBCers as much so if they widened them to the left which I guess is what I'm trying to say.

A diploma from a SBC seminary hangs on my wall and though I am not supportive of the direction the school has taken over the years at least I know where they stand, I don't have to worry about moving standards and narrowing parameters just because the president, who will be followed by another, wants to.

 

Are you kidding? Truth can be the most jucy form of gossip. If the SBC or the board of trustees were not happy with Dr. Patterson's leadership or the direction of Southwestern, something would have been done about it. The fact is that Southeastern Seminary grew under Dr. Patterson's leadership. I don't know the whole situation at Southwestern, but I do know that Dr. Patterson is not a bad man. He was at SEBTS when I was there and I hardly think that he believes that "It's his world and we are just living in it". That does not sound like him at all. And as for the statement that "it goes to show how little regard Paige has for the entirety of the SBC", that could not be further from the truth if the writer tried. Men like Paige Patterson, Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, and Jerry Vines helped turn the SBC around. They are all highly respected in the SBC. While there maybe some disagreements about certain things, and thats fine, there should be no mudslinging or attempting to read selfish motives into another person's actions. I think we should show Christian charity and give other Christian men (women) the benefit of the doubt (when we are not talking about essential matters). We should avoid trying to assign negative motives to them (unless we know something as a fact). I assume that Dr. Patterson is doing what he believes is right for Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. If you, or others, don't agree with him then that is fine. After all, there are other conservative SBC seminaries out there.

 

Suggesting that any dissent from a public leader's position is gossip both a red herring and a non sequitor. We can have a civil conversation speaking to both decisions and policy instituted by leaders without it being gossip.

Usually people who suggest such talk is gossip have nothing to add and are terrified of honest dialogue. If we hold that any discussion of a leader and their policies is gossip the whole political forum around here should go away.

 

So they are affirming the truth of scripture?

Good for them.

 

The interesting thing about Patterson is that, in practice, he is much more tolerant than his public positions. Since I don't actually know the man (only people who know him very well), I can only speculate that perhaps he has moderated his own views in the last decade or so, but he is trapped by his public persona and the movement he started into enforcing narrowing theological parameters upon those who are actually targeted by others. That would explain his behavior in the Sheri Klouda situation (she can't hide the fact that she's a woman, so he eventually gets forced into doing something about it).

Patterson conducted himself admirably in the whole controversy over Broadway Baptist Church here in Fort Worth. I can't find fault with anything he did... in fact, he went well beyond what anyone (on both sides) expected of him. For the most part, it didn't make the headlines and it was one of those situations where he potentially has more to lose than to gain by his involvement. He impressed me.

Patterson also quietly allows for significant theological diversity among teaching faculty at the seminary beyond the publicly-stated positions of the seminary (including the statements on tongues, some portions of the BF&M, and now the Danvers statement), presumably to allow students to be exposed to other ideas so they can have a higher quality of education.

 

Patterson made some negative comments in the past about Reformed people in the SBC, and even suggested at one point that they might have to be shut out. However, he has recently worked with folks like Thornbury, Mohler, Moore, etc., and gave a conciliatory message re:Calvinism at SBTS, so maybe he is more open to those who might disagree with him. That said, Paige is still Paige. He's not going to jettison what he holds true. Nor should he.

 

As Patterson has said, people need to be exposed to liberalism to know how to combat it. Far too few pastors see the proper role of the apologetic in their shepherding ministries. Shepherds who will not protect the sheep will find they are shepherds of no one.

 

It's pretty clear to me that he is. One of his close friends is pretty extreme with his Calvinism.

He's not jettisoning what he holds true by allowing others to hold different views without inflicting retribution. In fact, he's demonstrating quite a bit of wisdom, IMO.

 

Only if you fear your side is not correct. If you can present your position with clarity, incarnationally, and with the power of the Spirit, you don't have anything to worry about.