Southwestern seminary files motion against dismissed professor's suit

I was referring to the theological issues, such as Al Mohler brought about at Southern. The "rank and file" are probably no different than most churches.

 

Traditionally, the SBC has not been very good about church discipline. I sincerely doubt that Travis Avenue Baptist Church (which I believe Patterson is currently a member of) will do anything about it.

The Convention was modeled after a confederation-style government (much like the then-future Confederate States of America), and has been subject to the same strengths and weaknesses. The "resurgence" transformed that structure to a much more tightly-controlled core with little accountability. While I certainly don't think the original convention structure was anti-biblical, I don't think the Bible specifies a certain type of relationship between the various local manifestations of the Body of Christ. However, I believe the convention structure was a good accomodation between the needs of churches to remain independent and the need to work together in a structured way to do things together that they couldn't do separately.

I like that idea, but I sincerely doubt that many SBC pastors have the nerve to confront Patterson since Patterson is well known for his ruthlessness.

Well I don't think she did anything unbiblical. Moreover, the SBC does not have any policy in place that would suggest that what she does is unbiblical.

I guess that's a matter of opinion. Would you think it would be horribly wrong if you were a seminary professor and a new President came in and decided that you were of the wrong ethnic background to teach your classes?

I am not emotionally involved in this case, but I have known many others who have been mistreated by this and previous administrations. In many ways I'm glad that this is happening because it takes the lid off of a lot of the stuff that has happened previously at SWBTS. Too many professors have left quietly, not wanting to damage their careers further by making headlines and having the administration spread false reports about them to justify the actions of the administration.

I'll definitely agree there.

In my opinion, the so-called "resurgence" was a move in the wrong direction. While the previous way of doing things was not great and in need of reform, the "resurgence" has taken the SBC away from the calling of Christ. The SBC leadership is characterized by dissention, political maneuvering, fighting, paranoia, hypocrisy, suspicion, corruption, control and lies. We certainly had our share of problems in previous days, but the current state of the SBC makes true reformation even more difficult due to the tight reins of control over all agencies and institutions.

I agree. The SBC is collapsing onto itself and churches are going elsewhere. Fortunately, I've never believed that the SBC was "God's last and greatest hope" as one once-prominent SBC writer once claimed.

I think God is allowing the barbarians to take apart the SBC to clear the way for something new. (And no, I don't think it's the CBF or the Mainstream Network.)

 

as are all conventions and all churches to one degree or another

disagree and agree with you here. The resurgence was needed to make sure the convention didn't tend towards moderate tendancies. There was a need for minor, and say minor, adjustment with some things. Moderatism/Liberalism is not sin, just another version of Christianity.

I do completely agree the leaders have over-corrected and brought legalism and fundamentalism into the convention which have no place here.

completely disagree you here. The SBC is highly biblical imho, and is one of the most biblical definitions of denominational church available. The local autonomy part allows each church to be their own governance and the cooperative program is simply genius.

I do agree that the various agencies and departments outside of the missions organizations and seminaries need to be cut loose. They serve no purpose to truly aid churches and several have overstepped their bounds by extreme measures.

I believe we're entering a period of correction for our fine convention. Hopefully we will see broad questioning and reforms take place. Dr. Reccord's case was the tip of the iceberg that stood several hundred feet above the water. They still paid him off and he's making a vibrant living from his buddies. It is still a good convention full of faithful servants of God.

thanks for the post

 

Every trustee I've talked with about this issue, and several others, is giving me a standard response. They have circled their wagons to protect the pope. No one in, no one out. Sad really.

 

Was it a minor adjustment to get rid of seminary professors who denied the inspiration of Scripture? Hardly. That was a major issue.

No it's not. It is sin.

The problem isn't too much fundamentalism. It is too little. There are still places in the SBC where unbelief and disobedience is tolerated. Imagine the irony of you complaining about those who will not deal with Patterson and others as you wish, all the while complaining about some people being too controlling. That makes me laugh. You can't have it both ways. If you don't want controlling people, then you can't attempt to control others, including Patterson.

It seems that most people like control so long as it is their control. They simply don't like others control.

The SBC isn't a "definition of church." The NT gives no record of conventions. Historically Baptist have had fellowships, and I have no problem with that. The cooperative program isn't really genius, IMO. I think it can tend to create lack of accountability. A missionary is not so much examined by local churches, but by the CP. And the result has been the support of disobedience in missions by those who have left or compromised on the faith.

Why would anyone want to "climb the ladder"?

Again, my comments are from the outside. I don't have a dog in this fight. I find is distressing that there is so little discernment, but not surprising.

 

They weren't denying the inspiration of Scripture, but the tennacity of some views on inerrancy. Let's not get into a convo about this because I think we can agree that some change was needed.

yeah, it's not though. It's a form of belief. Now I know I'll get my salvation called into question around here (ironic isn't it) but it's just another way of approaching Christianity imho. I have friends who are liberals, and more who are moderates, and they are doing some great work and bringing people to a place where God can transform them. We disagree on some doctrinal stuff and lots of preferential things, but I can't deny the vibrancy of their walks. I know you and I will disagre on this, but maybe we should just leave it there.

fundamentalism, while another way of approaching Christianity, isnt something that I particularly agree with...just like liberalism. It certainly has its place, I just don't think that is in the area of a conventional life since most fundamentalists don't agree with cooperative missions. Just a thought

I'm not trying to control Patterson, he clearly doesn't care about me or the rest of the convention so that is a fairly pointless endeavor. Likewise I'm not trying to tell other people what to do. I could really careless

apologies, I was on another site and realized I hadn't added the term "denominational" I editted it above.

I'd take issue with that. Notice that the ecclesiology of 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus is a developed church community of autonomous church with a centralized leadership structure. We can certainly have more opportunities to talk about this if you wish, I just disagree that there isn't a structured conventional system in place in the early church.

name one SBC missionary who has compromised the faith that you know explicit details about. Seriously this is an erroneous claim to say it is happening all the time. (When it has happened the person(s) have been removed quickly.) The Cooperative Program doesn't interview anyone for missions. Rather it is a holding place for monies to be used for missions and training in seminaries. The IMB and NAMB interview and screen potential candidates. The process is extremely rigorous and thorough to test for denominational distinctives (I know this because I have numerous friends and relatives who are missionaries with both agencies.)

I think you don't understand the process or the details involved with the SBC and I would happy to talk with you more about all of this. I realy believe the process is a God send and has been great at mobilizing millions of people into missions and seeing millions more get saved.

 

Is it wrong for believers to sue believers? Paul (simply) advises to accept the wrong and be defrauded rather than sue in a court of law. Biblically speaking, what are the grounds of accepting the course of action taken by Dr. Klouda?