There are things I believe I know something about and things I know I know nothing about. Running a seminary is one thing I know that I know nothing about. I know a little something from my years on the Executive Board of the BCI, and on its Admin Team, about accounting for a non-profit, just enough to know that the ins and outs of the use of temporarily restricted funds at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is beyond my ability to understand and opine. I have largely stayed out of those discussions. I have also advocated “trusting the trustees” because we don’t have a lot of alternatives unless you want the kind of chaos the Hatley motion would have brought last year. Thank God we didn’t walk that road.
But “trust the trustees” doesn’t mean that we have to keep our mouths shut. I nearly laughed out loud when Bart Barber called himself a “blabbermouth” in the post published yesterday. I consider him a pretty good friend, but I can tell you that of all the words I would use to describe him, that would be far down the list. Any real info I got on the SWBTS brouhaha last year I had to get from someone other than the one trustee I know well. If he was blabbing, it wasn’t to me! But that doesn’t mean I can’t unload on him from time to time. I have the freedom to give him a piece of my mind – value is debatable – about trustee actions, even if he gives me little information in return.
Today, I am going to give a piece of my mind to all the trustees of Southwestern, my alma mater. I graduated in 1981 with my M.Div, back before the Conservative Resurgence took hold there. I am thankful for the changes that took place there even if I am unhappy with some of the things that have happened along the way. Here are my thoughts about what needs to happen at the school as we look to the future.
1. Take a look backward.
I badly want the school to move forward. I commented today on another post to the effect that there are some who will not be content until Dr. Patterson is brought back and pilloried and others that will only rest when that happens to the trustees. Southwestern needs to stop looking back and start moving forward and most of those I talk to related to the school want to do that.
Dr. Bingham, the interim president, has done an excellent job. I’ve spoken privately to several people who tell me that there is a positive and hopeful spirit on campus that hasn’t existed in a quite a while. When the next president comes, he will owe a great deal to Dr. Bingham. Well done and thank you.
But sometimes there are things that need to be taken care of in the past so that the school can move forward. I think that might be the case here. I would make the following suggestions, without belaboring them.
- The school needs to give a public accounting for the financial issues that have been made public. Maybe it is a big deal and maybe it is a tempest in a teapot, created by us bloggers in our housecoats down in our mothers’ basements. But since it has become such a big deal, the school needs to get ahead of this and inform the people what is going on. Let’s face it, it will come up at the Q&A time in Birmingham. Why wait till then?
- This issue of the Dead Sea Scrolls that were purchased and are reported to fake needs to be investigated fully and reported to the SBC.
- There may be some “issues” from the past that need to be dealt with where there are still hard feelings. Maybe they have been resolved and maybe they haven’t.
The SBC has shown that those leaders who inform the people and deal forthrightly with issues may face momentary problems, but get the support of the convention. Look at what Dr. Rainer is doing at LifeWay concerning the brick and mortar stores. Look at Platt. Face the music and we will stand behind you.
I want my alma mater to look forward, but I think that if it does not address some of the issues, there will be people bringing those up. Better to deal with the past as quickly and transparently as possible so we can move forward.
2. Take a look inward.
Southwestern needs to look inward and clarify what kind of school it is going to be. Too often, it was seen as the anti-Southern, the alternative to Calvinism. That isn’t all bad, of course. Having a school were non-Calvinist theology is on display is fine by me. That kind of theological variety is healthy for us. But I would hope that SWBTS would reach for more than just an oppositional stance.
- It should be convictional – After the recent disturbing events at SBU, we need to be reminded that being moored to the BF&M takes constant vigilance.
- It should be theologically diverse, within limits – the BF&M is a document of diversity, within broad Baptist limits. I hope Southwestern will continue (I think it is true at this point) to be a school that leans to the non-Calvinist but includes all soteriological stripes that are faithful to the BF&M.
- It should be excellent – I believe this is the direction that it is headed now. In the last couple of years, the controversy and financial issues have been such a drag on the school, but it has good professors and an enthusiastic student body. With a focus on financial integrity at every level, academic excellence, theological precision, and spiritual passion, it can return to its place as a leader among theological institutions.
Now, for some more specific suggestions.
3. Take a look outward.
We had an analysis of the current SWBTS financial position that included some recommendations. Among those was an increase in enrollment at SWBTS. Duh? More students not only means more tuition but in the SBC, if the enrollment increases in the right programs, it means an increase in the Cooperative Program allotment. In the last couple of years, the controversy at SWBTS has certainly not helped recruitment. Southwestern needs to attract more students.
Here is where I wander into sharing my ignorance, perhaps, but share it I will. I would make some specific suggestions here.
- Continue to build rigorous academic excellence – this is the key. Build the kind of programs with the kind of faculty that provides the kind of education that students want to receive. That is the best recruiting. I believe that this is already taking place – SWBTS has good faculty and good programs. This just needs to continue. Reputation can sometimes be harder to build than excellence itself. Keep working to provide a great Baptist education and to make it better!
- Consider lowering tuition costs – this was an idea I had during the previous discussion. A suggestion was made to raise tuition to put more money in the coffers. I am not sure that is a great idea. If you raise the tuition and everyone takes the same number of hours, a tuition increase brings more money in. But if you raise tuition it might drive students away or lead them to reduce their course schedule – self-defeating. I wonder about the opposite. Reduce tuition, especially in programs in which Cooperative Program calculations are made. There may be rules here that I am not aware of, but if you reduce tuition and get more people taking more hours it brings in more money, right? There’s probably a flaw there, but I don’t see it.
- Focus on the Hispanic World – Southwestern is uniquely positioned to minister in the Southwest and even in Central America. Again, there may be issues I am not aware of, but a Spanish Speaking pastor-training program at SWBTS seems like a workable idea. Is there a seminary in Central America I don’t know about? Maybe there is? But there are plenty of Spanish speaking people in the Southwest.
I think SWBTS is on the right track now, from all I have seen. I believe they could benefit from a look backward that deals with a few of the issues of the past, from some self-examination that gives sharper focus to who they want to be today, and a look outward to how they attract students.
Again, I know that my understanding of seminary life is limited. Much of this may be naive. But I hope that perhaps there is an idea or two here that can be used. I know the trustees – blabbermouths that some of them are – won’t respond, but maybe they will read.
David, I appreciate your ideas and agree with most of your suggestions for SWBTS. As a 1981 graduate from Southwestern, I too have an interest in the health of the school and a desire to see it flourish. I would add another suggestion to your list of three – SWBTS needs to LOOK AROUND AT OTHER SCHOOLS that are doing well, like Southern, Southeastern, Midwestern, the Masters and Trinity. Every school that I know in Southern Baptist life that has declared war on all forms of Calvinism is not doing so well. Since we graduated, and as we graduated, the Anti-Calvinistic efforts have failed in my opinion. As a former Trustee at Southern during the early days of Mohler’s Presidency, it was and is a fake Baptist news feed that all the professors were/are Calvinists. That is not true. From my experience it seems that the Traditionalists are very hostile, angry and wet-hen mad that any Southern Baptists are Calvinistic in any way. With our history deeply rooted in Spurgeonic evangelical doctrines, I don’t understand the degree of hostility. I think Southern has much more balance than people realize and Southeastern is a good example of how to balance the diversity of ideas about soteriology. I agree that SWBTS should be theologically diverse within limits, but I don’t think any of our schools need to “lean to the non-Calvinist” side at all. There were serious efforts when you and I were at SWBTS to eradicate Calvinism completely and it failed. New Orleans had some of the same sentiments when I was there in the late 80s, and it failed, in my opinion. Many young pastors and believers of all ages are weary with the decisional regeneration evangelism that has filled our rolls with thousands of members who have been baptized multiple times who we cannot find in any church and others who continue to show signs of being unregenerate. There will always be an element of evangelical Baptists who embrace a Calvinistic soteriology and a God-centered, not man-centered, gospel. Let’s not alienate any brethren in any of our schools who may lean toward or fully believe in evangelical Calvinistic truth. It seems to me that the schools that have shunned, mocked, misrepresented and derided their Calvinistic brothers in Christ have harmed the schools, not helped. Thanks for your article. I hope and pray SWBTS will land solidly on its feet… Read more »
“Many young pastors and believers of all ages are weary with the decisional regeneration evangelism that has filled our rolls with thousands of members who have been baptized multiple times who we cannot find in any church and others who continue to show signs of being unregenerate. ”
Wish you or someone would explore this more fully.
The “decisional regeneration” subject has been explored in many forms of literature such as books, blogs and tracts. Are you talking about an article on SBC Voices or another platform?
Here. The subject may have lost the interest but it’s always been a major factor where I’ve served
I have been “baptized” three times. Does this mean I’m guilty of making decisions that are regenerate? I don’t know what “decisional regeneration” is so I don’t know if that attribute applies to me or not.
My Baptisms were:
[1] as infant by sprinkling
[2] age 15 by immersion
[3] age 18 by immersion
As far as I know the presence [or absence] of Calvinism had nothing to do with any of these baptisms.
Decisional regeneration is a phrase used in some evangelical circles to identify what some, including me, think is an error in understanding how regeneration occurs. Some professing Christians believe in baptismal regeneration, some in sacramental regeneration, and some reject regeneration all together as a biblical truth. My reference to “decisional regeneration” is a way some evangelicals describe what they think is a more subtle distortion of the doctrine of the new birth. For example, I made a decision for Christ at the age of 10 in my Baptist home church, was baptized, made a church member and declared by others to be a Christian. As I came into my teen years I totally walked away from the Christian faith and church. I began to excell at sin and selfishness because I had never really been born again, and I didn’t have any clue what regeneration was at all. At the age of 18, after seeing the Lord transform my older brother’s life and hearing his witness to me, I was saved driving down Interstate 75 in Monroe County GA and regenerated without knowing what happened. My life changed and shortly afterwards I realized that my decision for Christ as a child was illegitimate I also made a decision on the highway in 1972, but the difference for me was that at 10 years old I was unconverted, unchanged and lost; while at 18 I was born again and my life changed drastically. Decisional regeneration is identified, by some, to the common mechanical method of instructing people that if they will say a prayer, ask Jesus in your heart, make your decision for Christ, then you have been born again. Joel Ostend says this at the end of every sermon I have seen, “we believe if you said that prayer then your were born again.” Our new SBC President addressed this problem in his book, “Stop Asking Jesus into Your Heart.” Are people born again as a result of man’s decision, just as many believe infants or even adults are regenerated by humans performing the act of baptism, or are people born again by the Holy Spirit of God as described by Jesus in John 3:1-9? The presence or absence of Calvinism around the human response is not a biblical issue; but the proclamation of the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit is necessary for regeneration.
My question regarding “decisional regeneration” shows my ignorance of the subject. Based upon other comments in this stream I guess I was confused between “baptismal regeneration” and “decisional regeneration” so my question does not make any sense.
In retrospect, I can report that the SBC congregation I joined baptized me again because [a] they did not accept sprinkling, and [b] they did not accept my prior baptism by immersion because the church that did it was a Disciples of Christ church which I now know [but didn’t understand until decades later]holds to the doctrine that baptism is necessary for salvation.
Of course I agree with the position of the SBC as articulated in the BFM. However, I think it is a little over the top to assume that whatever defects might have happened in previous baptisms were “correctable” by having a “correct” baptism. This is because TO ME AT THE TIME all of my baptisms by either sprinkling or immersion were the “same” — including when I was baptized at the SBC congregation. Namely they were part of joining a particular church and they had nothing to do with becoming a Christian.
Now, based upon my “more mature” understanding of the Bible, I still have the view that Baptism has little or nothing to do with becoming a Christian. Baptism is an act of obedience. But if you are being baptized without having a clue as ot what is happening, as I was, how could I possibly been considered to have been “obedient”. But at least I was not “disobedient”.
It probably is way off topic to be discussing baptism rather than SWBTS but since it was brought up by a previous commenter I took the bait and responded.
You and I graduated together, if you graduated in May of 1981. I was on crutches at the time.
I graduated in July 1981. Wish we had met and broken bread together.
I will repeat my major concern once again, lack of transparency by leadership in the SBC. Most SBC members sitting in the ;pews are not concerned about the increasing number of Calvinist in leadership positions as it is a issue they are unaware of. Most SBC members are unaware of how their money is being spent by all the various organizations they support as they trust the “system”. This is not good for the future of the SBC as the demographics change. I do not quite understand Jerry Peele statement, I do not think too many SBC members believe baptism “saves” them. Most SBC members go with John 3.16 and let it go at that, no debate on either side but it seems it is becoming an issue now. Altar calls, thing of the past? Again lack of transparency , not a good thing for the SBC.
Steve, thank you for your comments. I agree completely with you about transparency in the SBC, including our seminaries. I am sorry if I was unclear about baptismal regeneration. There are “Christian” denominations that teach baptismal regeneration. I don’t know any Baptists who believe in baptismal regeneration. What I was trying to say is that just as some believe baptism regenerates people, so also many in Baptist life seem to believe that if you say the sinners prayer, make a decision, then God regenerates you in response to your decision. I know many godly believers who basically believe in what I am calling decisional regeneration. There are others, like me, who believe the Bible teaches that regeneration is a sovereign work of God by the power of the Holy Spirit. Since the beginning of the SBC there have been two primary streams in our convention concerning soteriology – the Charleston Tradition (Calvanistic) and the Sandy Creek Tradition (not very Calvinisitic). I am not suggesting that Calvinism should be the dominating theological platform in our schools, although it would be hard to say that we are not Calvinistic if we believe in eternal security. I am saying that it is wise to recognize the diversity of ways evangelicals interpret the details of salvation, and other theological categories such as eschatology. Both “Traditionalists” and “Calvanists” should be welcome and respected in our seminaries. Neither group should be shunned, derided, or attacked for their views as long as they embrace the Baptist Faith & Message.
Let’s focus on Southwestern Seminary. I graduated with my MDiv in 1975. In those days SWBTS was the largest seminary in the world. Beyond that, during that period 55% of all the missionaries appointed by the Foreign Mission Board (now IMB) had studied at Southwestern. I can still remember how moved I was when during the first fall chapel service we sang How Firm a Foundation and then Dr. Robert Naylor pronounced us “Southwesterners.” All of us who love Southwestern must strive to help her return to her former strength and service.
Jerry Peele, thanks for your clear and concise reply. You have stated the situation well. Most SBC lay people do not know that much about the Charleston or Sandy Creek Tradition and it is not an issue to most but my own personal experience is most are Sandy Creek traditionist if they were pressed on the issue. However as you well stated the unifying connector is the BF&M.
Dave, I’m a 1980 graduate and current trustee of SWBTS. I did read it, and I also read what others write. I will very rarely respond, but will keep in mind the questions, comments, and complaints I read as we meet and discuss the work, mission and ministry of the seminary.
Thank you, sir.
Blabbermouth is my nature. The silence comes by the force of self-discipline.
Paige Patterson once said (affectionately, I think), “Bart, you think you can fix anything if you just talk about it enough.”