Last year would have to be described as a difficult time for Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary by any metric. There were reports of declining enrollment and financial troubles, along with the constant drumbeat of controversy that led to the dismissal of their long-tenured president, Dr. Paige Patterson, an event that also resulted in some of the more dramatic convention moments we have witnessed in a while.
Whatever your take on the troubles, I think we can agree that it was not SWBTS’ best year.
I am not closely involved with what is happening at the school but have been observing from afar. It appears that SWBTS is on the comeback trail and that good things are happening at the school.
First, there was a story in Baptist Press on October 17 which shared the news of the trustee meeting in which several significant things happened. They affirmed the action of the Executive Committee to fire Dr. Patterson with no more than four negative votes among the 34 trustees present. The trustees appeared to hug it out and resolve some of their differences. A very healthy exchange took place when trustees with opposing views were authorized to speak publicly and express their views. Hopefully, this kind of transparency will become a new standard in SBC life. It was an important step in moving forward.
Last week, word broke that a 2006 sermon by Dwight McKissic on the Holy Spirit, which had been censored by Dr. Patterson, had been restored on the SWBTS chapel website. Charles Patrick, on behalf of the seminary, said it was not about undoing actions of Dr. Patterson but about preserving a historical record. We are pleased that our friend and contributor Dwight had his sermon restored. It should have never been censored.
I had the unexpected opportunity to talk to a representative of SWBTS for a few moments a few days ago. I won’t identify him or even where we spoke, but he gave me a glowing report of the spirit on campus this year. He had expected much more of a hangover from the previous year’s brouhaha, but believes that professors and students have bounced back with a remarkable spirit. It was not a party line. He seemed genuine in saying that there was optimism and a great spirit on campus.
There have, according to reports, been some donors that chose to abandon the school because of the firing. Evidently, they were supporting Paige Patterson and not the school. We can pray that God will replace them quickly.
The SBC will be better off with a healthy SWBTS. May it come to pass.
I am glad that the trustees of SWBTS did not succumb to the threats of the donors who did pull. Extortion is all too ready a tool used to steer the ship. I think as we have seen, the freedom of people to breathe deeply and education to be key once again is becoming a reality.
I think some would argue that education went on unabated last year, in spite of the troubles.
I follow several of the professors at SWBTS on Twitter, and I think they carried on pretty well last year. Students were educated. I think the main difference this year is that the cloud is no longer hanging over the school that was hanging over everything last year.
I don’t want to overstate things. SWBTS still educated a lot of people last year.
Yeah you are right Dave. That is more accurate.
Hopefully they will be able to educate without all the tumult.
As an alum I am glad for an encouraging report.
I also am an alum. I also am glad to hear good things.
As an alum, I am thrilled to hear of the change and pray for healing and restoration to that jewel of a seminary. Incredibly grateful for the new leadership in Dr Bingham. He is a tremendous relief.
I graduated the year before Dr Roberts stepped down as President at MBTS in 2012. We had good teachers, and drew great students, but the mismanagement was a weight around the schools neck. It did not help that there were rumors that the SBC might cut ties/shutter 1-2 seminaries and MBTS was the most likely target.
Then Dr. Allen became president later that year and the school took off. Enrollment has tripled since 2011, new programs and a new vision. The Seminary is healthier than ever and doing great work to further the Gospel.
It is my prayer that something similar happens at SWBTS. A new president with a new vision, leading the seminary into a new era of furthering the Gospel.
It would be wonderful if SWBTS returned to its glory days among the largest seminaries in the world.
I think it can happen. Dr. Bingham is making great strides but a new president is necessary.
As an alum, I’m glad to see things are improving. I was there during the “glory days”. Finding parking spaces wasn’t fun, and chapel was usually pretty crowded in the old auditorium. It was a great school and provided me with a great seminary experience and a degree that has opened many doors.
Things have changed so much since then regarding the delivery of a graduate level seminary education. It may be able to regain enrollment if it ever becomes involved in the modern trends of delivering quality graduate level education on line or in satellite campus locations. The one thing about Southwestern that I didn’t really care for was that it was located in Ft. Worth, not one of my favorite places, and that would be a factor in the potential growth of any graduate level educational institution these days.
But the “bread and butter” of Southwestern during its glory days was the number of students it drew from the churches of the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Still by far the larger of the two state conventions, the Texas Baptists that were the core of Southwestern’s student body are, for the most part, going elsewhere and the state convention has established several alternative theological graduate schools that collectively enroll just about as many Texas Baptists as Southwestern did in its glory days, when there was just one state convention. The SBCT hasn’t taken up the slack in enrollment. Somehow, some way, if Southwestern is going to be close to what it once was, it will have to repair its relationship with the Baptist General Convention of Texas.
SWBTS was the conservative option when Southern, Southeastern, and Midwestern were liberal. People came from all over the country.
With all 6 schools being conservative and trustworthy and with the acceptance of non-SBC degrees today, the preeminent status of SWBTS may never return.
But it can be strong.
Also, SWBTS no longer has some of the degrees it used to have in the Religious Education school that previously brought in more students, so that combined with what Dave Miller described above, would make it hard for SWBTS to return to the numbers of the 80’s. That said, the school can recover some of what has been lost in recent years.
If SWBTS was the conservative option why was it attacked so ruthlessly by leaders of the CR. Why was there a campaign to undermine and fire Russell Dilday almost from the day he was hired? Why was the trustee board packed with enemies of Dilday? I once heard Paul Pressler describe the faculty of SWBTS as liberal. Was he speaking the truth?
I attended SWBTS. My preaching prof’s dissertation was on why inerrancy was not true. I had other profs that with theology that was suspect. But there were many conservative profs – unquestioned. And compared to the rampant liberalism at SBTS, SEBTS, and MBTS, it WAS a more conservative option. It was not without problems. It was much improved by the conservative resurgence.
I do not expect you with your years of anger toward the CR to agree.
I stated a fact, Ron. We are not going to turn this into another one of your anti-CR diatribes. Future comments in that direction will be summarily deleted. It is NOT germane to the topic. Surely, there are other places you can vent about your anger over the CR.
Dave,
I asked what I consider a natural question in response to your statement that SWBTS was the conservative option. You confuse anger with my legitimate and often stated disagreements with the goals and purposes of many CR leaders. As I have stated before, I can support the CR when its actions support conservative theology. I oppose it when its actions are political and dishonest. Whenever I post anything that does not agree with your opinion, you are the one who goes into a diatribe. I have never attacked you personally. You are the one who has on numerous occasions stated I am slanderous, bitter, consumed by hatred, I hate the SBC, I do not object to liberal theology, I should leave the SBC and worse. None of which I consider true.
You state SWBTS has been much improved by the conservative resurgence. Can anyone honestly look at SWBTS today with its declining enrollment, faculty chosen for political and not theological qualifications, and trustee board that approved Patterson’s financial disasters and the stained glass windows and say the it is improved over what has been stated earlier as the glory years?
Did the trustees vote to change this policy statement they put in several years ago…
“Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including ‘private prayer language.’ Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices.”
…Since they have reposted the sermon by Dwight McKissic?
Dwight is Baptist
I knew that from long ago. Just wondering if they had reversed that policy they voted on just after the issue in 2006.
Not that I am aware of.
Alan, I’ll give a short answer to your question. “No.” There was no SWBTS plenary session “vote” to change the 2006 ill-advised policy. The SWBTS Executive Committee or current administrators could have reversed the policy internally (Fall 2018) and intend to report out their decision at the next SWBTS board meeting. The 2006 SWBTS policy you cite above was instituted one year after the International Mission Board voted to adopt the similarly ill-advised and anti-SBC constitutional 2005 policies on baptism and private prayer language at the behest of Paige Patterson’s followers who flooded the IMB trustee board. Unlike SWBTS, the IMB trustees officially “voted” last year during a plenary session to reverse those 2005 policies, and the media reported on their actions. SWBTS has yet to officially ‘vote’ in plenary session to reverse their 2006 policy, but the effect of reversing it is already being felt with the addition of McKissic’s message, the removal of other online archival items, and a host of other changes being made as I write. It just takes some Southern Baptists a little more time to understand the implications of poor policies. We talk a big game of unity, brotherhood, and emphasis on evangelism in the SBC, but when you’re more concerned about shutting out your fellow Southern Baptists from missions service, convention leadership, and their preaching from preservation in archives because they disagree with you over tertiary doctrinal matters, then unity talk is just that – talk.
Thank you Dave and Wade.
Wade….wasn’t the SWBTS action simply a resolution of the trustees? If so, it does not have the force of policy. I think it was just expressing the sentiment of the board at that time, similar to how SBC resolutions are non-binding.
After reading some more articles it appears you are correct Baptist blogger. It is the same as a sbc resolution. Toothless…
Baptist Blogger, it could be argued it’s a policy because of this statement. “Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices.” Resolutions have nothing to do with hiring; policies and procedures do. And, as has recently been stated by an SWBTS employee whom current SWBTS administrators wished to terminate, “The trustees hired me. Only the trustees can fire me.” She was correct. So the termination occurred during this last SWBTS trustee ‘closed-door” session. I have no issue with current SWBTS administrators or SWBTS trustees arguing that the SWBTS 2006 statement was intended as a ‘resolution’ and not a ‘policy,’ but our trustees need to begin cracking down on institutional administrators convincing them to PUT IN WRITING statements about hiring practices and call them “a resolution.” That’s poor logic and poor leadership.
The non-binding nature of SBC resolutions is more of a quirk than a general rule. Each annual meeting is a “session” of messengers, and that session dissolves at the end of the Annual Meeting. Generally, under Robert’s, no action by the majority at one session can “bind” the majority at a future session.
Corporate trustees, on the other hand, don’t meet in “session.” They’re trustees all the time. So a “Corporate Resolution” isn’t different from a “action” or “motion.” It’s the action or position of the trustees until they change it.
It might be true that a “corporate resolution” doesn’t require any action, as in “resolved, we appreciate folks.” But “resolved, the policy is changed” shouldn’t be different from “moved, the policy is changed.”
So does that mean this is board policy? https://swbts.edu/news/releases/trustees-praise-patterson-first-five-years-service/
The first “Resolved” clause expresses the appreciation of a certain group as of a certain date. The second resolved commits to prayer and a hope for long service. Subsequent board action fixed the length of said hope, I suppose, but what else is left to change?
Well stated Jon.
I’m having trouble figuring out how a Baptist institution defines and distinguishes what is meant by “commending the practices of the Charismatic movement” which are similar to practices that occur in many Baptist churches, including a number that are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. I know that is a reference to belief in “sign gifts” of the Holy Spirit, but how do you draw a line? Most Baptists believe in divine healing, and there are quite a few (probably more than anyone here wants to admit) who are not cessationists and who believe in the manifestation of the sign gifts including tongues and private prayer language. These practices were happening in Baptist churches long before there was a Charismatic movement, so how is this determination made?
It seems like a lot of the donor money that won’t be coming in now didn’t really go to things that were necessities, or vital to seminary operation. Perhaps if they get into difficulties in some areas, they can sell a few of the expensive Steinways that were purchased.
Steinways are expensive. According to websites of several Steinway dealers a new Steinway is in the $250,000 to $300,000 range. I would think that a lowly Bosendorfer, Kawai, or Yamaha would be good enough. Some of those instruments can be purchased for bargain basement prices of less than $200,000.
I’m not convinced that the sign gifts we know of since the charasmatic movement was at play in the mainstream Baptist Church before then. There may have been a few, very few who may have practiced a version in some way but Baptist history doesn’t show it was in any way a regular accepted practice before the movement