What’s that you hear? Crickets. As in, no sound at all. As in “no comment.” The sounds of silence — emanating from the normally loquacious, but apparently public relations challenged leaders at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, Texas — are positively deafening. And, perhaps defining.
Since the news of Southwestern’s legal “threat” to take back property that the seminary had previously leased — and then deeded — to Tarrant Baptist Association, officials at Southwestern have been quiet. Mum’s apparently the word. Perhaps on the advice of legal counsel, no one at this SBC entity has given any public comments regarding the tug-of-war going on between the Seminary and the local Ft. Worth area association of Baptist churches. Not even a gracious, “We’re working to resolve this matter in a way that advances the Kingdom and that ultimately brings honor and glory to the Lord Jesus Christ. We covet your prayers during this time.”
That shouldn’t be so hard to say. Unless, that is not your intent. Unless, you do not care if you are perceived — rightly or wrongly — as not acting in a way that is above reproach. After all, “above reproach” should be the standard that Southwestern is held to, shouldn’t it?
If 1 Timothy 3 (and other Scripture — as codified by the BF&M2000) prohibits women from serving as pastors and, said Scripture has been applied in such a way as to bar female Hebrew professors from teaching at SWBTS, then I think that Paul’s admonition to Timothy that a pastor “must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil,” should likewise apply to the spiritual leaders of the Seminary.
Whether we like it or not, we are often defined by our actions and words — and sometimes by our inactions and silence. In the property dispute involving SWBTS and Tarrant Baptist Association, Southwestern and her leaders — most visibly Dr. Paige Patterson, because he is President of the seminary — are being defined by their actions and by their silence. Likewise, the leaders of TBA — most notably Moderator Al Meredith, Pastor of Wedgwood Baptist Church (a cooperating Southern Baptist church affiliated with both the BGCT and the SBTC) — are being defined by their actions and words.
Regardless of how this plays in court (or in arbitration), the actions and words of the two parties involved also play simultaneously in the court of public opinion. The members of this court include Southern Baptists, Texas Baptists, other Evangelicals, and even unbelievers. Each of these will inevitably weigh in on the present controversy and render a verdict as to how each of the parties has handled this situation.
As this latest legal mess involving Southwestern has come to light, there have been some who have been quick to defend the Seminary’s actions using the fallacious argument, “Two Wrongs Make a Right.” The argument goes something like this:
“Because Tarrant has allowed Broadway Baptist Church — a church that supports or endorses homosexuality — to remain as a member in good standing in the Association, then SWBTS can take whatever actions it needs to get back the property from Tarrant, even if those actions are themselves not (morally) right.”
From a theological (as well as philosophical) standpoint, I’m pretty sure this is not a strong Biblical argument (Shiphrah and Puah not being on point). Southwestern’s argument for invoking the reversionary clause to take back the property apparently will hinge on the issue of “theological harmony.”
Associated Baptist Press’ most recent reporting on this issue included the following pertinent information:
“In 1982, the seminary provided Tarrant Baptist Association land and the funds to build its office building, granting a 99-year lease on the property, Meredith explained. At that time, the seminary and association entered into an affiliation agreement stipulating the property would not be used for commercial activity, and the association and seminary would commit to remaining in theological harmony.” (emphasis added) (Baptist Press, finally did a story on the controversy, omitting this information)
From reading what Al Meredith did not say, it seems two of the Seminary’s reasons for taking back the property — the Association’s alleged lack of placement help and the Seminary’s wanting the property for use as a future “Welcome Center” — may not have even been included in the Affiliation Agreement and are therefore insufficient reasons to invoke the reversionary clause. In any event, either of these two reasons — particularly the “Welcome Center” one — would be unusual circumstances to include in a reversion clause between two “friendly” parties (as was the case in 1997 when the property was deeded to TBA).
However, SWBTS may get the property back after all — just not for “free.”
“Tarrant Baptist Association’s executive board met Jan. 24 and unanimously approved a motion asking Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary either to purchase a disputed piece of property from the association at fair market value or submit the matter to arbitration.” (full article here)
Will Southwestern decide to resolve this messy situation by purchasing the property at fair market value? Or, will the leaders of SWBTS be forced to enter into arbitration, where they cannot be certain of victory. Because Southwestern has never moved to sever ties with the Tarrant Baptist Association over the issue that has caused theological disharmony and because Southwestern has continued to allow its students (and perhaps faculty and staff) to serve in the “theologically suspect” churches of this Association since 2009 (the date of Broadway Baptist’s removal from the SBC), it would appear that SWBTS has a difficult burden to prove that Tarrant has in fact violated the terms of the Affiliation Agreement.
The Seminary has the next move. What Southwestern’s leaders do or don’t do and what they say or don’t say will — for better or worse — further define who the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and her leaders are today and yes, even tomorrow. What has been viewed as an assault on autonomy by some and as just plain, old-fashioned “bullying, pressure, or strong-arm tactics” by others is not necessarily the way that Southwestern — or any of us — should want to be defined.
Sometimes, silence is golden. Actions do speak louder than words. It is past time for the leaders of Southwestern to act and communicate in such a way that they are viewed — by believers and unbelievers — as above reproach. If they do not, then no one at SWBTS should be surprised by the verdict that is handed down by the court of public opinion.
Howell,
Have you contacted Dr. Patterson or any of the trustees about this matter? If so, what was their response? If not, why not? There are always 2 sides to the story. Like Dr. Adrian Rogers said, “It’s a mighty thin pancake that only has one side.” There could be more going on here than you know about.
I think his point is that the fact that the normally loquacious Dr. Patterson is saying nothing is significant.
And Michael, do you think that if Dr. Patterson has not spoken to Baptist Press or ABP about this, that he is going to talk to Howell Scott?
I don’t mean that to demean Howell. I think he is going to be a significant factor in SBC life in the years ahead. But we are just local pastors who are on the outside of the SBC power structure looking in.
I tried to talk to Dr. Ezell about stuff and was told that he was too busy to talk to me and would not lower himself (my characterization) to communicate on a forum like this. It would be nice if leaders would respond, but they generally do not – especially if they know they are conversing with bloggers.
Dave,
Couldn’t have said it better myself (and no, you didn’t demean me 🙂 ).
Michael,
No, I have not tried to contact Dr. Patterson or any of the Trustees. Quite frankly, I think most people understand that this would be a colossal waste of time. If they will not comment to people they know, they certainly will not comment to a pastor from New Mexico that they do not know. If you believe that I have to contact these individuals before I can write an opinion piece on the controversy, I would respectfully disagree. These are public figures in a story that has been reported publicly. I would no more try to get a comment out of President Obama before writing something about one of his policies.
That being said, I have been very careful to write about the actions (not personalities) involved in this controversy. The Seminary is free to take whatever actions they wish to take, but they cannot escape scrutiny — whether from fellow Southern Baptists or the general public. In essense, they will continue to be defined by their silence and by their actions in this case, regardless of the eventual legal outcome. And, just because something is legal (in this case, invoking the reversionary clause) does not always mean that it’s right. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Dave,
You mean that if I call Dr. Ezell’s office for something it won’t help to mention that I have written a couple of articles for SBCVoices? I thought this was my ticket to the big time. [/sarcasm]
In all sincerity, I appreciate all that you and the other writers here do to keep me informed on all kinds of issues.
Yeah, let me know how that goes for you!
I can pretty much tell you that I’ve never been anyone’s ticket to the big time!
Dave’s name plus mine plus $5 will buy you a latte at Starbucks.
You can leave off my name and get one for $4.50.
We are all a part of a convention that has historically ignored problems and conflicts because they know it’ll eventually go away, especially if you can destroy or bully the other side.
Why are we shocked that this method is being applied here?
It’s the Southern Baptist way…
It’s not a way to brag about and it dooesn’t have to be business as usual.
At best, SWBTS comes off here as something of an “Indian giver” since they want the property back that they gave away a few years ago. They may be weighing the cost of litigation to get it back versus the cost of simply buying it back. Sometimes, on the advice of attorneys, people say nothing at all until the details of a deal are worked out. Hopefully, it will be resolved soon.
It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.
That’s interesting, Howell. I also have had questions in the past. I contacted Morris Chapman and he graciously responded. I contacted Johnny Hunt during his tenure as SBC president and he responded. It’s sort of like trying out for the basketball team–how do you know you won’t make it if you don’t try out? I don’t think my comment said you had to contact anyone before writing anything. I always try to get both sides of the story or at least attempt to before publicly commenting on it. Most leaders if treated with respect will respond to your questions.
Since you hide your identity here, how are we to know if you are comparing apples to apples?
My version of the “I contacted story” works like this: back in 2000-2001, there was a rumor that the IMB was going to mandate serving missionaries to sign the new BF&M. I emailed Jerry Rankin’s office and got a response stating that there was no way that was going to happen.
Then it did.
I’ve contacted various other SBC entities over the years for ministry issues and come away with the same feeling as Dave: your church is not big enough, you’re not famous enough, go buy what you need from Lifeway and leave us alone.
The cynicism usually comes from an experience, not from just general paranoia.
And within the SBC, no, most of the leadership will not answer your questions. The apparent viewpoint is that asking questions is being disrespectful, so the questions don’t get answered since we’re not “trusting the leadership.”
I’m glad your experience was different with Drs. Hunt and Chapman.
As to your analogy: it’s easy for me to see who the coach wants on the basketball team. They’re all 3 inches taller, 2 steps faster, and can jump higher. Why waste my time? Who do the entity leaders respond to? People that are more famous and more influential, so why waste my time?
Did they, in fact, respond or did someone with access to the email contacts respond.
I can send an email to Barack Obama and get a response from someone “claiming” to be President Obama.
I can do the same thing with celebrities, business leaders, and other political figures.
Heck, in the state that I work, a friend of mine is the person who handles all of the correspondence for several high ranking state officials. She puts their names on her responses to people like us sending in emails.
They all walk away feeling like they “spoke with” or “communicated with” leaders of the state.
I’m sure their warm and fuzzies was very similar to the warm and fuzzy feeling you had “talking” to Chapman and Hunt.
And for the record, I’ve sent three very gracious emails to Johnny Hunt questioning the disappearance of the transparency he promised concerning the GCRTF. No response.
I’m sure your puffy “I’m praying for you” emails got answered very quickly.
I’m trying to walk a fine line between Michael’s seeming condemnation of anyone who criticizes our leaders and the kind of angry cynicism you often display.
I believe that dissent from our leaders is a good thing. But when we become simply angry and bitter, we cease to be productive.
Dave,
Your comment was very vague. Who did you speak with? Dr. Ezell or his secretary? Did she really tell you he was “too busy” to speak with you and that he wouldn’t lower himself to speak with you? If so, those are pretty serious accusations.
None of your business, really.
I clearly labeled that as my characterization of the conversation.
Dave,
You have a habit of putting words in people’s mouths and writing what you perceive as reality. I haven’t criticized or condemned anyone. I asked simple questions. Any good reporter gets (or at least attempts) to get both sides of the story before making his findings public. If Howell had contacted SWBTS and they said they weren’t talking then I could see basis for his story. I’m not sure who you’re talking about being cynical, angry and bitter. The only one I can see doing that would be you with your “none of your business” comment. Actually, when you hit submit it became everyone’s businees as you made your conversation with Dr. Ezell public. Until then, you’re right it was your business only. I’m not on anyone’s side here Dave. I’m about getting both sides of the story and accurately reporting the results. That’s all I asked Howell to begin with.
David, it is a common ploy of those who disagree with your characterization of a conversation to ask for specific details. The last thing any thinking person would do is to give such a person any details.
Their desire MAY NOT be to discover truth, but to start a fight where there is no fight. Wise decision.
Michael, you have made your low opinion of our journalistic practices evident.
Either engage the topic of the debate or move on.
I thought I did. No problem. Good evening.
Here’s the thing, Michael. Your comments have not been so much about the topic as about whether we should even be talking about it. You made your point on that, even though we disagree.
Michael,
Sorry for the delay in responding. Between sitting in doctors’ offices and coaching my oldest son’s basketball game tonight, I’ve not had much time to comment. I’m glad that you were able to personally communicate with some of the SBC leaders in the past. I willingly admit that I did not endeavor to talk with either of the parties involved, but wrote my commentary/opinion piece based in large measure upon the public reporting that has already been done.
That SWBTS has consistently had no comment and/or refused to comment, even to Baptist Press, was one of the main points of this article. I’m not upset if folks do not like the way that I write or the information that I gather or do not gather from primary sources (as opposed to secondary sources). After all, a souce is a source and we have to weight the source’s credibility in the first place. If you or anyone else wants to mark me down for that alleged deficiency of using secondary sources (i.e., not personally contacting or attempting to make contact), that’s entirely your call. Thanks for reading. God bless,
Howell