Dr. Clint Bass was dismissed “with cause” from the theology faculty of Southwest Baptist University back in November. According to a petition posted by supporters of Dr. Bass, he will appeal to trustees of the Missouri Baptist college this Friday and ask to be reinstated.
According to his dismissal letter and other documents posted along with the petition, it appears that Dr. Bass is supportive of the BF&M2000 and was concerned that his colleagues at Southwest Baptist University were not supportive and were teaching contrary to the statement of faith – in spite of the fact that the college is aligned with the Missouri Baptist Convention.
More information is posted at the petition site, including the letters of dismissal from the University President, Dr. Eric Turner, and provost Dr. Lee Skinkle, as well as documentation of departure from SBC doctrinal positions (here and here). In the dismissal letters, SBU leadership focuses on the fact that Dr. Bass kept documentation on his colleagues, their theological perspectives and statements. Dr. Bass turned over his personal notes on the subject only after SBU leadership demanded an unredacted copy.
The information we have is all publicly available. My purpose here is not to advocate or play referee – as I don’t know Dr. Bass or anyone involved personally. This seems to be a serious situation and we believe our readers ought to be made aware of this matter to explore, research, and come to your own conclusions.
Statement by Dr. Clint Bass after Friday meeting:
Wednesday, a Trustee committee promised me a fair appeal hearing. We were to meet at 9 a.m. Each side was to speak for thirty minutes, uninterrupted, with five minutes of rebuttal. I never received that hearing today. The witnesses that had shown up with me were never allowed to enter the room.
Instead, the Committee demanded I agree to keep the appeal process secret. When I asked for time to consult with legal counsel, I was denied. After I refused, the Committee asked me questions until nearly 2 p.m., directed by the University’s lawyer. A focus was my communications with other Missouri Baptists, and whether those communications were immoral. Meanwhile, University staff published a post accusing me of dishonesty.
After it became clear I would not receive the promised hearing, I told the committee that I would not answer further questions without an agreement for a fair process and attorney. I was ready to participate in the process promised to me. I am grieved for SBU that the Administration did not honor those promises
I have two questions: First, do we know if he was dismissed under the leadership of the outgoing or incoming president. Two, why would you keep documentation on the beliefs and theology of other professors? That seems a bit Nixonian to me.
Tony, I think the documents linked will answer the first question better than I can. As for number two, it sounds like Dr. Bass had been in communication with pastors and state convention leaders who were also concerned. They would have needed documentation. He may have been between a rock and a hard place. If he said their theology was questionable, people would want examples. But then they complain that he kept a record of examples. I wonder if he’s being made out to be the bad guy (divisive, breaching protocol) so that the deeper issues aren’t really in focus.
You hit the nail on the head. I am a SBU alum, MBC pastor and Dad of a current sbu freshman. This caught me by surprise about 2 weeks ago. I had thought I could trust sbu.
Tony, the fact is that if he was concerned by the theology being taught at his university, then he would have to document it. It is not Nixonian.
I watched this at my college, back in the 70s. The professors were liberal – not moderate, out and out liberal. They outlawed any recording devices (back then, they were big things that could hardly be hidden) because a couple of guys had recorded professors and played the recording for pastors in the local association and caused a ruckus. They were masters at saying things like “Yes I believe the Bible is inspired” but they defined inspiration differently than Bible-believers did.
If there is theological drift at SBU (and I do not know if the accusations are true or not) the drifters will claim there is no drift. The one making the accusation will have to prove his contention and what Dr. Bass did is the only way that can happen.
Now, there are two possibilities. Bass could be making false accusations against innocent men. It has happened. Or, he could be the victim of a hit job as an institution circles the wagons to protect itself.
I don’t know which is which, but we felt as though this information was credible enough to warrant being seen by the wider audience in the SBC. We hope that Missouri Baptists will deal with it responsibly.
Apparently this is a BIG thing in the SBU community at large. My oblivious SBU son told me about this last week, and he isn’t in the Theology college. I am in the weird position of having a student at a MBC aligned university (SBU) and another at a former MBC university (MBU probably coming back into the fold). We went into Missouri Baptist University with eyes wide open, but apparently some of my presuppositions about SBU may have been incorrect. I don’t expect SBU to be a church, but I do expect them to be somewhat orthodox.
You’re right. Nixonian was harsh. This is not good. I’m just now hearing about this and as an MBC pastor, I’m not happy.
I have a couple of more questions: Don’t these guys publish books/articles that point out their flawed theology? Second, what do we do now? Is there something more effective than campaigning to get Dr. Bass his job back? He may not even want his job back.
I’m not surprised by this. I think the disaffected and fired professors from the conservative resurgence and their progeny have matriculated to undergraduate institutions where their particular brand of unbiblical theology can hide better. Just my thought though.
Any news on what happened friday?
No
Mr, Hobbs , thanks for writing this article and getting the word out about Dr. Bass’s dismissal. -CSB
Thank you for staying anonymous. Glad to see that you are so concerned that you’d rather not have someone be able to question you forthright.
Sarcasm much?
Perhaps, having seen what happened to Dr. Bass for raising concerns, CSB here is concerned about retribution occurring without solid appeal…
CSB I am appalled by they way you have pushed your and Southern Hills Baptist Churches agenda. If someone were to look close they would see this deceitful way of doing things is what they are all about. Always wanting their way no matter what it cost others. Congrats on giving non Christians a reason to stay non Christians. May God have mercy on your soul and those you are supporting.
If these quotes that are given are accurate, this is a problem of the same order as why the Conservative Resurgence took place. Some of these quotes are denials of Baptist beliefs. Some of these quotes are denials of Christian beliefs. I have learned a lot in the past couple of years about nuances and so on, but I don’t see a middle ground here. This could be an existential threat to SBU.
Not my state. Not my money. Since the matter is raised here, one might note that the dismissal letter is lengthy and specific. If trustees overturn the decision that would be catastrophic. But…no dog in this fight.
Why would it be catastrophic?
Trustees would show no confidence in the leader they hired and signal displeasure with many faculty. Likely, other faculty would choose sides, donors would reconsider, and turmoil would ensue. A mess.
Thanks for responding to my question brother. I guess I look at this a different way. I served on a local school board for about 16 years and while it’s not identical to being an entity trustee, it’s similar. Trustees should go into the appeal process with an open mind so that it is a legitimate appeal.
I personally think that if the the trustees look at the evidence and choose to reverse the actions of the administration, because they believe there is sufficient warrant to do so, it is a healthy thing because they would be doing their job. Trustees/board members are not rubber stampers, they are overseers.
But, I certainly respect your opinion.
Clint Bass’s assertions are more than just hearsay. According to a website trying to have Dr. Bass re-instituted as a professor at SBU: “We also wanted to bring to your attention some quotes from two of the Redford professors own mouths’; specifically the dean of the College, Dr. Rodney Reeves, and one of the Religion and Philosophy professors, Dr. Zach Manis. This is from a student forum on the doctrine of Hell and eternal punishment, and is a 6-minute clip that we recommend you take time to listen to.” I’ve attached the clips here. Anyone who is concerned about the integrity of the teaching Missouri Baptist students receive or that this is happening at a Southern Baptist school should be concerned. https://www.dropbox.com/s/twpjvxc9nnnmzhb/Forum-On-Hell-SBU.mp3?dl=0
I listened to a good bit of that lecture. It certainly straddles the borders of orthodox teachings.
The professors did not deny basic doctrine but most would be uncomfortable with their teachings I think.
Dave, I’m sure students would be uncomfortable with any of their traditional views being challenged and examined throughly. However, to have views never examined and analyzed is to never exercise a muscle. By no means am I trying to suggest that we should be absolutist skeptics, but if we hope for students to be educated without questions and digging deeper than “I agree with this,” I can assure you they will become ministers who are unable to come even close to answers questions and considering everyday experiences of congregations should they choose to be pastors.
If you would refer to Dr. Manis’ input about responding to an email, he agrees with this idea that challenging deeply-held assumptions is more necessary, although sometimes uncomfortable, than many evangelicals may be willing to explicitly accept.
You are responding to something I did not say.
Bob Ninney,
Having a faculty that does not affirm traditional views is a far cry from merely exposing students to challenges to those views. They need more than challenges to what is right–they also need affirmation of what is right–else why do we send our children to Evangelical and SBC institutions in the first place? Send them to a godless university and they will get even more of the supposedly beneficial challenges.
Ken Hamrick, you are right as the rain. Bob Ninney’s comment brings back memories of Bill Leonard and John Steely and others from another time in Baptist history.
Ah the slippery slope fallacy… and yes, their views would be even more challenged at a secular university. I would consider this very healthy- if your beliefs don’t hold up to this level of scrutiny then, well, maybe they’re not your beliefs after all. I’m an SBU alum, and I wish I had spent more time out of the bubble that forms around that campus.
I’m going to have a different take on this than many who have already posted.
I have no agreement with the views expressed by the profs in the documents I read, but I also have no problem with them teaching in the school of theology to religion majors.
Here is why.
My education at OBU in the 90s was robust. We had profs with views all over the place. Moderates. Conservatives. Liberals. I learned a lot from all of them.
The more liberal guys stayed close to the curriculum and the best in the intro classes that were required for everyone. But in the classes for religion majors all bets were off. And we were better for it.
The key to teaching good theology at the academic level is diversity and debate. I had to study to refute the ideas some of my profs presented.
A university is not a church. A classroom is not a worship service. A professor is not a pastor. We produce better scholars and better pastors when they have to learn things they disagree with.
OBU tried to take a fundamentalist conservatism turn following the retirement of Dr. Agee. It almost destroyed my alma mater. And really hurt the quality of education offered for years.
I hope this isn’t the case at SBU.
True enough, but I was taught diverse views at SWBTS by conservative professors. I would think the question would be, are the students being taught that liberal theology is the correct interpretation or just another viewpoint. I was taught that it was a viewpoint at SWBTS. By the way, is the OBU you’re talking about Ouachita or Oklahoma?
Should have clarified. Oklahoma.
And I guess my response to your statement would be, I’m not as concerned about the prof having perfect theological views. Is he an expert in his/her field? I mean we study CS Lewis and learn from him. Same for Pinnock. And Bultmann.
I realize I’m in the minority. I just think academics require a different standard.
I was just wondering if we shared the same alma mater. Sure, I Study Lewis, but I also know he tended toward different religions worshipping the same God. He was wrong. Maybe a better example would be my first Bible class at Ouachita. I was taught that God did not create the world in a literal seven days. I wasn’t taught that the literal seven days view was wrong. In contrast, in my OT class, I was taught the same view, but it was taught as one view that some theologians hold. Our prof. then taught us his interpretation. A student should know different interpretations and be exposed to them, but not in such a way that contradicts or undermines the theology the institution says it subscribed to.
I don’t disagree. And that’s where I have questions about this whole situation. What’s the context of the statements? How are these views presented?
What we ran into at OBU was fear of “different” views being presented as an academic exercise. Basically fundamentalism. That’s doesn’t work in academia.
If a professor is presenting views as a part of education, even if he holds those views privately, I’m not concerned. If a prof is saying this is the only to believe and belittling other views, then we have an issue. Especially if those views are outside orthodoxy.
Agreed. My prof. in question at OBU never presented another interpretation. He was not a prof. nor a local pastor the next semesterZ.
As someone who graduated with a ministry degree from SBU in 2015, I can say that the profs teach viewpoints. They do it to challenge your thinking so that you know what you believe, why you believe it, how you know it to be true (Biblical evidence, hermeneutics), how to defend it, and how to share it (Gospel). In my time there, they were always reluctant to tell you what they personally believed because they didn’t want you to be swayed or indoctrinated. They wanted you to form your own views.
Robley,
In those clips they shared their personal views which differ from the doctrinal standards of the BF&M 2000. When I attended SEBTS (after it had become a solidly biblical school) we were exposed to differing viewpoints. No problem. It was even considered necessary. However, all of the professors personally affirmed the doctrinal standards. This does not seem true of these professors.
I wrote a book called, “Brick Walls, Picket Fences” which made NO bestseller lists anywhere. But I spoke of the need to build a brick wall around a few doctrines where the gospel and orthodoxy was at stake and to be accepting of differences in other areas. (If I wasn’t the author I would claim that to be a gross oversimplification of my book).
Ryan Abernathy SEEMS to advocate that we not uphold doctrinal standards on any issues – even those related to the gospel. That is what a liberal is, someone who disbelieves the truths concerning the gospel, and he says we should tolerate liberals and accept them. (Ryan, perhaps you want to revise/clarify that?)
I say we must have a wall of orthodoxy in our churches and schools around gospel doctrine and certain Baptist distinctives. It is not unreasonable that when we send kids to Baptist colleges we can trust that their education will be in line with the BF&M and that such doctrines will not be intentionally undermined.
Dave if that is what you are reading then I am not expressing myself very well. (I am going to blame that on commenting while at a swim meet for three hours- not highly recommended)
What I am trying to say is the following:
1. Academic freedom is important. Professors need to feel free to teach doctrines- even heretical doctrines- without fear of being labelled as heretics themselves.
2. Professors who may hold personal convictions that differ from an institutions should be able to commit to teach to that institutions doctrinal standards or be honest and go elsewhere.
3. My concern that this is similar to the “purge” at SWBTS was not a reference to the unjust dismissals of Dr. Klouda or Dr. Bullock due to their gender, but in regards to two other professors I am aware of who were run out of the seminary due to similar allegations to these. I know both men. They are good Christians and good Baptists. They are no more liberal than I am, but they were targeted and their lectures and writings were taken out of context to make them look like something they were not.
I think that doctrinal standards are essential for churches. I would have less issue with firm doctrinal control in an academic setting, but would not employ someone whose personal scriptural convictions deviated from orthodoxy. In this specific instance, I would be less concerned with a lack of adherence to the BF&M2000 (which is considered by many respected academics to be a flawed document) and more concerned about the accusations of professors who are practicing universalists and annihilationists.
My issue with this whole situation is how quick everyone is to raise the accusation of “liberalism.” And the multiple assertions that the “battle is not over.” I am tired of the war footing in the SBC. I am tired of academics being viewed with suspicion. I am tired of adherence to a manmade document (be it the BF&M, the Institutes, the Trad Statement, etc) being elevated over scripture AND over scriptural ways of handling disagreement.
Maybe this struck a nerve with me and I over-wrote. It happens. I hope this makes my position clearer. Those who know me in real life on this board, know I am no liberal and no tolerator of heresy. But I also believe in a fair hearing and on people who disagree sitting down with one another and seeking understanding and mutual respect, even if they don’t agree.
Do you believe that adherence to our confession of faith is a negative thing?
I know of no one who claims it to be perfect or inerrant but it is our adopted confession.
Should we ignore it?
Should academic freedom trump confessional integrity?
Right, Scott Eaton.
Ryan,
What begins being inclusive of liberal views ends by being exclusive of conservative views. The liberal revolution is never stagnant, with the goal of mere objectivity or scholarly diversity. Until “every foe is vanquished” and no opposition would even dare raise its voice, the liberal slide will not stop.
Far better is for conservative professors to accurately present the liberal side, including liberal texts, while also pointing out their weaknesses. You want debate? Give the students a liberal text and assign them to substantively engage it with a paper of their own. You don’t need a liberal professor to do that.
Ken,
Respectfully. I don’t agree with your first paragraph. It’s more fearmongering than factual.
I sat under liberal professors. They were men who loved Jesus. They were also men who embraced doctrines I could not after a careful study of scripture. They were trying to build good pastor-scholars. Not liberals.
I’m not opposed to what you suggest in your second paragraph, but in this particular case, as in many, we see a possible overreaction based on a difference in theological interpretation. I see shades here’s of what I saw happen at SWBTS to several professors. We don’t need that in the SBC.
You believe that we should tolerate liberals in SBC schools? I certainly am going to part ways with you there. To say that upholding doctrinal standards is tantamount to SWBTS and the mistreatment of women and such – you’ve gone off the deep end Ryan.
Honestly, if you think upholding confessional standards is evil and makes us oppressive, you probably ought not be in the SBC. I was part of a long struggle to protect doctrinal standards. While I do not agree with everything that went on in the name of the Conservative Resurgence, when I see someone disrespecting it, as you are, I cringe a little.
And I watched as many of the young men (and women) I entered school with had their faith, and their walk with Christ, shattered by these liberal professors you speak so highly of. So, thank you, but no.
I think education should include a free exchange of ideas and many viewpoints, but if someone denies the fundamentals of the faith and is rejecting the BF&M, then they have no business teaching at an SBC-affiliated or funded school.
Truth if truth was ever made public in a Baptist forum.
Enjoy your echo chamber. Those of us Christians who are out in the real world understand the value of what Ryan is saying.
Are you including college professors here or talking primarily about seminaries? Though they may intersect in roughly the same time frame, I think there is a world of difference between an 18 year old college freshman and a 22 year old seminarian.
From my own experience Ken is right. Perhaps not in every single individual, but liberalism always seems to start in one place and end in another. It might start in free inquiry and tolerance but ends in kangaroo trials and speech codes. It manipulates the language to say one thing and mean another disguising it’s true beliefs behind a wall of emotionally familiar words with shape shifted meanings.
Academic institutions are often incapable of reversing the tide once begun. Only the trustees are trusted with the legitimate power and authority for the needed corrective action. Clear adoption of the BFM 2000 as a confessional standard would be a good start.
Wonderfully said. Thank you!
I am a parent of an SBU graduate with a BA in Biblical Studies and have another son who will be graduating from SBU this May with a DPT. My children recently informed me of the firing of Dr. Clint Bass and I am I deeply concerned over the future of the Redford School of Theology and furthermore the state of the university itself. This action is an indication the university has lost its mission and focus.
Missouri Baptists across this state should be concerned that the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is disregarded by several theology and ministry professors with the claims it creates “a toxic environment” and is “politically restrictive.” I am shocked these views are acceptable by the board of trustees because it certainly is not the view of the Baptist sitting in the pew.
From a personal note, one of my sons was questioning some theology taught in one of his classes in Redford. He went to Dr. Bass who took him through the Bible to explain the what was wrong with what he was taught in the class and why it was wrong. The part that irritates me is this happened several years ago. My son never thought to tell me about it. Therefore, I know this problem has occurred and been ignored in the past.
I have been made aware that Dr. Bass has documentation supporting his concerns over the teaching at Redford and the liberalism taught there. When he advised the administration of his concerns, he was ordered to provide his documentation or be dismissed. Dr. Bass complied and provided his notes. Upon doing so, the allegations were denied and Dr. Bass was fired. It is impossible to believe, that with the speed in which this firing took place, a careful consideration of Dr. Bass’ documentation and an in depth, deliberate investigation took place at all.
With the fall of many Christian institutions toward theological liberalism, I find it completely unacceptable that Missouri Baptists can be fooled into sending their children to a conservative Missouri Baptist institution and later find out that the theology department has a dean who has publically denied the biblical doctrine of everlasting punishment and who has, in various settings, espoused annihilation. Furthermore, it has been deeply troubling to hear that the chair of theology attends a CBF church and the dean of theology and ministry has regularly employed a CBF pastor as an adjunct instructor.
Dr. Bass should be reinstated by the trustees and a thorough investigation must take place. The manner in which this situation has been handled is a disgrace. The timing of this dismissal appears to be a cruel and vindictive way in which to inflict pain, suffering and utmost damage to Dr. Bass’ reputation. An appropriate response should be the removal of all theology and ministry professors who have been undermining the doctrinal fidelity of Missouri Baptists and God’s Word. The new SBU President should go as well. In my opinion he has failed a critical test as a leader!
“argued that Bass had compromised the integrity of the Redford College, citing three grounds . . . (3) Bass belonged to a meddlesome congregation”
I’m trying to think if I’ve ever been a member of a congregation anywhere that could not, in some legitimate sense, be described as meddlesome. Ouch!
The church is literally across the street from campus, so maybe you can be meddlesome as long as you’re out of line of sight? 🙂
From the letters for dismissal, the firing was just.
I do not know any of those involved but making accusations without first-hand knowledge and refusing to speak with the accused in a Christian manner is simply wrong.
Even if all accusations be true, the way Dr. Bass dealt with the matter (according to the dismissal letter) is grounds for removal.
That is a possibility, that confessional problems exist at SBU but that Bass handled it poorly.
Personnel matters are always tricky, but I would doubt the validity of these claims. Clint does have first hand knowledge of these accusations. Clint also has had conversations directly with the faculty.
Here’s the simple bottom line- will SBU adopt the BFM 2000 (affirmed by the MBC) as their confessional standard? If not, why not? Yes, different views can be taught and presented to students. But they should be presented by faculty who affirm the confessional standard of the churches who support the institution.
Agreed
Thank you, Spencer. Agreed.
You may be right that Bass spoke with the faculty and had first hand information. The documents don’t bear that out. My comm Ed hts were reflective of the documents provided. I’d like to see a source of your claims.
You are right to request this but that’s exactly what Clint surrendered to the University. He does have clear documentation via emails, audio recordings and transcribed conversations. You can see some of it on the petition website. What’s most troubling is that after these documents were given to the University, clearly showing his first-hand contact, he is accused of not having first-hand contact. As I said, personnel matters are “tricky.”
Dr. Plumlee has shown us the way forward. It’s hard to obfuscate with such a simple proposal on the table.
“From the letters for dismissal, the firing was just.”
Agreed. Dr. Bass may very well have done the right thing in the wrong way. SBU administrators now need to look more deeply into the concerns about professors and their teaching in SBU’s theology department. A third-party should be involved to sort things out.
Liberalism should be taught in Baptist schools. But it should be taught by professors who believe the Bible, and who also give the answers to liberalism and unbelief.
Southern Baptists should not be forced to give to pay the salaries of those with whom they fundamentally disagree.
On the fundamental Christian doctrines and Baptist Distinctives, our professors and missionaries should be in agreement.
David R. Brumbelow
With some exceptions, the trend for sbu theology school graduates seeking post-college seminary in last 15 years or so has been for them to seek it at CBF or other liberal seminaries like Truett and Central. SBU theology profs have been actively encouraging students to steer clear of sbc seminaries or other evangelical ones like Masters and Covenant. Likewise, many MBC pastors have noticed a trend in last 18 years of sbu theology grads departing mbc/SBC life and service opportunities with IMB compared to the rich legacy sbu had in previous years. While academic challenge is welcome, I am sure mbc churches do not fund sbu and send students there to see this happen on the scale it has occurred.
Concerning Appeal for reinstatement, the trustees don’t have to reinstate automatically just because a prof appeals. But that opportunity is there for a reason. And the Faculty Handbook explicitly states that in an Appeal the “burden of proof shall be on the administration.” Trustees should not take the President’s dismissal as the Gospel and should investigate his claims. Is he University President or Dictator or King? Some seem to be missing that Matthew 18:15, which admin grounds their case on against Bass, instructs believers about PRIVATE sins (“against you”) from a fellow local church member. What should someone like Bass do when witnessing PUBLIC sins like false teaching? 1 Tim 5:20. Bass followed the Bible with charity and was punished for it. And he did approach colleagues privately initially.
Mike, I could not agree more that the trustees should not take the President’s dismissal as the Gospel. My hope is that they will read the letters written on behalf of Dr. Bass from professors across the country. They include Thomas J. Nettles, Senior Professor of Historical Theology, (The Southern Baptist Seminary); Malcome B. Yarnell III, Research Professor of Systematic Theology, (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary); and a joint letter by Jonathan W. Arnold, Assistant Professor of Christian Thology and Church History, (Boyce College) and Tyler Flatt, Assistant professor of Humanities (Boyce College). The letters can be found at http://www.change.org/p/a-call-for-action-we-want-bass-back?
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
The topic of this article is complex and difficult. Like many here, I feel there is a continuing need to be vigilant against the influence of theological liberalism/postmodernism.
At the same time, I am concerned about the uncritical way in which some involved in the conflict seem to assume that belief in annihilationism is, in itself, necessarily evidence for liberalism.
I am a theologically conservative evangelical and I also am an annihilationist. In fact, it is the core conservative principle of treating the Bible itself as the ultimate source of inerrant and infallible truth from God, above any traditions and popular opinions, which motivated me to move from believing in eternal torment to believing in annihilationism (also known as conditional immortality). An increasing number of evangelical Christians are embracing conditional immortality not because of doubts about the truth of the Bible, nor because the doctrine of eternal torment is emotionally unpleasant (it is, but that is not sufficient reason to reject it), but because after careful, in-depth study of all the Bible says about the fate of the unrighteous, we have concluded that the evidence strongly and conclusively supports conditional immortality.
Could someone point me to arguments — pro and con — relative to annihilationism? I’m digging through my theology books right now but I need some guidance.
For starters, what are some key Biblical passages which either refute or support the doctrine?
According to footnote 68 of Dr. Akin’s THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH [page 888] Clark Pennock and John Strott have taken views which at least to some degree are in sync with annihilationism.
It blows me away that anyone could build a case supporting annihilationism based upon simple exegesis of Biblical texts.
I’ve always understood the “shalom” motif to be eternal rest and peace with God — not non-existence. Billy Graham’s book is “Peace with God” not “Sharing non-existence with God”.
Roger, I’d be glad to point you to some arguments in favor of annihilationism.
I have over 20 blog posts on my blog on this topic. Here is a blog post which is a summary of each of the others:
https://parresiazomai.blogspot.com/2018/11/marks-resources-on-hell-conditional.html
The biggest source of material in favor of evangelical conditionalism (another name for annihilationism) is the Rethinking Hell website. It has articles, podcasts, and more. A good place to start is here:
http://rethinkinghell.com/explore/index.html
Finally, I just posted a 10 minute explainer video giving a very brief overview of why I believe in annihilationism. It includes a list of verses for annihilationism and another often used to support eternal torment. Here is the link:
https://youtu.be/yZpjs74uQ0s
If I can help more, let me know.
Roger, here is a link to one document which has links to many resources which give biblical evidence for annihilationism:
https://parresiazomai.blogspot.com/2018/11/marks-resources-on-hell-conditional.html
Air Conditioning Hell: How Liberalism Happens – AlbertMohler.com
Ken, thanks for sharing the article on “Air Conditioning Hell” by Mohler. I love the creative title.
I agree with Mohler that reaction against hell has been a major motivating force in Christians sliding into theological liberalism and postmodernism. Specifically, they have been reacting against the belief in eternal torment.
I believe they are right to reject eternal torment, but tragically they choose wrong alternatives. Thankfully, more and more are finding the biblical evidence for conditional immortality to be compelling. Conditional immortality is compatible with a strong, theologically conservative, gospel centered, Bible believing, faith. I actually believe that if conditional immortality becomes widely accepted among evangelicals it will help prevent some from sliding into liberalism, postmodernism, and even atheism. However this practical benefit is not the reason I believe it. I believe it because I have become convinced that the Bible teaches it.
Mark, I know we’ve talked about this before and you know I disagree with you on this, both on the content and the relative importance of the doctrine – but there’s one aspect of your comment that’s concerning to me and I thought it worth addressing: you said, “I actually believe that if conditional immortality becomes widely accepted among evangelicals it will help prevent some from sliding into liberalism, postmodernism, and even atheism.”
Saving the Bible from itself is, in general, the appeal of liberalism. I know you said this isn’t your reason for adopting the view, but the fact that you see it as an added benefit makes me uncomfortable. What other doctrines should we jettison or deemphasize in order to be more appealing evangelistically? The exclusivity of Christ? Inclusivism for those who have never heard? Giving ground in the sexual revolution? There are people who try and make biblical arguments in all of those and other areas – but I think we all know the driving factor behind it is making Christian belief more palatable to people who object to what the Bible teaches.
Brent, my brother in Christ whom I greatly respect and thank God for,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and concerns.
You wrote:
// Saving the Bible from itself is, in general, the appeal of liberalism. I know you said this isn’t your reason for adopting the view, but the fact that you see it as an added benefit makes me uncomfortable. //
I certainly did not say that saving the Bible from itself is an added benefit. If I believed that the Bible taught eternal torment, I would support teaching eternal torment. In fact, I used to believe in eternal torment and teach it. The issue is not saving the Bible from itself but correcting a wrong interpretation of the Bible which causes harm to some.
Like you, I hold to (and have defended) the exclusivity of Christ, the need to hear the gospel for salvation, and the biblical standard that sex is only intended by God to be between a married man and woman.
Yes, people have attempted to make scriptural arguments for compromising on each of those issues. Their arguments are wrong.
I’m open to being shown that my scriptural arguments for conditional immortality are wrong. But at this point I have studied it enough and see enough evidence that I am confident to not only believe it myself, but to teach it to others.
Grace and Peace, Mark
I think two different things are being discussed as if it is the same thing.
Using terse terminology here are some scenarios. At death:
1. Good go to heaven. Bad go to physical hell
2. Good go to heaven. Bad are annihilated
3. Everyone is annihilated [evidently because there is no such thing as heaven or hell?]
4. Logically possible but I don’t know of anyone espousing this: Everyone goes to a physical hell
In the above outcomes “good” means a person who is a Christian. “BAD” is the default state if you are not “GOOD”
I guess I fell into the default trap of assuming that just because a person had one view or another regarding annihilism that that necessarily had a bearing on their view of “bliss in heaven with God forever” for Christians.
On some of the views only people who are not going to heaven have a personal stake in whether or not the theological construct of annihilism turns out to be correct.
For example, in my case I have acceepted Christ’s gift. So, in my case — assuming constructs 1 OR 2 are valid — I’m still going to heaven to abide forever with God and Jesus and all the saints.
I am not too worrying about annhilism. Just because some of you guys hold to it that doesn’t make it so. If you want to be annihilated I really can’t help you to reach your goal. Meanwhile I’ll take God up on his offer of dwelling with him in heaven. I won’t have any need to feel sorry for. At least this is the case if Option #2 is correct. Being totally non-existent in either body or soul, you won’t dred being in hell and/or miss being in heaven.
For me personally there seems to be no practical outworking of annihilationism unless option 3 or 4 turns out to be the one being implemented by God.
I think the 90% of reason that the SBC even exists is to support a robust program of world wide missions that procalim the Gospel. Implicit in that whole enterprize is that Scenario 1 is the operative one that God is implementing. If I held to option #2, #3, or #4 I wouldn’t waste any money contributing any funds to the Lottie Moon Offiering. As it is, I’m giving to it Sunday [Dec 23rd].
Roger,
So far as the personal stake of those not going to heaven being the ones who need to be concerned about eternal torment vs annihilation, I would disagree. I think it’s matters a great deal to believers with loved ones who do not believe. And it matters evangelistically when talking to nonbelievers who have lost loved ones who are nonbelievers.
I don’t think this NEEDS to be stated, but to be clear so I don’t get accused of wanting to change doctrine to make people feel better, I think the only acceptable action is to take what the Bible says and present that honestly and let the chips fall where they may.
That being said, and admittedly I’ve not studied this as much as probably everyone else on this site, I do not hold an annihilationist view.
Kim, thanks for sharing your comment. At the end of your comment, you wrote:
//That being said, and admittedly I’ve not studied this as much as probably everyone else on this site, I do not hold an annihilationist view.//
I realize that studying is only one part of the Christian life. And none of us can study every theological issue in depth. So, I can’t say for sure that it should be a priority for you (or anyone else) to spend some more time studying the final fate of the lost. But I do believe this issue is growing and is likely to generate more and more attention. And while I don’t believe that differences on this issue should divide evangelicals, I do believe the issue is important. So, it may be worth studying some more.
May God guide you in how to best spend your minutes and days in His service, and may He guide you as you seek to understand His truth as accurately as possible.
Roger, thanks for sharing your thoughts. You wrote:
// I think 90% of the reason that the SBC even exists is to support a robust program of world wide missions that proclaim the Gospel. Implicit in that whole enterprise is that Scenario 1 is the operative one that God is implementing. If I held to option #2, #3, or #4 I wouldn’t waste any money contributing any funds to the Lottie Moon Offering. As it is, I’m giving to it Sunday [Dec 23rd].// (minor typos fixed)
I share your passion for world missions!
Believing that annihilationism was more likely true than eternal torment did not prevent me from serving the Lord for 14 years in a Muslim majority nation where I frequently shared the good news of salvation in Christ Jesus with my neighbors. And like yourself, I plan to give to the Lottie Moon Christmas offering this Sunday.
It is true that perishing after facing judgment is not as terrible a fate as eternal torment. The criteria for truth is not which fate is most terrible, but rather which fate is taught by Scripture. Nevertheless, eternal destruction is a terrible fate. And many annihilationists, including myself, believe it is likely that there will be conscious suffering prior to the unrighteous finally perishing.
Is it a small thing to miss out on being in the presence of our Heavenly Father and our Lord Jesus Christ forever? If annihilationism is true, would parents stop caring if their children are saved? That would be crazy.
Besides this, isn’t the command of Christ enough to motivate us to give, pray, go and send?
Don’t we want Christ to be worshiped by as many as possible? Doesn’t He deserve their praise?
As John Piper said, “Missions exists because worship doesn’t.”
So, annihilationism should never dampen enthusiasm, commitment, and obedience to the Great Commission!
Mark,
Just to clarify, we are not just singling out annihilationism as the shibboleth for liberalism at SBU. There are a host of issues that need to be addressed through one simple step- adopt the confessional standard of the churches that support SBU. If the university would adopt the BFM 2000, it would give professors who do hold to doctrines contrary to this standard an opportunity to find schools that are comfortable with their positions. To be clear, I think annihilationism is wrong. But I would be remiss if I didn’t at least say that the issue is much bigger than just one doctrinal issue. There is currently no foundation for which the University can cry “fair” or “foul.” This must be corrected.
Spencer,
Yes, I understand that there is evidence of liberalism other than annihilationism. I have read some, but not all, of the related documents. There is enough there that if I were directly responsible for or involved in SBU, I would want to ask some hard, probing questions. I share the concern that others have that a professor may have been fired for doing basically what I would have hoped he would do if he thought he saw evidence of theological liberalism. But I don’t know the details of how he did it, and I haven’t really tried to read up on that important part of the issue.
On the one hand, it does seem to me that the examples of liberalism at SBU are less severe than the types of examples that prompted the conservative resurgence. On the other hand, we don’t won’t to wait for it to get to that point. I hope hard questions will be asked, that truth will come out, and that God will give wisdom about the best way forward. I pray that those making decisions will do so based on both grace and truth.
I admit that I picked up on the issue of annihilationism because I have seen many examples of people wrongly judging the motives of those, like myself, who have adopted annihilationism. I did so because of belief in the Bible, not because I doubt it, and because I am committed to believing whatever the Bible teaches, as best as I can understand it. But I do realize that annihilationism is just one part of a complex issue.
First: do keep in mind a couple of realities: the new president at SBU was only hired this summer, and the trustees were apparently comfortable with his competence and adherence to Baptist theology at the time. It’s unlikely that Dr. Turner secretly held plans to overthrow the school and turn it into Mercer West and has initiated his scheme already.
Second: based on the documentation, this has been brewing for several years. If theological liberalism has been brewing for several years, where have the trustees been for that time? I ask this as someone who is a trustee for a state entity in another state: has no one called and the trustees have known nothing? Every time the Arkansas Baptist News goes out, I get at least one call with a complaint about something. (Usually an editorial, though we’ve had some other issues of late.) Is trustee governance so broken in Missouri that the trustees even replaced the president without minding the issues at hand?
Third: it is a personnel matter, and it’s possible that Dr. Bass’ dismissal is a truly second issue from the creep of liberalism. Perhaps there are other issues which were involved in his removal, and there are efforts at hand to remove or address some other way (it seems “remove” is probably necessary) the other professors–but no one would be privy to that information because it’s necessarily confidential personnel matters.
Overall, something seems to be not right here, but many of us are reacting to one side of a story that we’ve only known for 48 hours and are reacting not only to it but to other bad experiences. It may be as bad as it looks. It may not be. But Missouri Baptists need to get a clear picture of what is happening at their school before it’s too late.
Because Missouri doesn’t need to have a Mercer/Samford/Baylor situation here, so let’s encourage the trustees to open their eyes and ask some questions. But be warned: most of it’s going to happen in executive session so we’ll have to decide if we can “trust the trustees” or not.
A key concern here is the SBU may be (or at least may be becoming) theologically liberal. What is theological liberalism? I share some very practical examples here:
https://parresiazomai.blogspot.com/2017/08/what-are-theological-liberalism-and.html
How can a ” goldly” man like this allow for so many rumors to be spread in his name? Why are they pushing so hard to be little those they used to work with? To me it’s real obvious where the problem lies.