I have written many an article questioning the decisions and actions of those in leadership in our convention. I think it is one of blogging’s purposes and, if done rightly, a way that our big ol’ blogging mouths can serve the convention well. It is also important that we note leaders who lead well.
Dr. Paul Chitwood is one of those leaders. He is the Executive Director of the Kentucky Baptist Convention and is demonstrating repeatedly that he should and can be an important leader for our denomination’s future. Last year, he sponsored a conference on Calvinism that attempted to bridge the gap and bring some positive discussion on that incendiary topic. Video of that conference is available, and is in my opinion well worth the time to watch.
There have been some disturbing stories from colleges related to Southern Baptists at one level or another. The fiasco at Louisiana College has been pretty well documented. Some confusing things have happened at Cedarville University. In the last week or so, there have been some disturbing reports about the goings-on at another SBC-related school, one supported by the missions gifts of Kentucky Baptists.
If you read blogs, you’ve likely heard the story. Campbellsville University in Kentucky has denied tenure to and cancelled the contract of a professor, Dr. Jarvis Williams, an associate professor of NT and Greek. He is by all accounts a bright young scholar, one who teaches (and believes) in line with the BF&M 2000. Disturbing reports indicate that the reason he is being released is that he is considered too conservative by other professors at Campbellsville.
And article by Patrick Shreiner summarizes the facts of the situation.
I know about Campbellsville only what I have read in the last week or so. I am not aware of the exact relationship between KBC and Campbellsville. And it is not my focus here to speculate on the facts of the Williams situation. I can say that he has received the highest endorsements from some of our best scholars.
I wish to focus on Dr. Chitwood’s response.
Dr. Chitwood leads as a convention leader ought to lead. You can read his response here, and article called, “Campbellsville University and the Churches of the Kentucky Baptist Convention.” It is measured, direct, and redemptive.
- He has scheduled talks with the leadership of Campbellsville to assess the situation. Get the facts first before he makes his response!
- He recognizes both the problem and the seriousness of the problem. No polishing the rotten apple! He is meeting the issue head on.
- He publicly announces the talks, but reminds us that such talks will be carried out in private. A balance between necessary confidentiality and transparency.
- His response is measured and calm. Not jumping to conclusions or shooting from the hip.
We have some great (if imperfect) men leading our institutions and entities. But Dr. Paul Chitwood has impressed me with his principled, irenic and visionary leadership. The Kentucky Baptist Convention is well served by a man like this.
I agree completely. I read Dr. Chitwood’s letter earlier this afternoon and thought it was about as perfect a statement on this kind of situation as anyone could have written. Makes clear there are areas of concern while also reminding us not to jump to conclusions. There are plenty of examples of poor leadership in all areas of life. We should celebrate and praise when we see good examples.
Isn’t this a matter for the trustees of the college to settle? I thought that was the purpose of the trustee system and not the convention leadership. I have heard that argument made more than once in other entity issues.
Depends on how the relationship is structured. But, if you read Chitwood’s column, he respects academic freedom. What is at stake is the money the KBC gives to the college.
Campbellsville receives funding from the Kentucky Baptist Convention. In November of last year, the KBC delayed a vote to defund Georgetown College, a KBC funded school that is no longer theologically or socially conservative. In fact, the Baptist Seminary of Kentucky, a Cooperative Baptist Fellowship school, relocated to Georgetown College’s campus in 2010. The Baptist Seminary of Kentucky openly acknowledges that it started in response to the conservative shift at SBTS.
Still wondering where our executive director is, down here in Louisiana…surely hasn’t spoken much, from what I’ve seen/heard…
No comment. But I do think Dr. Chitwood’s response is a template for others in such a situation.
Another way of looking at it is to say it is an issue for the trustees, so the state convention executive director should remain publicly neutral and out of the way, respecting the trustees to do their jobs. I find no less honor in this approach than in Dr. Chitwood’s.
Is there any reason to believe that Dr. Chitwood is doing anything to undermine the trustees? He tried to strike a very neutral position, while also saying he was taking seriously the accusations that there was aberrant theology being taught at CU.
He simply said he was going to hold talks to figure out what was going on.
If I was a Kentucky Baptist, I’d want the exec to check into things. As Chitwood said, if 1 million missions dollars from Kentucky Baptists are helping to pay the salaries of profs who are teaching contrary to basic Baptists beliefs, he has a responsibility to find that out and take appropriate measures.
It may be that other state convention executives have done the same thing–fact finding, having talks, etc., but have done so behind the scenes without announcing their efforts. Again, I see no dishonor in a state exec who takes a low profile approach.
Well, I guess it depends on the situation. If the BF&M is at stake here, then I’d want my exec to be proactive. We saw what happened when schools were allowed to teach whatever they wanted without accountability.
Dr. Chitwood did not raise this issue. He is telling us what he is doing in response to a very public issue. To me, it is a great example of good leadership.
Rick,
Let’s be perfectly clear about what’s happening in Louisiana so there is no confusion or ignorance. David Hankins is staying quiet in public because he is leading the charge to keep Joe Aguillard as president of Louisiana College. How is he doing it? Because, as Ex. Director, he is an ex officio member of the Board of Trustees at Louisiana College. So he sits in as a full voting member, while also being the Executive Director of the state convention. A conflict of interest? Anyone who denies the conflict is funnier than a West Georgia hoot! The man who controls the purse strings of the state convention sits on a board filled with pastors. If they vote against him, or his crusade to purge Louisiana of reformed soteriology, they can be sure never to see a red cent in help from the convention (Sunday School help, evangelism help, etc.). In conclusion, anyone who thinks Hankins is ‘out of the way’ in the events of Louisiana College doesn’t know a thing about what is going on there.
SBC Historian / Is This Josh?
If Louisiana Baptists, in their autonomy, have chosen to place their state executive on the trustee board of the college, they have the right to do so, and he has the right to influence their theology. If they felt it was a conflict of interest, I’m sure they would remove him. And how dare you steal Peter’s “West Georgia Hoot” line. I believe he has that phrase copyrighted.
If, as you allege, Hankins wants to “purge” Louisiana of reformed theology, he is no less free to pursue that course of action than Dr. Mohler was free to “purge” Southern of transformed theology years ago.
(Note: I prefer to discuss these matters using respectful, although relatively less known, nomenclature. In this way, each view has a descriptive term of its own that does not depend upon the negation of another view. Thus, I speak of these polarities: reformed vs. transformed, doctrines of grace vs. doctrines of love, Calvinism vs. Traditionalism, etc.)
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Calvinists may not like being on the receiving end of the purge, but for years they have certainly realized the benefit of Mohler’s strong arm tactics.
If this appears to be theological discrimination, please hold up a mirror, and brace yourself. What goes around, comes around. I happen to think that the pushback is only just beginning.
Rick,
You do realize, of course, that what Mohler expelled was liberal theology clearly at odds with the BF&M whereas what Hankins seeks to expel is conservative theology which conforms to the BF&M.
Your categorical slips are showing Rick. There is zero distinction between God’s grace and God’s love other than perhaps that one is a reference to God’s methodology and the other is a reference to his character. I beg you to prove you can distinguish the two concepts in any meaningful way.
I’m not familiar, similarly, with “transformed” v. “reformed”. The “reformed” refers to an effort initiated by Luther to bring about changes in the predominant and presumed global church present in his day: the Roman Catholic Church. The 95 Theses clearly delineate his concerns. Implying that the spiritual nature of that reform is of less importance than “transformation” is very precisely comparing an apple to an orange. “Reformed” believers in general, on the other hand, share more in common with Calvin but the ones in the SBC generally are solely focused on soteriology and generally eschew Calvin’s ecclesiology. Which is just part of why they’re still in the SBC.
The success of the Conservative Resurgence was very precisely as a reform (not Reformation-style and certainly not Calvin-style “reformed”) of a moderate/liberal-trending national Convention along with a stab at herding the moderate/liberal-trending state conventions. The national convention was successfully reformed though it did not become predominantly “reformed”. But, again, being able to distinguish between the two uses of the same term in a precise and accurate way is helpful. I, as a matter of tweaking, have privately referred to the CR as the Conservative Reformation.
The sauce for the gander comment is in direct opposition to your claim that you do not seek for “reformed”-leaning soteriologists to be excluded from the SBC. That comment is very precisely a shot across the bow. I don’t care if you’re right or wrong. I’m just saying what it is. If you insist on going down that path, feel free. But I’m generally opposed to the notion that the so-called Traditionalists are by any means the mainstream. Most Southern Baptists traditionally are smarter than the Traditionalists which has something to do with why Landmarkism finally waned in the Convention which caused Landmarkists to generally separate. The experience in Texas is a rewrite of that history in the name of conservatism. And it could end up being successful in soaking the state in both Landmarkism and successfully purge the SBT of any Calvinists. But that doesn’t mean it has God’s blessing. And if it doesn’t have God’s blessing…
I think that’s what we need to focus on. Not who’s right and who’s wrong because we can’t determine that. But who the Spirit confirms isn’t against God. I don’t think you are. Do you think I am? Is the Spirit confirming that I am? If not, then don’t turn it into a fist fight. Everyone loses and Satan wins when we fight and divide.
The CR was the last good fight that we needed to be engaged in with those who all claimed to be believers in the faith that has been handed down to us. It took casualties that didn’t deserve the treatment they received like Russell Dilday and Keith Parks and Landrum Leavell. We did it in the name of idological commitment and loyalty. We now profess pride in our accomplishment and refuse to acknowledge that God could have accomplished the same thing without us separating the wheat and the tares (which we’re specifically forbidden to do.)
We’ve got to get over the purification inclination and get back to the primary task of aligning with the Great Commission. If we did that God might choose to bless us with the harvest we claim we’re all interested in receiving into our churches. If we don’t do that, perhaps we deserve the curse “Ichabod”.
Rick,
I’m unable to reply to your most recent response (dated 4/23/13 at 6.07am) so I have no idea where this will show up in the thread. Please note, though, it is intended as a response to your 4/23 comment.
First, this is not Josh, but thanks for trying to guess. Second, no one is questioning whether Louisiana Baptists have the right to appoint their Ex. Dir. (which, coincidentally, is what I hope he becomes soon) to the Board of Trustees for LC (and, for your further enlightenment, it is not just one LBC entity, it is all of them). It is a fact that he is an ex officio member. The point that I made, and you conveniently side-stepped, was that David “I made my name by strong arming Sole Membership upon the SBC entities” Hankins is publicly silent because he is so privately vocal.
Third, since when have Southern Baptists considered a conflict of interest as reason to remove someone from a position? I can’t think of an instance in the recent past where such a decision has been made. In fact, I can only recall the opposite, where there was a conflict of interest but a person still held an office (re: Paige Patterson as president of the SBC and president of one of her entities at the same time). Fourth, no one is stealing anyone’s line. If you miss the sarcasm in the original comment, then I apologize for not being blunt enough. As best I can tell, he holds no copyright for the phrase (which, if he did, really would be a West Georgia Hoot!).
Fifth, your concocted definition of transformed theology is almost as laughable as the co-opting of the term ‘traditionalist’ by so-called traditionalists. To claim a certain group of people follow ‘transformed theology’ would, logically, imply that all others are not transformed. Such a deduction simply is incorrect. And while Hankins is free to have his own theological convictions, he is, in fact, not ‘free to pursue that course of action’ since it runs afoul of the BFM2000, a document LC faculty are required to sign. What Hankins is doing is setting up a pseudo-confession, in which he gets to infuse his own interpretation of a document he had no part in composing. As others have dutifully pointed out, your comparison of Mohler with what Hankins is doing is more than off-base. No reason to beat that dead horse anymore.
Sixth, and sit down for this one because it might shock you, I agree that some things Mohler has done are wrong. His treatment of Paul Debusman was despicable. But Mohler’s wrongs do not make Hankins’s actions right.
Seventh, please do not presume to know my theological convictions. I know what I see when I hold up a mirror; you, on the other hand, have no idea who I am, what I believe, or what I see. And last I checked, I finished the 3d grade years ago, so the ethic of ‘what goes around comes around’ doesn’t fit my NT ethic of walk an extra mile, turn the other cheek, be wronged without seeking vengeance, etc. The problem with so-called traditionalists is that they love a good fight. They seem incapable of laying down their weapons. I think so-called traditionalists would do well to go back and watch (or re-watch) the convention sermon from the 1988 meeting in San Antonio. Joel Gregory’s “The Castle and the Wall” succinctly demonstrates, though the parties are now different than in 1988, that peace is the better path. Nevertheless, there are those among us who appear to enjoy ‘pushback,’ ‘purging’ (of fellow conservatives), and ‘theological discrimination.’ But what do I know. Those were just your terms, which you appear to employ with joyous anticipation.
I am appalled that a person can insinuate Dr Hankins is dishonest and vindictive and not a word is said. No call for a retraction, no space taken to express righteous indignation.
Dean,
Sorry to cause you to be appalled. I am honestly unsure, though, where I called David dishonest. Could you point me to such a claim, explicit or implicit? As for vindictive, well, that comes from inside knowledge of what’s been going on behind closed doors in trustee meetings. You don’t have to believe me, but that doesn’t mean I’m incorrect.
And the only righteous indignation that should be pursued is against David, for saying if it was up to him, he would re-write the BFM2000 to exclude all persons who affirm reformed soteriology. We don’t fund enough missionaries as it is; just think how bad it would be if 20-30% of SBC churches were barred from participating in SBC life (and would, presumably, stop giving to the CP). There’s a cause for righteous indignation right there!
I don’t have any inside information, but I’m pretty sure that his release has more to do with Calvinism and less to do with being conservative. I went to Campbellsville, and not everyone there is as conservative as I am, but I don’t believe anyone would be let go for being conservative. However, Calvinism is very touchy subject.
Unless you have information that the issue is Calvinism, could we leave that out of this discussion?
Dave,
I understand you wanting to leave Calvinism out of this, but I believe it is a misrepresentation of the school to say it was because of conservative theology, and I’m not sure where your source is coming from. I sincerely hope I’m not proven wrong about that. That being said, I will also be disappointed if the issue is confirmed to be Calvinism, as Jarvis is a solid guy teaching theology within the bounds of the Baptist Faith and Message. I think the whole conservative theology thing came up because some say Campbellsville continues to employ professors who hold to some more moderate or liberal beliefs. Which they do. But unless something has changed in the last few years, I really don’t think they would let someone go for being conservative.
Do you have any evidence beyond speculation that this is a Calvinism thing?
No I don’t. But no one has any evidence that it is because his theology is conservative either. In the orginial blog post by Patrick Schreiner he wrote that an administrator of the school told Jarvis privately that it was because of his theology. But that’s all we got. No one has said what exactly about his theology they found to be a problem. I find this to be a strange reason anyway, because they would have known his theology from the start. From my own experience with Campbellsville I don’t think it would have to do with just being conservative. If I turn out to be wrong, it will be a great disappointment
I am sure you were talking to Jon right?
I have to admit that I am weary beyond belief of the Calvinist/Traditionalist food fights. I deleted the comments that took this into the food fight direction. Don’t want to go there.
It is amazing how fast those conversations get ugly.
First, a state exec or anyone for that matter should go to the Trustees. Thisnisnthe way the SBC is set up. Second, since it involves an employee, this should not occur in public. There are federal regulations that deal with that. Third, public speculation is worthless.
The tweeting and promotion of public outcries to investigate trouble me greatly. Regardless if it is LC or Camp, there is a process set up and the public path is only a last resort in extreme situations.
Just my two cents worth, or three.
I’m beginning to think that there is very little good use of Twitter.
Actually, I’ve always thought that.
Bill, there is much good uses of twitter. There are also poor uses, but no more than found on blogs.
Oh, wow. Looks like threading(or at least sorting) is broken with only 18 comments.
I would do away with threading, but when I tried, it unthreaded all previous comment streams as well, which was chaotic. So, for now, the imperfect threading remains.
As a developer (and, nowadays, a web developer), this looks like a code problem to me, and I wonder if there is a newer version of WordPress that might fix the problem. I develop in Drupal, though, not WordPress, so I’m not that familiar with the WordPress environment. (And I’m sure that upgrading WordPress is probably beyond your tech-fu)
Makes sense to me, Ben. I’m betting that the comments themselves are in SQL. These pages exist simply as templates filled in with the data. Alter the template, and the display of every page is going to change. This is likely just as true for the sort order (and indentation) of comments as it is for changing a color in the theme.
Of course, I suppose it is possible to put some sort of a date-based hack in place:
<?phpif (post_date
I don’t know enough (since I know absolutely nothing) about this professor, his theological convictions, the theological convictions of his supervisors, or the circumstances of his departure to opine in any way whatsover about what his departure means and how others should (or should not) respond to it. I would, however, like to take up the question of how the trustee system ought to operate in a matter like this.
1. It is true that the decision to employ this professor is the business of the trustees of the university. It is not the function of the KBC, its employees, or its board to make employment decisions at Campbellsville.
2. The distribution of Cooperative Program funds to Campbellsville, however, is most certainly the business of the KBC. The KBC is not under obligation to fund Campbellsville. Rather, the people of the KBC choose to fund Campbellsville and other institutions because the KBC has found in the past that certain institutions in Kentucky were aligned with the convictions and mission of the KBC. It is the job of the KBC to ask that question anew regarding every funded entity at regular intervals: “Does the money that we send to this institution further the mission for which the churches have sent us this money in the first place?”
3. I think it is unavoidable that the manner in which the trustees of Campbellsville discharge their duties (or do not do so) would be a very important element of the data considered by the KBC, its board, and its employees in the discharge of their duties.
Is it Calvinism? Is it conservatism?
I see no reason to conclude that it must be one or the other. It could be both. It could be neither. It could have something to do with how well one person got along with another—who is whose friend. It could be that, in the shadow of Southern Seminary, conservatism and Calvinism have become more closely associated with one another than they ought to be, such that for this controversy to be about one it would have to be about the other, also.
I do know with absolute certainty that there is at least some tension regarding Calvinism at Campbellsville. I do also know, as others have said, that there are people on faculty whose personal beliefs would fall outside the BF&M. How all of that intersects in this particular sequence of events I do not know.
As usual, words of wisdom from the good Dr. Barber.
I do also know that there are some good folks who love the Lord who serve at Campbellsville, for what it’s worth.
Dave
You ask if someone could provide evidence if it is a Calvinist thing. I don’t know about colleges in other states. Nonetheless, I know about Georgia. I know of one of our colleges that let a teacher go because of his strong Calvinist background. It had nothing to do with being conservative. To many preachers and associations and already complained against him. The college was already struggling and they did not need anymore controversy to could finally destroy the school. Though I disagreed with the strong Calvinist theology of the teacher he was still my friend. When I tried to share his resume with a few other theological colleges they refuse it. One said that hiring a known strong Calvinist could be the death nail to their school. Dave, I understood why the college did what they did, it was the best thing for them considering the views of most Southern Baptist ministers in Georgia (for the record, I share their view). I do not share any names of the colleges for fear that those who disagree will attack them. I believe that the leadership of the Georgia Baptist Convention, as a whole, supported the decision of the college. Remember that our executive director was a signer of the “traditionalist;” as was I.
Dr. Williams preached during one of the sessions of a Desiring God Conference last year, and I was impressed. However his appearance at the conference did strike me as odd at the time.
This comment stream appears to be headed into the black hole, so I am shutting it down.