Header image alt text

Southern Baptist in NC

Keeping Christ central in the world of Southern Baptists

Jun 12

6

Dr. Al Mohler–Let Us Reason Together; Can Two Walk Together…? By Tim Rogers

Posted by Tim Rogers on June 6, 2012
Posted in Baptist Faith and Message 2000 • Baptist Issues • Calvinism • Doctrine • Dr. Al Mohler • Dr. Bailey Smith • Dr. Chuck Kelley • Dr. Paige Patterson • SBC President • SBC Seminaries  | Tagged With: | 1 Comment

Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has released a statement concerning the movement of a group of Southern Baptist Pastors.  On May 31, 2012 a statement entitled, “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation” was released to the public.  This statement was formed by a group of pastors that were concerned the majority of Southern Baptists were not represented well with the term “non-Calvinist”. We desired to positively express our position and begin a convention-wide conversation where our viewpoint would be listened to and affirmed.  As Dr. Eric Hankins said to me in one specific conversation; “if we find out that it is only you and me then we step back acknowledging we are wrong and begging the forgiveness of the convention.”  We desire to have a conversation and see this conversation produce amenable ends that will move forward the Great Commission.

A few observations concerning Dr. Mohler’s statement seem to be in order at this time.  First, Dr. Mohler’s words certainly are music to my ears.  For many years we were told there was nothing to talk about because the BF&M says all we need to say on this issue. Dr. Mohler even states as much in his response when he says;

“This means that every single Southern Baptist should be ready to work gladly with every other Southern Baptist who stands within the Baptist Faith & Message.”

It is this type of response that we are used to.  However, Dr. Mohler goes further than just hinging everything on the BF&M.  He acknowledges our concerns and even affirms our position in expressing these concerns.

Second, Dr. Mohler appears to desire a sit down.  But, whom does he desire to sit down and discuss the differences?  Dr. Patterson? Dr. Moore? Dr. Akin?  This is a group of Pastors that began this movement.  If Dr. Mohler truly desires to sit down and discuss this issue, it needs to take place, at the least, with the pastors whose names are on the document.

Third, Dr. Mohler is very affirmative in his acknowledgment of the rights we posses as individual Baptists to place our convictions on paper.  Thank you Dr. Mohler because we have seen statements from others questioning our motives in placing this before the convention.  You have not questioned our motives and for that I do thank you.

As to my position on Dr. Mohler’s statement, I would affirm him in a positive way.  He truly seems to try and acknowledge our position.  However, it is that very issue that brings a halt in my spirit in his assessment.  I hesitate to heap too many accolades on his statement for three reasons.

First his warning against “theological tribalism”. Read more

Digg ThisShare via email

Nov 11

11

Was Inerrancy an Issue?

Posted by Tim Rogers on November 11, 2011
Posted in Apologetics • North American Mission Board-SBC • SBC Seminaries • Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary • Southern Baptist Seminary  | Tagged With: , , | 1 Comment

Dr. Mike Licona resigned from his position as the Apologetics guru of the Southern Baptist Convention at The North American Mission Board. In a recent Baptist Press article Dr. Licona said; “Historical research, Licona said, must work on a case-by-case basis.” According to Dr. Licona’s own words, he believes the Scriptures are to be approached with a question in the back of the reader’s mind concerning the historical accuracy of the text.  Friends, this is not inerrancy. Any approach to the text with a question concerning the historical accuracy of the text negates the basis of the text being without error.  It is like two Baptists, one a Frewill Baptist and another a Confessional Baptist singing the song, “when we all get to heaven”.  The confessional Baptist sings it with a statement of fact in his voice.  While the Freewill Baptist sings it verbally, but in his mind changes the words to; “if” we all get to heaven.

Well it looks as if the “scholarly” community, as expressed by SEBTS’s professor Dr. Evans, desires to be “the appropriate places for such a discussion to occur“.  This scholarly community is saying, in essence, “these dumb preachers are just trying to jump on a band wagon.”  Well, let’s look at who is leading the “band wagon.”  Read more

Digg ThisShare via email

Aug 11

22

The Gift of Discernment–Mark Driscoll

Posted by Tim Rogers on August 22, 2011
Posted in Local Church Issues • Pastorate • SBC Seminaries  | Tagged With: , , , | 9 Comments

We try to be as open to God’s leading as anyone.  However, Mark Driscoll’s latest explanation of the Gift of Discernment is anything but scriptural.  Not only has this astounded me, but Driscoll astounds me in his counseling methods of telling the one he is counseling that he is going to “ask the demons questions.”(2:22 mark)

I am not certain where Driscoll received his degree for counseling.  However, he will probably say that God has called him as a counselor because he is the pastor.  That may be a legitimate response, but I can tell you for a certainty there are many pastors that do not have any clue when it comes to counseling.  I told my church when they were interviewing me that I was not a counselor.  Thus, I do not try to give counseling advice.  I will give spiritual advice, but to tell someone they were sexually abused just because I hear a voice in my mind say that or see something in my mind, means one thing–I need counseling.

It could be that Driscoll, living in the Seattle area, may desire to cut back on his coffee intake.  Since it isn’t just the voices but also the hallucinations Driscoll may remember Andrea Yates of Houston was a devout Christian who had visions and heard voices.  If you remember there was a movie entitled “Field of Dreams” that was a box office success.  The movie was about a farmer who heard a voice tell him, “build it and they will come.”  The farmer built a baseball stadium and all of these dead ballplayers came out of the corn field and entertained the crowds.

Wow!! That is all I can say if Driscoll is seriously telling us that he is seeing visions of rape, child abuse, and other such things.  Someone needs to seriously get this man some help. Certainly there are spiritual means for voices and visions.  However, in today’s society we do not need “visions” as we have the Scripture.  When the Scripture is replaced with “visions” we have just denied the sufficiency of Scripture.

It seems that Mark Driscoll has strong ties at SEBTS with her president and it seems that we were told that we can learn much from people, which we do not agree.  I wonder what I can learn from hearing this video?  Would it be helpful if the next time I am approached about counseling, instead of expressing that I am not gifted in that way, I should respond by closing my eyes and expressing the first thing that comes to my mind?

Before I am bashed because Driscoll is a Calvinist, let me make one thing clear.  His Calvinism has nothing to do with this post.  I was pleased to see that Driscoll moved from his position concerning multi-site church movement. As I perused that article I remember thinking that progress seemed to be made concerning this position.  Don’t get me wrong I was not ready for Driscoll to be the spokesman for my position, but I did feel he made some grand points.  Driscoll’s Calvinism has nothing to do with this post.  Why?  I found the above video on Phillip Johnson’s site.  So, for those of you who want to play the Calvinist-bashing card, it will not play well here.  You can play it but it will be trumped.

I close this article by making an appeal.  To those who know Mark Driscoll personally, please take him under your wings and get him help.  If you try to defend his position on counseling then you have nothing in which to criticize the “Word of Faith” movement.  If Driscoll continues in this vein we no doubt now have a Calvinist Benny Hinn on our hands.

Digg ThisShare via email

Aug 11

17

Southern Baptist Pastors Sin by Giving to the Cooperative Program–Really?

Posted by Tim Rogers on August 17, 2011
Posted in Cooperative Program • Millennials • SBC Issues • SBC Seminaries • Societal Method Giving  | 10 Comments

Pastor Dr. Jimmy Scroggins, in an interview at the Southern Baptist Convention, said concerning giving to the Cooperative Program; “If, I as a pastor, believe there is a better investment for this dollar, than the Cooperative Program, then I am in sin leading my church to give to the Cooperative Program.”  Dr. Scroggins then describes the competing agencies that Pastors could lead their churches to support–”Compassion International, Red Cross, YMCA, Mission Aviation Flights…”

Herein lies the differences that I believe are causing such a huge divide in our convention.  Dr. Scroggins clearly states that he understands the mentioned SBC agencies are mission agencies that are presenting the Gospel.  Let me say one thing before I move on.  If, in the minds of younger pastors and SBC Leaders, we are competing with other agencies for missions monies then we are in sad shape as a convention.  It is not that I give carte blanche trust to agencies just because they are under the SBC umbrella.  However, the entities of the SBC have, first and foremost, for their mission to present the Gospel.  Notice a few examples we see from various SBC Entities Vision Statements:

Lifeway

LifeWay Christian Resources exists to assist churches and believers to evangelize the world to Christ, develop believers, and grow churches by being the best provider of relevant, high quality, high value Christian products and services.

International Mission Board

Our mission is to make disciples of all peoples in fulfillment of the Great Commission.

The Ethics and Religious Liberties Committee

To awaken, inform, energize, equip, and mobilize Christians to be the catalysts for the Biblically-based transformation of their families, churches, communities, and the nation.

Read more

Digg ThisShare via email

Jun 11

21

Where is Baptist Press Coverage?

Posted by Tim Rogers on June 21, 2011
Posted in Baptist News • Baptist Press • Calvinism • Convention • Culture • Dr. Al Mohler • Dr. Danny Akin • Homosexuality • SBC Issues • SBC Seminaries • Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary • Southern Baptist Convention • Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary  | 13 Comments

This is my last article concerning the question asked of Dr. Al Mohler by Peter Lumpkins.  Unless there are future developments I will, after this article, stop speaking of this matter.  I have presented, what I believe to be, a well reasoned approach that neither takes unfair shots at Dr. Mohler nor allows his statements to go unquestioned.  I do pray that Dr. Mohler will respond to clarify how he sees Southern Baptists practicing a form of homophobia, and to give evidence of past lies concerning the nature of homosexuality.

With all of that said a sad by-line of this matter lies in the coverage, or lack thereof, of our denominational news organization.  When one views the article concerning the seminary reports one will notice something conspicuously missing.  Read more

Digg ThisShare via email

May 11

31

2025 and the Southern Baptist Convention

Posted by Tim Rogers on May 31, 2011
Posted in Doctrine • ERLC • Executive Committee • SBC Issues • SBC Seminaries  | 17 Comments

As I look at my life in the future I challenged myself to assess the future, not only in the SBC, but in my personal life and church life.  Therefore, I want to examine, from my personal point of view, what I believe the SBC will look like in the year 2025.  Mind you this is not an academically researched piece and it does not involve any trends seen in any current factual statistics.  It is merely the musings of a pastor who has seen, and been in the background of, the SBC’s transition over the past 20 years. A disclaimer that I must make is a recent wrong assumption concerning the republican nomination race.  I predicted, after Huckabee announced he would not seek to run for POTUS, that he was positioning himself for a vice-presidential ticket with Donald Trump.  Of course Trump killed that prediction for me just two days later. Thus, I have been wrong before and I could be wrong with this outlook.  However, in this first part of a two part opinion, there is no conspiracy theory just the notation of some odd alignments. One of our leaders may even term these notations mere myths.

Seminaries

It seems that a trend is beginning to develop across the land of the SBC that merging groups make them more effective.  One can see it in the trend of church planting.  It seems that many churches are beginning to “take over” other smaller traditional churches and calling it “reviving traditional churches.”  Problem is there is nothing reviving about it other than a mere decision on the part of a mega-church pastor to “help” the smaller church only to end up sending people over there to vote for merging with the mega-church.  Do not get me wrong.  Smaller churches that have needed to merge due to economic necessity does not a trend make.  However at a recent conference here in North Carolina an independent group had a session on restoring dying churches.  While that is a great undertaking, there is only one question that begs an answer.  Who determines if a church is dying?

Well there seems to be a trend that will call our seminaries to either merge together making them regional in their reach or for the purposes of the economy some will merge.  We see the seminaries already expanding their campuses to other major cities and this will continue.  In a time we read about seminaries laying off staff and becoming leaner due to the down turn of the economy we still seem some opening new campuses.  As a result the question has to be raised concerning the economic value of laying off professors and staff in one area but extending the footprint of the seminary. Thus, hiring new professors and staff to man the satellite campus.

Therefore, I envision that by 2025 we will have only three of our six seminaries.  Why?  Each seminary will have such a large footprint with the various cities it will reach absurdity as seminaries will be walking on each other in these major cities.  For example, already there is a seminary extension of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Jacksonville, Florida and Atlanta, Georgia.  New Orleans also enjoys a similar extension in Jacksonville, and also Atlanta.  Before someone asks, I have not included the other seminaries because I have not researched their satellite campuses.  The question will eventually be raised concerning the use of CP funds by these seminaries to have footprints in the same metro area.

ERLC and Executive Committee

This will eventually become a no-brainer.  Why do we have two entities when we could be served as well by one?  Look for Dr. Land to retire and when that happens it will open this discussion.  The discussion will bring this to the point of questioning the ERLC as an individual entity.  Could it better serve Southern Baptist to move the ERLC under the auspices of the Executive Committee?  I do not know.

Also, look for the name to no longer be “Southern Baptist Convention.”  Who knows what the name will be in the future, but there is one thing I have serious concerns over when it comes to this debate.  If the name change for the convention goes the way of other name changes, “Baptist” will become memory of a by-gone era.  Something the convention, as a whole, will look back on with only a fond memory. Already we have a leading evangelical advocating that “Christendom” is in the past.  Not only are we now living in a post-modern era but we are now in the post-Christendom era. Thus, we will see “Baptist” left out completely of the new name.  Many may cry foul here but their voices will be nothing more than a muffled gurgle. The argument will be that we changed the name of “Baptist Book Store” to “Lifeway Christian Bookstores.”   Remember the purpose we did this?  It was in order to reach out with our doctrine into a much more diverse evangelical world.  This same argument will be used when it comes to the name change of the SBC.  One will hear that people cannot witness to people because they are from a Southern Baptist church.  However, we need to remember what has happened with Lifeway?  Walk into any Lifeway Christian Bookstore and you will note the evangelical world has their diversity splattered on the eye-level shelves. Instead of making an impact in the evangelical world with solid biblical baptistic doctrine we will have evangelical ecumenism change us from Baptist by conviction to Baptist for convenience. When all of this takes place one will better understand the concern of Dr. Morris Chapman in last years debate about the GCR.  Look for many of the younger, restless and reformed to be leading in these changes and combined entities

Doctrine

The Doctrine of the SBC in 2025 will have moved to a point that leaders will once again include, if not fully embrace, the Moderate views.  We will have to endure another Conservative Resurgence due to the inclusiveness of any view regardless of its doctrinal weakness.  Evangelical apologist, Dr. Norman Giesler, has said that all institutions veer to the left and one must maintain a constant resolve to conservative doctrine to maintain a conservative course. Thus, SBC Conservatives must clearly understand the definition of a Moderate and Conservative in Southern Baptist life.

The late Dr. Adrian Rogers left us with a warning in the book finished by his wife, Joyce.  The book Love Worth Finding tells us about the life and preaching philosophy of Dr. Rogers.  On page 165, Dr. Rogers was asked the question; “What is the impact of the inerrancy of the Word of God upon preaching?” Dr. Rogers launches into a clearly enunciated response that gives great insight into who he was and also who we are as Southern Baptist.  In this answer Dr. Rogers deals with the need for a preacher to be able to preach something he has a heart conviction about.  The preacher needs to give a sure word not one that expresses doubt concerning his subject matter.  In this answer Dr. Rogers expresses the difference in a Liberal Southern Baptist, a Moderate Southern Baptist, and a Conservative.

“A preacher cannot declare to a congregation “this may be true” and engender any real zeal.  Without an infallible word from God, we have nothing but a holy hunch, and that will not do.

Liberalism is a relative term, dependent upon where one draws the center line of this thing called Christendom.  I’d define “true inspiration” as being convinced that all Scripture is inspired by God.

That said, I’d define a liberal Southern Baptist as a person who does not believe in the veracity, the exactitude, the integrity,the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scripture.  Even if he believed that the Word was inspired in its purpose but not in its entirety, he may be right of the center in regard to Christendom but left of the center line in Southern Baptist circles.

The moderate is a person who may believe the Bible to be without error, but who also believes in inclusivism.  He is a person who maintains the position of accommodating the liberal view. I believe the moderate to be more inclined to opinions than convictions.” {Bold emphasis mine}

With that said, one can certainly see this shift slowly moving back toward the Moderate view.  I believe, we are seeing these steps already revealing themselves in the Southern Baptist Convention.  This recent silent announcement slipped under the radar screen of many people within the SBC.  The reason I say “silent” has to do with the title of the news release from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS).  To Baptist Press’ credit they did present a clear title concerning the article when they picked it up.  However, SBTS’s title was innocuous to say the least.  Upon reading the article one will find that a chair has been endowed at SBTS in the name of Dr. Duke McCall.  Dr. Duke McCall was the moderate leader of the SBC during the Conservative Resurgence.  Dr. McCall ran the SBC from the helm of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary during the time Moderates were leading the SBC.  This endowed chair of Leadership has with it a required series of Lectures to be given in chapel each year.  SBTS establishing an endowed chair in Christian Leadership, complete with lectures, would be akin to Baylor University establishing the Paige Patterson chair in Biblical Hermeneutics along with an annual Lecture Series on Moderate Biblical Interpretation and Why That Dog Will Not Hunt.

While endowing a chair at SBTS in Dr. McCall’s name does not make it moderate it does mean there is an inclusiveness attitude beginning to emerge.  Do not get me wrong.  Dr. Mohler is a very loud and strong proponent for Biblical inerrancy and  I do not see him in any way shape or form allowing anything less than inerrancy to prevail at SBTS.  However, with this step in 2011, by 2025 if it is not corrected we will have wholesale Moderates allowing for convoluted views of the Scripture.  Southern is the very seminary where neo-orthodoxy entered the SBC.  This type of inclusiveness, mind you, is the definition that Dr. Adrian Rogers established in recognizing who were and were not Moderates within the SBC. Am I saying that Dr. Mohler is a moderate?  No, I am not!!  Am I saying that his inclusiveness of this type of leader will lead the next generation into allowing for the full blown Moderate position?  That is exactly what I am saying.

In our next installment this writer will deal with the Mission Boards, Local Associations, and the Cooperative Program in 2025.

Digg ThisShare via email

Apr 11

16

SBC–The Doctrine of Autonomy Defined

Posted by Tim Rogers on April 16, 2011
Posted in Baptist • Dr. Chuck Kelley • Executive Committee • New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary • SBC Issues • SBC Seminaries • Seminary Issues • Unity  | 2 Comments

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, whose president Dr. Chuck Kelley, found herself  some years back in opposition with the Executive Committee’s organizational interpretation.  The reason for such opposition was the interpretation of polity in the SBC.  Each entity is autonomous and as such make their own decisions.  Add to that legal matters and the involvement of lawyers interpretations of various state laws and you have a recipe for separation plain and simple.  However, we did not separate.  This matter was resolved the Southern Baptist way.  At the annual meting the Executive Committee presented its argument and NOBTS, through Dr. Kelley, presented its argument.  Dr. Kelley asked the convention to allow him to present an alternative plan and at the following convention a plan was presented by NOBTS.  After these debates New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary’s trustees voted on sole membership as the convention directed.

When the NOBTS trustees were gathering information concerning their position Dr. Kelley was asked to give them historical information.  The historical background for NOBTS’s  position was placed in a paper that clearly defines the polity that we as Southern Baptist operate within.  The Baptist Way: A Personal Perspective is the paper presented to the trustees for their consideration.  It is a fifteen page document that contains an excellent review of Southern Baptist history concerning the doctrine of autonomy.  One thing Dr. Kelley says that rings loud concerns the Priesthood of Believers.  Dr. Kelley laments the brevity of the paper concerning the omission of this important doctrine.

Enjoy the paper, it certainly is something worthy of all Southern Baptists attention.

Digg ThisShare via email

Oct 07

15

What is a Prophet?

Posted by Tim Rogers on October 15, 2007
Posted in Dr. Paige Patterson • Homemaking Degree • Les Puryear • SBC Seminaries • Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary  | 19 Comments

When posting my last article concerning the Homemaking Degree at SWBTS, I got side-tracked by a comment concerning the definition of a prophet of God. Brother Les Puryear began this rabbit chase with the following statement:

Please tell me that your last paragraph does not mean that Paige Patterson is always right and those who don’t think so don’t believe the Bible. Please correct my misunderstanding about what you are saying. Please!

Les

His reference was to a comment that I made as a concluding statement concerning Dr. Patterson’s leading in establishing this degree. My concluding remark is as follows:

Well, all I can say is that Dr. Paige Patterson is a true prophet according to Scripture. Therefore, if you have any gripes about Dr. Patterson not being a true prophet and you say you believe the Bible, then take it up with God. But if you do not believe that Dr. Patterson is a true prophet, then you have just told the world that you believe the Bible, but…..

The concern that Brother Les raised was not that much of a concern for me due to the past differences that he and I have had. I knew that Brother Les and I have had, and maintain, ongoing differences concerning different doctrines and personalities within SBC life. However, what caused me more concern and is the real reason for this article, comes more with the comments from others.

First, I will admit that if you take that comment out of the context of the article you have a basis for the questions from Brother Les. I must admit that I do not understand the basis but it is possible for one to read what they would like into that last paragraph. However, you must look at the entire article along with the concluding statement.

Second, there was a statement made by my, always lurking while looking for a weakness to pounce, Brother Aaron Weaver (aka Big Daddy Weave; B Diddy). He stated;

Like Les said, as it stands the paragraph does indeed suggest that The Prophet Paige, Peace Be Upon Him, is always right and those who dare dissent just need to read their Bible’s again.

Once again, if that statement were made by itself, I would understand such a response, but the statement is in context of the Homemaking degree being on the cutting edge of education. Even, my Brother BDW gives me the benefit of the doubt.

Having said all of this let us look at a Biblical understanding of the Prophets. Is there a basic understanding that a Prophet was always right in everything he/she did or said? The answer to that would be a resounding no! There has never been any instance in the Old or New Testament that a Prophet was 100% correct in everything he/she did or said. One cannot find Scripture to support that line of thinking without doing hermeneutic gymnastics. What one can find Scripture to support is the Prophet’s voice of direction, when ordained by the True God, will come to fruition. If the Prophet spoke and said it was of God and did not come to fruition, then it was revealed to be a false prophecy. If the person continually gave false direction that he/she said came from God, then they were revealed as a false Prophet.

Also, one needs to remember that during Old Testament and New Testament times, the cannon was not closed. Thus, God was continuing to give new revelation. How did He give this new revelation? Through the Prophets. This is the reason for the Deuteronomy 18 and 1 John 4 guidelines concerning the discernment between true and false revelation. The question at hand concerns the overview of these passages. Do these passages mean that everything a prophet says is scripture? Or, do they mean that the only time a prophet speaks saying it is coming from God, then it is scriptural? I submit to you it means the latter. Do these passages mean that since the cannon is closed then we no longer have the gift of prophecy today? Leaving the continuationist and cessassionist arguments aside, suffice it to say that it is rare that a cessassionist has to argue for the continuation of a gift against some that have professed to be continuationist. But, suffice it also to say, that while I do believe the office of Prophet is no longer needed, the principle of the Prophet is still very much needed.

However, some have tried to paint me as saying in my last article that Dr. Patterson is above criticism and is infallible. Something I have never said. The Prophets of Scripture were mere mortal men and women that were fallible and prone to the same temptations as you and I. Being referenced as a prophet did not mean that you attained any mystical status with no sin in your life. As I read the Bible I am drawn to the fact that the reason these prophets were not considered prophets in their day was for the reason they were not in any mystical sense different. Many viewed the pagan prophets in mystical sense and thus the children of Israel had to be given the guidelines before they went into the Promised Land. You can look throughout scripture to find many Prophets of God that had huge failures. Jonah is one that comes to mind. Also, if I needed advice on how to raise children Eli would not be a Prophet I would choose for that kind of council. Furthermore, I do not believe you will find in the Bible any place that Jeremiah, Isaiah, Hosea, Malachi, or any other prophet was without sin and did in fact sin and make various mistakes. But when God spoke through the Prophet, or the Prophet spoke for God, whichever semantic you chose to use, it was proven to be truthful.

Therefore, in my last post I do not intend to change anything that was written. For the simple reason that I have not expressed what some are trying to say that I have expressed. As I said, if you desire to pull that last paragraph away from the post and try to make it stand alone, be my guest. That is not what I am saying. However, if you keep the paragraph attached to the post, then you have to admit that Dr. Patterson has stated he believes God has led in beginning this course because there is a huge need for it in the society from which we are getting our students. Now the secular world has affirmed this truth so Dr. Patterson, no doubt, is hearing from God concerning the need. When the secular world addresses a need that is rampant among today’s society, they are lauded as being on the cutting edge. When the Christian world tries to address the same need that is rampant in the Christian community, the ones leading the way are maligned as backwards and stuck in the 1950′s. Go figure!

Dr. Paige Patterson has proven to be a Prophet addressing a need in a non-profit world. What a refreshing wind that is blowing out of SWBTS. Dr. Patterson is speaking prophetically the direction that he senses the Holy Spirit of God is leading him and not responding to the negative issues that come out trying to derail his vision.

Digg ThisShare via email

Oct 07

8

Midwestern–Wounded by Friendly Fire?

Posted by Tim Rogers on October 8, 2007
Posted in Baptist News • Dr. Phil Roberts • Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary • SBC Seminaries • Southern Baptist Convention  | 38 Comments

In military circles the term “friendly fire” is used when comrades in arms get caught in an unintentional crossfire and end up getting wounded or even killed by shots intended for the enemy, but the bullets are from one of their own. Many casualties in war come from “friendly fire”. These casualties are sometimes proven to be incidental, but other times it is proven to be intentional. Either way, whether incidental or intentional, there is a wound inflicted and death is possible. In the times it is proven to be incidental the soldier is given refresher training on how to avoid future incidents. When it is proven to be intentional the soldier is reprimanded and charged with the crime.

This brings me to the latest incident at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I was preparing to enroll in the D. Min. program there, but have placed everything on hold until I can see where this issue is headed. The chairman of the board of trustees appears to have seriously violated his responsibilities. If the news reports are correct (three sources report the same thing here here and here) then Mr. Gene Downing has seriously violated his position. From Baptist Press please note this report and Mr. Downing’s quote.

Downing said Roberts had not followed directives from trustees on March 19 and July 9 which stipulated that he “let [Hodge] do his job. He [Roberts] didn’t.” Downing said he asked Hodge for a confidential review for the trustee executive committee of various facets of the seminary’s operations, such as its strategic plan and a “game plan” for how funds would be used from a recent sale of a parcel of MBTS property.

Allow me to just elaborate on this one quote. First, Mr. Downing freely discusses “personnel” issues he has with Dr. Phil Roberts in the press. Mr. Downing states that the trustees issued directives to Dr. Roberts and they have not been followed-up by the President. THESE ARE PERSONNEL ISSUES!!! These issues are to be spoken about before the board of trustees and only there in Executive Session. Any discussion of personnel issues outside of the trustee meetings I believe you will find are a violation of trusteeship.

Second, Mr. Downing instructed Mr. Hodge to put together a “confidential review”, it seems, of Mr. Hodge’s opinion pertaining to the strategic plan implemented by Dr. Roberts and also a “game plan” about how the funds from a recent sale of land should be used. Once again Mr. Downing has violated his role as a trustee. As trustees there is only one employee they direct–the president. No one at any of our seminaries works for the trustees. There are reports issued by employees to trustees, but the trustees employ only one person. Also, Mr. Downing requested Mr. Hodge to keep this report confidential from the President.

Another SERIOUS violation of his role as a trustee and even his role as chairman of the board: The board of trustees cannot micro-manage. Dr. Roberts must have freedom to lead. If employees of the seminary are not happy with the direction or items are not to their liking there is a grievance process to be followed. Any trustee meeting with employees of the seminary is in serious violation of his/her trusteeship. That is the purpose of the grievance process. Once an employee violates that process and goes to a trustee, it is the trustees’ responsibility to direct that employee to the grievance process.

Allow me to produce some facts that are clearly seen. First, Mr. Hodge has been an employee at the seminary for 5 months. Second, because of his banking expertise he was hired as VP of Business Services. Mr. Hodge certainly has the credentials to fulfill the “bean counting” duties that were assigned to him. However, I question his desire to see the seminary succeed. Mr. Hodge is a contributor to a political action committee (PAC). What one does on their own time is their business. However, I ask: Why would David Hodge contribute to a banking PAC under his previous employers position? Here Mr. Hodge is listed as of 8/31/07 as a contributor and he is listed as “David Hodge, Central Bank & Trust Co., Hutchinson.” Also, Mr. Hodge has not moved to the Kansas City area. What is his commitment to Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary? He was asked by Mr. Downing to give direction to a plan that calls for second-guessing the president, when Mr. Hodge will not even relocate to the area. These facts give the perception that Mr. Hodge was only there to advance his status in some way. As a new employee of 5 months how does Mr. Downing develop such a cozy relationship with Mr. Hodge that he feels comfortable asking Mr. Hodge to violate a known employee/employer confidence? These two men are business savvy and both know these actions in the business world will send an organization into anarchy.

Here are the facts. Dr. Phil Roberts is a human being. As a human being he makes mistakes. Both Mr. Downing and Mr. Hodge have asserted that nothing has been done in any underhanded, devious way by Dr. Roberts. Mr. Hodge has stated, “there were no financial improprieties at the school and that Southern Baptists can have full confidence in the seminary.” This statement assures Dr. Roberts’ integrity in the financial dealings of the Seminary.

Also, the Seminary has increased in full-time equivalents (FTE’s) by 63% since 2001. The last president was released and it appears now the seminary is entertaining the idea of releasing another. Systemic? I do not know. If it is systemic then it lies in the Board of Trustees. But, what can be so terrible at MBTS that the chairman of the board of trustees calls for a confidential assessment? There is no evidence of mishandling of funds on the part of the president.

Dr. Roberts and MBTS, it seems, has been wounded and this wound was inflicted by friendly fire. The job before the trustees now should be to find out if this friendly fire was intentional or incidental. If it was incidental, simply the result of someone not understanding their role and thus over-stepping boundaries, then the trustees need to deal with it and make certain everyone knows the boundaries. If it is proven to be intentional, then the trustees should bring a recommendation to the SBC in Indianapolis that the individual trustees responsible be removed so that MBTS can return to fulfilling her vision.

Digg ThisShare via email

Next Page »