Fridays are for… Newspaper Articles and an Illuminating Note

If Dr. Al Mohler has, in fact, truly repented of his long-term problem with anger, as reported yesterday on SBC Outpost, and if he has placed himself in some sort of legitimate accountability relationship which will minimize the likelihood of recurrence of this problem with his administrators and staff at Southern Seminary, I praise the Lord and pledge my prayers and support for him.  It is nothing more or less than such repentance, and the corresponding ongoing “fruit of repentance” (Luke 3:8), that my anonymous professor friend and I have sought from both Drs. Mohler and Patterson.

By contrast, Dr. Patterson still appears to be in his classic arrogant (contra the leadership qualification in Titus 1:7) ”How could anyone possibly criticize me, the Lord’s anointed?” mode even as the final days wind down toward the pre-trial settlement hearing related to the Klouda lawsuit, from which some interesting things about how Dr. Patterson does things behind the scenes could be learned.  As one example, allow me to introduce the following highly illuminating note taken from the minutes–finally procured by Paul Littleton from the staff at Southwestern, after being stonewalled for months–of the SWBTS trustees meeting in which Sheri Klouda was hired:

“Miles Seaborn, R. E. Smith, David Allen and Craig Blaising met to discuss the scope of this position and agreed on the following explanation: ‘This is a position teaching Hebrew and Aramaic grammar, syntax and exegesis.  It does not extend to the exposition of the Old Testament or Old Testament theology.  The purpose of the position is to help students gain facility in the handling of the Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Old Testament.’”

Context-wise, what are we looking at here?  This meeting took place in April, 2002, while Ken Hemphill was still President at SWBTS and Patterson was still President at Southeastern.  At the time, Dr. Blaising–my friend and former classmate at Dallas Seminary–was Provost and, as I recall, Acting Dean of the School of Theology, while Dr. Allen–my friend and then colleague at Criswell College–Seaborn and Smith were trustees, with Allen serving as Board Chairman.

Next relevant question: Why was this ’sidebar’ discussion necessary, anyway?  Because they were “Patterson-izing” the description of Dr. Klouda’s teaching position.  Yes, a year in advance of Patterson’s move to SWBTS as President (following Hemphill’s surprise–many still think pressured–retirement), the Provost and three trustees got together to make sure that Dr. Klouda’s job parameters could pass muster with Patterson’s outlook.

What do I mean by that?  Patterson’s view that women are prohibited from teaching men the Bible or theology, based on 1 Timothy 2:12, is the only rational explanation for the above wording: “… teaching Hebrew and Aramaic grammar, syntax and exegesis.  It does not extend to the exposition of the Old Testament or Old Testament theology” (i.e., which would be teaching the actual Bible itself, while teaching the OT languages and exegetical principles [only] was not in their thinking).

Remember, please, that Ken Hemphill was still President at SWBTS for another year after this.  At that point, official Pattersonian standards did not yet exist at SWBTS.  But, Sheri Klouda was hired under “Patterson-ized” standards nevertheless, as documented in the minutes related to the Blaising-Allen-Seaborn-Smith conference concerning her job parameters.

Bottom line here: Not only was Sheri Klouda’s hiring not “a momentary lax of parameters,” as claimed by current Trustee Chair Van McClain, but this note in the minutes of the meeting in which she was hired clearly reveals that it was instead a calculated narrowing (i.e., to Patterson’s standards) of the parameters–effectively virtually the opposite of McClain’s contention.

Besides, if, when Patterson became President in 2003, he was terribly upset about Sheri Klouda being hired in a “momentary lax of the parameters,” why did Dr. P reward David Allen for a job well done by making him Dean of the SWBTS School of Theology?  And, if he was so upset about it after he took over, why did Patterson assure Klouda more than once that her tenure-track position was secure?  And, since Klouda did not ever teach outside the parameters laid out by Blaising, Allen et al after her hiring until her departure, how could there be a “lax in the parameters” that way?  And, if Dr. P simply wanted to get Klouda off the faculty, and wanted to exercise the discretion to do it in a way that would not have raised anywhere close to the stir it has, why did he not just wait out the last couple of years of her tenure-track period and come up with some reason to deny her tenure (as happened not long before with Dr. Karen Bullock, who, at the time she was denied tenure even though she was Director of the SWBTS School of Theology Ph.D. program)?

Honestly, there is no obvious rational explanation as to why Patterson would choose to do something so contradictory to the previous part of Klouda’s hiring/tenure track process, and which comes off as so cold-hearted and potentially devastating to Dr. Klouda’s family and career.  I hope at least some semblance of a positive reason does come out.  Because, if it doesn’t, it sure looks like he did it simply because he could–he had centralized the raw unaccountable power and, because none of his administrators or trustees stood up to his bald-faced ignoring of the accreditation-sensitive tenure track process, he just did it, when he did it, because he wanted to (and, with his massive ego, needed no better reason).

By the way, I do not doubt for a millisecond that this very note is a major aspect of why Patterson did not want these minutes made available to the public, although they are required to be.  So, like his suppression of the actual (not just estimated) enrollment figures at SWBTS last year (which make him look bad, especially when compared with Hemphill’s last year, which supposedly made him look bad), as well as his suppression of his pay/benefits figures (which make him look overpaid and greedy), both of which are also required to be made available, why not stonewall on this also?  Praise God for the SWBTS staffer who finally broke the dysfunctional web of silence and sent them to Paul!

In closing, I will say it again: my anonymous prof friend and I have not sought for harm to come to either Al Mohler or Paige Patterson.  Rather, what has been said is nothing more or less than the thoroughly biblical (Galatians 2:11-14) confrontation of leaders in the wrong toward the end of bringing about the proper ackowledgement of the harm their proud fleshly actions have caused many around them over time, in order that true heartfelt repentance on their parts might take place, including the “fruit of repentance,” which requires humbly making things right with those harmed before the Lord.

Now, as usual on Fridays, the following is from my weekly newspaper column in the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian:

                         “Making a Difference”            

The Greek philosopher, Socrates, said: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”  If the old boy was right, I fear that there are a whole lot of people who are simply existing through worthless lives.           

Over the years, I have probably examined myself and my life a good bit more than most people.  But, frankly, just because I examined it did not guarantee that I did what was needed to change the flaws or weaknesses.  Often, I would ignore them, be in denial about them or simply figure out how to work around them.           

Some months ago, however, I did take stock of my life very carefully and now, at age 58, I’ve realized that there is a lot more time behind me than ahead of me.  That kind of reality can either be very discouraging—even depressing—or it can be highly motivational.             

I chose to take it the second way.  After spending many years mostly “making a living,” I decided that I wanted to spend the rest of the time on this earth that the Lord gives me “making a difference” as best I can.           

Now, please don’t misunderstand–it isn’t as if I hadn’t previously wanted my life to have meaning and amount to something.  Exactly the opposite.  After all, I went into the ministry with high hopes of touching people’s lives with the gospel of Jesus Christ and biblical teaching.  Later, as a professor, I published a number of scholarly works, as well as eight books that range from popular level to what you might call “light textbook” level.           

If I’m going to be brutally honest, I will freely admit that I was guilty of a certain amount of ambition.  And, in moving up the academic ranks, I accomplished much more than I had expected to in a relatively short period of time.  To some extent, I “made a name” for myself.           

Still, I should have taken a clue from the fact that the books and the articles and the promotions just weren’t that satisfying to me.  As I look back, only two things really stand out as providing great satisfaction.  This is where, at least emotionally, I feel like I may have made some significant difference.           

The first of these two is a category of building into people’s lives to make a difference.  As a pastor, years ago, it was often not so much the sermons and services but the crisis times, such as counseling, visiting in hospitals or deaths, or the special times, such as weddings, baptisms or infant dedications that had real meaning for me.  As a teacher, it was students or junior faculty colleagues who I mentored, or being mentored by former boss, Dr. Lamar Cooper, who I, in turn, did my best to make look good because of the trust he showed in me.           

The second category was a mountain-sized task at Criswell College in Dallas, working under Dr. Cooper.  The school was near going on probation with the regional accrediting agency, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, in mid-2002.  Then, largely because of my writing ability, I was made “point man” for completing the uphill battle of getting reaccredited.  And, finally, after several months of grueling and tense often 14-15 hour work days, we were given our reaccreditation in December, 2002.  At least in my mind, I had made a fairly big difference.           

But, looking back at those things, I have come to see that I could have made a much bigger difference if I had been willing to be made different myself.  At that time, I was totally concerned with just fitting in and not making waves–and maybe “making a splash” as to how smart or gifted I was.           

Finally, I have come to realize that really making a difference that is not self-centered requires me not to be afraid to be different or become different.  Specifically, if I can stand out from the crowd for the Lord—not myself—I may even be able to present an attractive alternative for others who see Christ living through me (Galatians 2:20).  In the end, He is the One who will make the difference—much less of me, much more of Him.

The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today (XIII): “Absolute Fleshly Power Corrupts… Absolutely!”

It was Lord Acton (1834-1902), the British historian, who originally observed, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Based on his studies of relevant history, almost every major situation in which great power was not accompanied by appropriate accountability resulted in significant abuse of power.

However, based on the Apostle Paul’s thoughts expressed in Galatians 5 (which we will look at momentarily) and 6, almost exactly that same statement could have been made almost two millenia earlier by Paul.  In fact, in 6:7-8a, the Apostle actually uses the word “corruption”: “Don’t be deceived: God is not mocked.  For whatever a man sows he will also reap, because the one who sows to his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh…” (HCSB, italics mine).

Why do I say that Acton’s conclusion and Paul’s words are very similar?  Because the essence of the flesh is autonomy from God–specifically the power of His Holy Spirit.  Whenever the flesh wins out in the Christian’s life, the Spirit loses (Galatians 5:17). 

And, here’s another very interesting angle on “the flesh,” in case you have never thought of it this way.  Every work of the flesh Paul lists (5:19-21) is highly self-centered, with most demanding some sort of “upper hand” over other people and denying any accountability to the One True God, much less anyone else. 

Look at the list (5:19-21)!  It doesn’t matter if it’s the really gross licentious works of the flesh (5:19-20a, 21b) or the semi-respectable (i.e., because they are seen frequently and, tragically, explained away as “normal ” Christian behavior in so many ministries) legalistic works of the flesh (5:20b).  They are almost all ultimately self-involved: focusing on “me, me, me, me…,” not “Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord!” as is appropriate for Christians, and reflective of the proper attitude of those not arrogantly “lording it over” other people (Matthew 20:25-28; 1 Peter 5:3), but truly humbly accountable.

But, you say, I still do not see how you are “connecting the dots” between Acton’s conclusion and Paul’s conclusion in Galatians 6:7-8a, much less the “works of the flesh” in 5:19-21.  No problem.

Here’s my 1, 2, 3 attempt to assemble the puzzle pieces: 1) Any individual “works of the flesh” are selfish acts/abuses of anti-God power, since they ignore the intended control of the life of the believer by the Holy Spirit; 2) Repeated works of the flesh stack up into habit patterns of mistreating people through autonomous, selfish power (5:19-21)–the exact opposite of the fruit of the Spirit: “love… self-control” (5:22-23); and 3) The long-term consequences of “sowing” to the flesh–by choosing to act in the flesh, not the Spirit (5:16-17)–are a harvest, a tragic “bumper crop,” of corruption (6:8).

Let that sink in on you for.  No matter how impressive things may appear in the seen realm, if a person chooses to act in the self-centered power of the flesh, not the God-centered power of the Spirit, and keeps acting in the flesh, the longer-term outcome, from God’s perspective, is nothing other than full-blown spiritual corruption.

But, do most of us in the Southern Baptist Convention really even care about the corrupting power of the flesh, so long the major power brokers among us “keep up outer appearances?”  We certainly should!  If we have “the mind of Christ” because we have the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:16), and our minds are being renewed because of our unreserved commitment before the Lord (Romans 12:1-2), we should be making a good faith attempt to look at things the way God does: at the “heart” of the matter, not just the carefully-crafted, slick outer appearance (1 Samuel 16:7).

Having said that, before I close, allow me to connect some more dots in 1, 2, 3 fashion: 1) Currently–and for quite a number of years–the most powerful leaders in the SBC, without question, have been Paige Patterson and Al Mohler; 2) Patterson and Mohler are almost completely unaccountable, having trustee boards who are little more than “yes-men” and fan clubs and definitely not exercising careful responsible oversight of everything having to do with Southwestern and Southern seminaries (especially the presidents); and 3) Both presidents have at least one serious fleshly “chink” in the armor of their public images, as I will explain. 

With Mohler, his fairly obvious–to observers around him frequently–(Galatians 5:19) fleshly pattern is “outbursts of anger” (5:20, HCSB).  Many in the SBC got to see this fleshly character flaw up close and personal in San Antonio, as he ranted in anger about the Garner BFM 2000 Motion.  Also, most recently, five of Mohler’s former assistants turned down the opportunity to defend Mohler in regard to charges which included serious anger problems.  What else can that say other than that they won’t deny the pattern exists?

With Patterson, his “obvious” (i.e., clearly visible, if you are objective enough to see; 5:19) fleshly pattern is “selfish ambitions” (5:20, HCSB).  According to Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, the Greek plural eritheiai in Galatians 5:20 means “(selfish) disputes or outbreaks of selfishness.”  Given Patterson’s legendary reputation for questionable tactics that serve to enhance his own public image and power, this is an accurate description.  Also, I will be surprised if this aspect of a fleshly “outbreak of selfishness” does become even more clear as the relevant lawsuit-related information becomes public and it realized that Patterson had no legitimate reason to breach the SWBTS tenure track process with Dr. Sheri Klouda.  He simply chose to do it because he could.  He had the fleshly power and he exercised it, period.

Where does that leave things?  As the title of this post stated, absolute fleshly power–which both Mohler and Patterson have in the absence of responsible trustee action, and when they choose not to exhibit the fruit of the Spirit (“love, joy, peace… self-control”)–corrupts absolutely, even if it’s not immediately visible in the seen realm.  In other words, anything that is done in the flesh is, in the Lord’s eyes, “wood, hay and stubble” (1 Corinthians 3:12), even if it appears very impressive at the moment to undiscerning spiritual eyes. 

In closing, it seems to me that the worst part of all this is that far too many Southern Baptists appear to be much more impressed with fleshly political and administrative power than with the humbling spiritual realities that, from God’s perspective: 1) ”… power is perfected in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9, HCSB); 2) “… men of high position exercise power over them.  It must not be like that among you” (Matthew 20:25, HCSB, italics mine); and 3) “… whoever exalts himself will be humbled” (Matthew 23:12, HCSB).

Break in series (IV): “A Contextual Study of ‘the Lord’s Anointed’ and a Related Plea”

Once upon a time, there was a movement who wished to have leaders who were untouchables.  And, since they believed in biblical inerrancy, they needed to find a presumed biblical basis for this notion: that their high-level leaders were beyond criticism or accountability.

But, where would they look in the Bible for such an idea?  They couldn’t find it in the New Testament, because leaders there are expected to be held to higher accountability (Luke 12:48) and not to “lord it over” God’s people (Matthew 20:25-28)–which arrogant unaccountability certainly is.  Also, no matter how high up the totem pole you get, if a leader does wrong or is hypocritical, that person may well have to be rebuked “in front of everyone” (Galatians 1:13-14, HCSB).

So, with no obviously promising proof-texts in the New Testament, the group apparently went to the Old Testament and lit on a passage which sounded good.  However, as we will see, if you study the passage in question in context–as proper biblical interpretation (“a text without a context is a pretext”) requires–the slogan turns out to point in a considerably different direction.

If you’ve hung around in SBC circles for very long, I’m sure you’ve heard the widely-cited favored passage: 1 Samuel 26:9b, lifted completely out of context: “… [W]ho can lift a hand against the Lord’s anointed and be blameless?” (HCSB).  The surfacely apparent thought here is applied to the major SBC power brokers, as if anything said about them or done in regard to them that it is not positive to the point of being almost worshipful is “blameworthy.”  Further, the implication is left that God will deal severely with anyone guilty of such unthinkable conduct.

How convenient an all-purpose “pass” on accountability that is!  All you have to do is say, “They are ‘the Lord’s anointed.’  They can’t be worried with trivialities like other people”–such as being held accountable to the people of the Southern Baptist Convention to provide information that all responsible parties in the Convention are required to divulge.  After all, those leaders are too important to God, and His plan, to be hindered by obeying what everyone else has to when, instead, their energies are consumed with what is politically expedient.

But, let’s just take a few moments and see what this passage actually is teaching, in context.  If you have never done a careful study of this passage, you may be shocked.

In the immediate context, here’s what’s going on: David displayed incredible mercy in sparing Saul’s life at a point of providential vulnerability (26:7-11), especially since Saul had repeatedly–17 times by my count–tried to kill David (1 Samuel 18-26).  As a result, Saul admitted the complete wrongness of his actions spiritually and that he was a fool and promised never to harm David (26:21).

Now, with Saul–”the Lord’s anointed,” in David’s words–as unquestionably the “bad guy” in the passage, don’t things look considerably different than the positive way the CR guys like to throw around the wording?  In fact, it is a highly illuminating exercise to just list some of the ways that this verse, in context, undermines the attitude almost always reflected when the CR slogan pops up.

Try these on for size:

- As inferred above, the person doing the aggressive pursuit of no good, the one intent on doing the damage here, is not David, but Saul, “the Lord’s anointed” in this passage.

- The person primarily guilty of intrigue (i.e., “sneakin’ around” behind the scenes to try to get an advantage) here is Saul, “the Lord’s anointed,” not David.  All David was doing was trying to avoid getting killed by convincing Saul to stop coming after him.

- David knew very well that sparing the life of “the Lord’s anointed,” Saul, would do nothing more than delay somewhat the inevitable ultimate disaster.  Listen to David’s words in the very next verse: “As the Lord lives, the Lord will certainly strike him down; either his day will come and he will die, or he will go into battle and perish” (26:10, HCSB–which is exactly what happened [1 Samuel 31])!  Of course, in the meantime, things got much worse before he died.  Saul, in a classic indication of just how far away from God “the Lord’s anointed” can get, stooped so low spiritually as to consult the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28).

- Saul also now knew that the Lord was allowing his protection to break down.  Proximity to “the Lord’s anointed” was no longer a place of guaranteed security, as evidenced by the taking of Saul’s spear and water jug from right under his nose (26:11, 12, 16).

- Saul, “The Lord’s anointed,” though highly paranoid, actually was fully aware that the time of his legitimate anointing had long since passed and that he was just hanging on until the bitter end.  Listen to Saul’s words: “You are blessed, my son David.  You will certainly do great things and will also prevail” (26:25, HCSB, emphasis mine).

- Perhaps most significant of all, “the Lord’s anointed” said of this incident–and his previous behavior leading up to it–”I have sinned” (26:21).  Sadly, even though Saul also invited David to return to service in his court,(”Come back… !”; 26:21), David was wise enough to know that Saul was so far from the Lord that he could not trust him, “the Lord’s anointed,” to keep his word not to harm him.

- Further, if we explore the preceding narrative, we realize that King Saul, “the Lord’s anointed,” was furious in his jealousy of David (18:8), but he was also very afraid of him (18:29).  So much did Saul hate David that he tried to trap David into being killed off through marrying Saul’s daughter, Michal (18:20-30), even though David was clearly his best warrior (18:7, 30). 

Thus, it is clear that, in this entire narrative, there is no sense in which the concept of “the Lord’s anointed” becomes a positive one again until Saul finally passes off the scene.  David, “the man after God’s own heart,” had long since been anointed to succeed Saul (16:12-13), but Saul steadfastly refused to step aside and give up the power to which his ego had become addicted.

Spiritually, why was this the case?  At root, it was because of the absence of the work of the Holy Spirit in Saul’s life.  But, the reality of how that went may surprise you.

Many people are aware that the Lord eventually took the Spirit from Saul (16:14).  But, well before that, after prolonged self-centered sinfulness, God finally rejected Saul from being His king (15:26).  After plenty of opportunities to get right with the Lord while he still had the Holy Spirit, it was now too late for surfacy shows of repentance to make any difference (e.g., 15:24-25).  But, since such admissions of sin were mostly to save face in front of his underling leaders and his constituency (15:30), neither the Lord nor Samuel was impressed in the least with the possibility that Saul might be sincere. 

So, when the dust settles, what have we learned from poking around in 1 Samuel in regard to the contextual meaning of “the Lord’s anointed?”  Two major conclusions have crystalized from my study of this text within its nearer and surrounding narrative context:

1) The current (mis)use in the SBC of the phrase “the Lord’s anointed” is contextually laughable.  Saul, “the Lord’s anointed,” is the bad guy in every sense in 1 Samuel 26 and the surrounding passages, while David, who chooses not to kill his pursuer, is merely allowing Saul to self-destruct out of respect for his position (i.e., “the Lord’s anointed”), but not his person (i.e., character).  And, of course, with the Lord, character (the heart) is always much more important than carefully crafted public image (1 Samuel 16:7).

2) Even though the phrase “the Lord’s anointed” is totally ripped out of context by the SBC royalty in its short-sighted grab for a biblical basis for untouchable leaders, there are indeed numerous eerie resemblances between some in their leadership and Saul as “the Lord’s anointed.”

An Appended Plea: Dear Trustees of Southwestern and Southern Seminaries, Do you still not see that the crucial roles to which you have been appointed require fair (that means to everybody associated with the institution) and objectively responsible oversight of these seminaries owned by the Southern Baptist Convention?  Your role is not to be fan clubs or deputized bodyguards or security details for their presidents, whom you short-sightedly fawn over as “the Lord’s anointed.” 

And, just this past week, we have seen further evidence that you are failing miserably at the job that SBC entity trustees are supposed to do.  While the entity heads gathered in Nashville for a beautifully crafted photo op presumably reflecting loving unity:

1) Five former lieutenants of SBTS President Al Mohler chose not to criticize “the Lord’s anointed” by claiming they were too busy to comment.  But, in doing so, they also totally refused to clear him of accusations lodged in a recent anonymous open letter. 

SBTS trustees, do you honestly believe that anyone else looking on, who is not, like you, fully committed to complete submission to SBC royalty like Dr. Mohler, would not see five of five ”no comments” from Mohler’s former assistants as no more than mere coincidence?  If you are that naive, I have some Hurricane Katrina mangled timber from my family’s property in South Mississippi I will sell you for a premium price.

and 2) The lawyers’ most recent desperate attempts failed to get the lawsuit for wrongful termination by Dr. Sheri Klouda against SWBTS dismissed.  While there will certainly be additional actions tried by SWBTS to get off the hot seat, it must be observed that, the longer the suit proceeds, the more it harms the public perception of the proud former flagship seminary of the SBC. 

SWBTS trustees, this debacle is just piled on top of two classic recent examples of Dr. Patterson’s stonewalling: a) his blatant failure to provide the SBC with actual, not just estimated, enrollment figures for the last year (as did all five other seminaries), for no better reason than not to have to admit sagging enrollment; and b) the deafening silence of his refusal to provide Ben Cole with figures concerning his bloated salary and other related benefits–both of which are required by SBC regulations.  Do you not realize that Dr. Patterson is supposed to be under trustee oversight, not you existing strictly and only to do exactly what he wants, because he has elevated himself to unaccountable status as “the Lord’s anointed?”

Fridays are for… Newspaper Articles and an Observation

Observation: Am I the only other “Curious George” besides Todd Littleton?  Or, is not just incredibly curious that all five significant former lieutenants of Southern Seminary President Al Mohler chose not to answer the simple Yes or No question Todd posed to them: “Are the concerns expressed about Al Mohler by the anonymous professor substantively true””  So, we are supposed to believe that, on a subject this important to Dr. Mohler in particular, and the SBC in general, all five–Hellams, Johnson, Logan, Rainer, Waggoner (in alphabetical order)–are simply too busy to give Todd even a Yes or No answer.

Hmmm!  As Todd had said in his earlier post related to my posting the anonymous professor’s open letter to the trustees of Southern and Southwestern seminaries: “Certainly any observer would consider a response of ‘no comment’ to be an answer.”

Indeed, it is an answer: deafening silence.  It speaks volumes.  And, if the SBTS trustees would get involved and do a fair–not a cover-up–investigation they would probably find “volumes” that should have been dealt with long ago. 

After all, isn’t that what trustees are supposed to be doing?  Entity oversight–including the presidents.  Or, did I miss something in which their job descriptions were changed to “protecting the president at all costs–no matter how legitimate the concern is?”  I don’t think so.

One thing you’ve got to say about the trustees at Midwestern Seminary: At least, they eventually did their job with former President Coppenger.  And, now, they appear to be trying to do their job with current President Roberts. 

My hat is off to those courageous trustees, but not because I have anything against Phil Roberts.  I once served on an Evangelical Theological Society national committee with him and I liked him.  No, it is just that we find ourselves in an environment in which the greatest qualification to be an entity trustee in the SBC is considered to be that you will not do anything that in any way looks like disagreement with the particular entity heads who fall into the long-standing category “the Lord’s anointed” (i.e., the most powerful royalty of the SBC).

This is my weekly column in the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian:

                                  “Birthdays”            

This afternoon, I went to the first birthday party for a fairly small child that I have attended in several years.  In the meantime, I had honestly forgotten how excited such children can get at these parties.  Their sheer innocent joy is absolutely contagious!           

Then, I thought back to a very different situation in my own childhood.  My birthday is July 10.  When I was growing up, the time right after Fourth of July was when the Little League baseball season ended.  And, that meant that all the families with Little Leaguers headed out of town on vacation right before my birthday.Bummer!  I never got to have a really good birthday party because all my friends that I played Little League with were gone.  It was just me and my three younger siblings. 

Yes, I still got to blow out the candles.  Yes, I still got to eat birthday cake.  Yes, I still got to open presents.  But, it just wasn’t the same as the parties for my friends and for my siblings (whose birthdays were in November, June and January respectively).

In fact, the only birthday I’ve ever had that was worthy of note was my fortieth.  It was a surprise party and it was black balloons and a roast—as in me getting ripped to shreds by all the people back home in Mississippi, a number of whom I hadn’t seen since shortly after graduating from high school—or maybe while I was in college.  But, believe me, when it came to remembering every stupid or funny thing I had ever done when I was growing up, their memories were flawless.

Suffice it to say that my fortieth birthday was an embarrassing ordeal that I hope to never have to go through again.  While I can laugh at myself as much as the next person, it is no fun to get skewered by person after person, all of whom seem to be enjoying ripping me more than anything they had done in recent memory.

Oh, well—maybe this is sour grapes.  You know, maybe I’m a little bitter because I didn’t ever have a good birthday party when I was a kid or because the only fairly good sized birthday party I ever had felt more like the capital punishment execution of a prisoner by firing squad than a party.

But, I can remember very well a different kind of birthday celebration that never fails to put a smile on my face.  While my physical birthday was July 10, 1949, my spiritual birthday is this week in September (1970).  That’s when I became a Christian.

It was registration week before the beginning of the Fall semester at Mississippi State University.  I was sitting at a table in the grill on campus with my sister, Becky, eating lunch.  She was talking about problems with a boyfriend and I was eavesdropping on a conversation at the next table between a fraternity brother of mine and a staff member for Campus Crusade for Christ.  The Crusade guy shared the gospel with my frat brother and I could not tell you a word my sister was saying.  I listened intently, noting Bible verses that I head heard in Sunday School and Vacation Bible School in my liberal church, but had never figured out what they meant to me personally.  And, although the message he shared was clear, I was getting more confused.

My confusion had to do with why I had never understood this before, even though I had heard all those Bible verses.  That confusion lasted from Tuesday until Thursday, when it was replaced by a great joy and peace that I realized came from trusting Jesus Christ and Him alone for the forgiveness of all my sins (John 3:16; Romans 6:23).

What was really neat happened on Friday at noon, though.  I heard about a prayer meeting at the chapel in the center of the campus and, even though my sister had our car, I ran all the way from the frat house to the chapel in cowboy boots and burst in, announcing to a group of people I had never met that I had just become a Christian.  That hour–from noon until 1:00 p.m.—in that chapel, with my brand new brothers and sisters in Christ, was as wonderful a party as I ever hope to have.  They celebrated my new birth in Christ with joy and I was as joyful as any small child as a result!

Coming Monday: Break in series (IV): “The Lord’s Anointed?”

  

Break in series (III): “An Exercise in Careful Application…”

Several weeks ago, I wrote a reply to the then growing stack of withdrawn endorsements of SBC Outpost by SBC leaders because of purported un-Christlike and non-Christ-honoring content on Outpost.  All were well-intended, although, as I’ve heard from multiple sources since, more than one was done under duress from the biggest SBC power types behind the scenes.  Anyway, the unintended consequence of those pleas for “civil” dialogue was only to make the double standard intended to protect the major SBC power-brokers from any criticism at all just that much more obvious.

To make a longer story short, in that piece, I cited the following New Testament passages as examples of clearly Christ-like (because said by Jesus) and Christ-honoring speech which rebuked and corrected, in certain cases, some of the highest-profile leaders of the New Testament era: Matthew 23; Acts 5 and 7; Galatians 2; Philippians 4; and 3 John.  In addition, I pointed out that the proper New Testament standard for dealing with sinning leaders is not Matthew 18, but 1 Timothy 5.

Among the widely varying responses of my readers were those of Scott Lamb and Peter Lumpkins.  Scott accused me of saying all kinds of things about Paige Patterson and Al Mohler by the use of the above passages which I did not say in any way, shape, form or fashion.  (At the very most, I left only the vaguest dangling implications.)  In the comment stream, I said that to Scott, then Peter came along and in “We’re not going to let you off that easy” mode, challenged me again on it–although, thankfully, in a more much charitable tone.  As a result, I promised to do the following ‘careful application’ study as soon as possible–and, with everything that has been going on, this is as soon as I could get to it, guys.

Why do I use the terminology ‘careful application?’  Because so much of what is around in our pulpits–and even some classrooms–is anything but careful application.

Here is my background in this area: For about 10 years, I taught–at both the seminary and undergrad levels–either required hermeneutics or Bible study methods courses.  In addition, either though it was never published, I wrote the “How to Interpret and Apply the Bible” essay for what was planned to be the New American Standard Study Bible, which got tied up in copyright issues and never saw the light of day.

What I am going to do for the remainder of this post is to lay out: 1) an overview perspective on the movement from interpretation to application; and 2) compact applicational treatments of each of the passages listed above.  I trust that, even though many may disagre strongly with the applications I will draw, they will at least see that they are not forced or reckless, but legitimate applicationally (i.e., careful).

Why did God give us our inerrant Bible?  Here’s the one-sentence summary I developed for my courses and discussed in much more depth in that unpublished essay: “God gave Scripture into historical time that we might draw timeless principles for timely application.”

The “time” part is why we study the historical background issues in Bible survey or introduction courses.  Each book was written in specific historical circumstances that, in many cases, signficantly affect its interpretation.

The “timeless” part is the drawing of general principles that are just as true for believers today as they were when the passage was first written.  Also, it is “timeless” doctrinal truth that is expressed as theology.

Finally, “timely” truth is specific application of the general principles developed in the last step.  This is done on the basis of what is often called “genuinely comparable particulars.”  In other words, instead of application being a sprayed around scatter-gun blast, it is supposed to be a rifle shot aimed carefully at the bulls-eye of a legitimate target.

O.K.  Here we go:

Matthew 23-

Timeless principle: Hypocritical arrogant religious leaders are worthy of strong public rebuke. 

Timely application: (I’m going to stick to one small area here, because, with everything in this chapter, I could go on for quite a while and stir up a hornet’s next in the process.)  “Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (23:12, HCSB).  Applicationally, there can be little doubt that the consolidation of more and more power over time by Drs. Patterson and Mohler reflects their self-exaltation.  Thus, applicationally, they must be lovingly, yet firmly, challenged to humble themselves before the Lord, before they are somehow humbled before Him.  If they do so, the specific promise is that He will exalt them–but, instead of on their terms, it will be on His terms, in His way, in His timing.

Acts 5-

Timeless principle: Christians who are not honest about reporting figures deserve rebuke and judgment.

Timely application: As Peter held Ananias and Sapphira accountable for lying to the Holy Spirit by making themselves look better, how can we in the SBC hold Paige Patterson to a lesser standard when he will not report the dropping enrollment at SWBTS, in order to make himself look better.  Before anybody gets self-righteous, though, how can the SBC continue to say we are 16 million, when we only have 6 million we can account for?  We are collectively guilty on that one.

Acts 7-

Timeless principle: Religious leaders get angry and react in a fleshly manner when something they need to understand is told them directly by God’s chosen party.

Timely application: Certain powerful SBC leaders, notably Dr. Mohler, reacted in clearly fleshly anger when the vote on the Garner BFM Motion, a clear voice from the Convention to rein in entity unaccountability to the Convention, had been heard.  His defiant statement that he would not obey the Convention’s wishes took the place of what was supposed to be the SBTS seminary report, meaning he usurped the proper use of his time to spew anger.  Why is that any different from the attitude of those Sanhedrin leaders with Stephen, except that Dr. Mohler didn’t pick up any rocks?

Galatians 2-

Timeless principle: Even the biggest name Christian leader must be publicly rebuked when they are leading others into narrowed belief/behavior.

Timely application: The SBC standard for what is agreed-upon belief and behavior is the BFM2000.  Yet, when the IMB trustees instituted their narrowing “apocryphal” guidelines, Dr. Mohler instructed his faculty not to speak against them–though they are not part of the BFM2000, our only official doctrinal statement.  Similarly, Dr. Patterson pushed for the SWBTS trustees to institute an “apocryphal” policy that effectively placed a gag order on his faculty even though it is not part of the BFM2000.  And, why is this not like the Apostle Peter having a double doctrinal standard in Galatians 2?

Philippians 4-

Timeless principle: It is permissible to name names of believers whose personal differences cause disunity in the body of Christ and urge them to heal the differences.

Timely application: It is no secret that several of our SBC entity heads do not like each other very much for whatever reasons.  Yet, when Ben Cole (and others) have pointed that out, their loyal supporters cry “Foul!”  But, why is such naming names today any different than Paul calling out Euodia and Syntyche?

3 John-

Timeless principle: Christian leaders who elevate themselves and try to run everything are to be rebuked, because what they are doing is evil (verses 9-11).

Timely application: It is no secret that both Patterson and Mohler are arrogant micro-managers who do not listen much at all to those around them who are better qualified to handle certain key responsibilities.  Their trustees should be the ones to step in and curb their egotistical tendencies of loving to “have first place” in everything (verse 9).  But, they are nowhere to be found when it comes to accountability, whether their presidents to them or them to the Convention.

1 Timothy 5-

Timeless principle: On the basis of two or more witnesses, Christian leaders are to be publicly rebuked for sin, to scare other leaders from engaging in similar sin.

Timely application: It is Patterson’s and Mohler’s contention that women cannot teach in seminaries because of 1 Timothy 2:12.  That means they see their seminaries as being run on the same principles as local churches, since that is the context of 1 Timothy 2.  That also means that all of Patterson’s and Mohler’s male professors–including themselves–must meet the qualfications for local church leadership in 1 Timothy 3:1ff. (as well as the parallel passages in Titus 1:5ff. and 1 Peter 5:1-3).  If that is the case, then Drs. Patterson and Mohler should be handled one of two ways: 1) Dropped from faculty status because they can’t qualify according to these passages because both are arrogant (Titus 1:7) and both are bullies (1 Timothy 3:3), plus Patterson’s opulent lifestlye reveals his greed (3:3) and Mohler is a very angry man (Titus 1:7); or, 2) if they retain faculty status, they must be publicly rebuked (1 Timothy 5:20) for habitually flaunting these behavioral standards to qualify to be a leader.

Interesting point here: You can’t have it both ways.  If you are going to exclude a Sheri Klouda from teaching in a seminary because, as a woman, she can’t meet the standards imposed on church leadership, then you must make the leaders you do have live up to those standards.  If you don’t, and particularly if you are unwilling to allow your highest leaders to receive “church discipline” specifically designed for leaders (1 Timothy 5:20), that incredibly inconsistent behavior is the very definition of a double standard.

And thus ends our exercise in careful application.  Selah and Amen.

An In-betweener Post: “Transparency”

(Author’s Note: I feel I owe the following explanation to readers and commenters [whom I have not engaged in over a week], even though most bloggers would see no need to share something like this at all.  But, if I cannot be completely honest and “real”–including my struggles–in what I am presenting, I feel I am putting on a front–which is just another way of saying “two-faced” or a hypocrite.  Bottom line: I may seem like a very weak specimen to you, but weakness is when God’s strength flows [2 Corinthians 12:9-10]). 

For many years, I was a “Stoic” who buried all my emotional pain, starting all the way back in childhood.  I was so extreme in this that, in 1991, I almost died of viral pneumonia and was later informed by my doctor that, if I didn’t stop doing that, the next time it would be probably a fatal heart attack, stroke or at least bleeding ulcers.

Over 15 years later, I still struggle with facing emotional pain instead of burying it.  The last few days, hard on the heels of being at an amazing, but highly draining, retreat are a classic example.  I felt deeply wounded by what happened in regard to my posting my anonymous professor friend’s open letter and, already heavily depleted by the retreat, descended into a funk. 

Now, the sense of wounding was not by my critics or his.  Such criticism was to be expected and both of us would have been completely shocked otherwise.  After all, what else were they going to say/do?  “Sure, we’ll do a full investigation of all his charges and see whether they are true”–Fat chance of that happening in this ‘plenty of smoke, but nobody’s willing to call the fire department’ circle-the-wagons atmosphere in the SBC!  So, they stick to the strategy that has worked so well for so long: Savage the messenger, in order to avoid dealing with the message.

But, it hit me very hard when several of my fellow reformers also had less than supportive things to say about my friend’s anonymity.  And, I have been struggling with this ever since: Why was it affecting me so strongly?

You see, I love them very much and respect them immensely.  In almost every case, to stand firmly on principle against the tide–almost tidal wave–of entrenched SBC power brokers has been very costly for almost all of them.  So, what could it be?

Even after much soul-searching, I did not come up with the answer.  Finally, this morning, someone who is more godly than I am and who loves me, in spite of me, spoke the truth in love to me on this subject.  And, the gray clouds of my funk have parted. 

Please allow me to share this with you in compact form, as transparently as I know how.  Who knows?  It may prove to be a comfort or encouragement to one or more of you, even as I have been greatly comforted (2 Corinthians 1:3-6).

The Outpost guys did absolutely nothing to hurt me–though their opinions did hurt my friend somewhat (which, when I let one of them know, was followed by a very gracious apology/explanation offered and accepted).  At the objective level, they did exactly what I have learned to always expect from them: They each stood on principle, with some, in this case, expressing their concern about the anonymous nature of my friend’s open letter (although, just earlier today, I noticed that Todd Littleton had posted what seems to me to be a helpful balancing perspective out of recent very public SBC life, for which I am thankful).

But, it was not at the objective level where my problem came in.  It was completely emotional.  I took their stated opinions as “rejection,” even “abandonment”–though nothing remotely close to that had actually happened.

Where was that coming from?  Well, as I said above, someone spoke the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) to me and made it clear that I was projecting my own similar past wounding onto my friend’s situation.

What was that somewhat parallel ‘wounding?’  It’s not fun to talk about, but I’m going to give you the Cliff’s Notes version.

I was the Academic Dean at Criswell College–the SBC related school from which the Conservative Resurgence was launched–and “point man” for their successful reaccreditation effort with the Southern Association of Colleges and School in the Fall of 2002.  (Ironic, isn’t it, that Criswell has been put on probation five years later?)  In that role, I worked 14-15 hour days as the norm to get the job done in my Dean’s role and in getting the College reaccredited.  But, the work I was doing at Criswell did not help keep my marriage, which had been hanging by a thread for quite a while, together.

My thought process during that tremendously exhausting and stressful period was that, as soon as the reaccreditation process was complete, I could focus on the marriage and everything would be fine.  However, it did not work out that way.

Now, part of the problem was that I was in denial about how bad things had gotten in my marriage.  But, during those months in which I was laying it all out on the table to get Criswell reaccredited, I heard not a peep from the trustees about my marital situation.  However, as soon as the reaccreditation was in the bag, it all broke loose on that front.

The then President, Richard Wells, and the Provost, Lamar Cooper, did their best to intervene for me.  Even the Board Chair was generally sympathetic–though, apparently, no other trustees cared.  But, in late June, 2003, when my now ex-wife reneged on her signed reconciliation agreement (worked out by Dr. Wells), knowing full well that it would cost me not only my job but probably any future ministy-related opportunity in SBC circles, my XXL frame was shown the door with one month’s pay.  (And, in case anyone wonders, the former Vice President who had everyone at Criswell fearful of him, and whose unethical actions required Guidestone to change a major policy, was given six months pay when he left.)

I was stunned.  Whether the trustees intended it or not, their action came across to me as “What have you done for us lately?  Sure, you got us reaccredited, but now we don’t need you any more.”

Yes, in retrospect, I definitely said and did some things wrong and my sneaky pride was exposed.  But, the hardest thing was that, at the end of the day, the people at Criswell who really cared about me were so afraid of the trustees for their own jobs that nobody really stood up and said: “Even if you think this man’s marital situation does not meet the biblical ideal, do you not have any compassion for his situation and his family at all?!” 

They were all paralyzed with fear.  And, I felt totally abandoned… completely alone (although people like Rick Garner, Lamar Cooper, Doug Wood and Joel Wilson did try to reach out to me some as I was slipping from shock into depression).

Bringing it back to our present situation, I simply could not allow that same tragedy to occur with my anonymous professor friend.  I desperately wanted him to know that, among all his friends and acquaintances who either agree with, or are open to hearing what he has said, somebody–if even just an insignificant ”flea” (1 Samuel 26:20) like me–cared enough to stand up for him and support his courageous stand. 

You see, when I felt completely abandoned, I was in fact partly culpable because of my part of the deficiencies in my marriage (no infidelity or anything of a moral/behavioral nature at all, but mistakes and failures nevertheless).  But, this man, by contrast, has done nothing except tell the truth while trying to protect his job and family by withholding his name.  In other words, he deserves the support far more than I did.  And, after my experience in 2003, how could I withhold any support that I can muster and still call myself his “friend?”

Break in series (II): “Anonymity: Some Biblical and Cultural Reflections”

(Author’s Note: As I said in a prefatory comment at the beginning of last week, I had to be out of town and was not going to take comments until today.  I am keeping my word, although, since there were brief explanatory posts at the end of the week, I simply allowed everything that was submitted comment-wise to be moderated on through.  I do hope you enjoyed flailing away!  Clearly, some of you are pretty good at it!)

Week before last, one of my deacons (our church calls them “Servants of the Church,” actually translating diakonos) brought me a basically anonymous letter that included a list of half a dozen criticisms of my ministry or suggestions for improvement.  In the process, he told me that only one of these was something he agreed with–and he identified which–and that he had assured the people who had talked to him that he would keep their identities secret.

Now, make no mistake–there was a time, many years ago, when I would probably have told this deacon that, other than his personal criticism, the rest of the letter was not worth the paper on which it was written.  But, a number of things have happened surrounding, and since, that time which have significantly changed–and balanced–my perspective on that issue to where I am today.  I will share those with you, as well as laying out some biblical examples and biblically-related questions to get you to think a tad (unless, of course, you are totally close-minded to even biblical argumentation), even if you end up retaining your current short-sighted bias against anonymous letters and the like.

Classic Wider Cultural Example 1- The President of the United States: When I was in seminary, the Washington Post first began to run stories that connected the dots in what became known as “the Watergate” scandal, nobody beyond the most vitriolic Nixon administration haters believed for one second that there was anything of significance that had taken place, much less that it would eventually force the President from office.  Who was the major information source for the Post until some of the early ones arrested eventually cracked and testified?  An anonymous informant known only as “Deepthroat.”  His identity remained a secret for well over 30 years, until just a short time ago.

(By the way, the ethical standard almost all journalists use today in the determination of whether anonymity is allowable is a legitimate need for protection againt any kind of likely harm that would come about if the source’s identity were to become known.  And, brothers and sisters, that is precisely the case with my friend, the anonymous professor–he fears for his job and professional future because of his coming forward and telling the truth.)

We could also add to this the example of President Clinton.  Had not some early anonymous tips been carefully followed up, Clinton’s infidelity with Monica Lewinsky may not ever have been exposed (until, possibly, true to form, he might have bragged about it in his memoirs)–even though apparently known by a number of people in the administration.

By contrast, no one came forward back during the administration of John F. Kennedy.  His legendary serial infidelity was allowed to go on right there in the White House because he was given a “pass” on morals by the Secret Service and a lot of other people who knew exactly what was going on.  And, if someone had tried to speak up, just exactly how far would it have gotten and how long would that person have retained their job, if their identity was known?

2) Classic Wider Cultural Example 2- Corporate ‘Whistle-blowers’: The best-known of this category had to do with the tobacco industry.  Initially, the fact that the cigarette companies knew very well that smoking causes cancer got out to the news media by anonymous tips.  Yes, those sources eventually had to come forward, but not at the beginning.  At first, nobody was really listening–except the tobacco power-brokers, who were intent on shutting them up–so it was imperative that the sources have the protection of anonymity until other viable protection became available.

Classic Wider Cultural Example 3- Government ‘Whistle-blowers’: Things got so bad in both the business world and government that numerous statutes were enacted under which both corporate and government ‘whistle-blowers’ are protected and do not have to fear for their jobs–in some cases, their lives–as they provide information that is needed for the prosecution of corrupt CEOs and high government officials.  So, even as desperately as many Congressmen and legislators want to always have ways to cover their own hindward portions and avoid any responsibility for their actions, even they were forced to do something as the number of instances piled up in which the only way to make sure that the evidence of pervasive corruption got dealt with was to protect the anonymity of the informer.

Classic Christian Culture Example 1- The Pastoral Arena: Back in the 1980s, I allowed myself to be intimidated out of a senior pastoral situation by a powerful lay leader.  At first glance, this may look like an argument against anonymity–that is the paranoid visceral response by so many in regard to some letters which are indeed highly unfair–but I promise you that it is not.  You see, there is a huge difference between information that is circulating on ‘the grapevine’ which is merely will-o-the-wisp hearsay vs. somebody having the guts to put it down on paper and challenge the party(ies) involved all–not just some “mouthpiece”–to forthrightly open up (“See, we have nothing to hide!”) and carefully and fully demonstrate that there is no truth to the allegations.

Shamefully, rather than splitting the church–as that powerful leader–a strong-willed wealthy M.D., by the way–promised to do if I did not resign, I allowed myself to be intimidated and ‘bought off’ (with a six-month full-pay ‘parachute,’ with benefits) into resigning without taking on the rumors–none of which were ever put into writing–from the pulpit.  If I had it to do over, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I would certainly have taken the courage to speak out to the entire congregation.  You see, I had done nothing wrong, so I had nothing to fear.

But, I had not yet stood up to my Dad (see my post, “Secrets of a Dysfunctional Family”).  So, I had no experience of taking the courage to speak up.  Nor have many other pastors who never get the chance to clear their reputations by the transparently open public refutation of anonymous written charges.

Of course, if you are anywhere close to a fair-minded person, you must admit that there is another crucial side to the story of anonymous letters.  Have we not all seen numerous instances of pastors who are, in fact, quite guilty of the charges being circulated by fearful victims?  But, since, if they ever get written down, as anonymous letters, they automatically remain “baseless rumors” offered by cowards, in many people’s minds, and the abuse of position or blatant sin just continues until that pastor ends up being literally caught red-handed. 

At that point, of course, many people always ask, “How could these horrible things possibly have been allowed to go on for so long?”  The answer is simple, but absolutely tragic: Because everybody who mattered ignored the allegations.  In many cases, it got down specifically to the fact that those in leadership refused to take seriously completely true charges made in anonymous letters.

Classic Christian Cultural Example 2- Anonymous Believers Overseas: I know of no Southern Baptist who has been critical of Christians in China or North Korea, or other countries where it is not safe to let it be known that you are a Christian.  Why is it OK for them to protect themselves by remaining unidentified, but not my anonymous professor friend?  (Watch it now–don’t talk out of both sides of your mouth because of your short-sighted bias against anonymous open letters!)

I know of no other SBC reform types who have been critical of SBC missionaries who have wanted to state their concerns anonymously concerning the International Mission Board trustees without fear of reprisal.  What’s the difference with my anonymous professor friend?  At the level of principle, none.

Classic Christian Culture Example 3- The Academic Arena: I told the story in my post, “Secrets of a Dysfunctional Family,” about a colleague who brought me the proof of the unconscionable dealings of a powerful Vice-President.  But, he would only allow me to initially divulge them to the Provost under my pledge of anonymity.  When the Provost proved ready to believe me and check the information out himself, the anonymity was quickly lifted. 

But, sadly, that does not always happen.  Over the years, it has been absolutely amazing to me how certain academic higher-ups in the SBC manage to stay in their roles primarily by tightly controlling their underlings through the fear for their jobs and reputations.  While more and more stories of their misdeeds continue to circulate through ‘hush-hush’ back channels year after year from completely independent sources, as far as I know, no one–until my anonymous professor friend–has summoned the courage to come forth and put in writing their behind-the-scenes allegations, for fear of the impact on their jobs and reputations by those upon whom they depend for both.

And, in the academic arena, there exists one of the most ironic and inconsistent practices concerning anonymity that can be possibly imagined.  Professors are required to take completely anonymous student evaluations for every course they teach every term.  But, are those profs allowed to do evaluations of the administrators over them, upon whose decisions their academic survival depends?  Heavens, no.  That would be too fair and just.  That would take away much of those administrators’ paralyzing power of fear over the teachers under them.  That might actually engender humility and accountability in administrators , both of which are virtually lost concepts in the current climate in several of the heirarchies of SBC seminaries.

Relevant Biblical Material- Yes, I am certainly fully aware of Matthew 18:15-17.  But, in recent posts I have brought up–and, incredibly sadly, it has been ignored–that, with leaders, who are expected to be held to higher accountability than the average Christian (Luke 12:48), the higher standard for approaching them is found in 1 Timothy 5:19-20.  There, probably because of the strong potential for valid accusations of powerful leaders getting squelched before they get anywhere, the process begins not with private confrontation, but with the accusations being made before the assembled leaders by at least two witnesses (5:19). 

If you wonder how this relates to the situation before us, in the case of my professor friend, he was the first “witness,” but there are more who know at least as much, who have not yet taken the courage to disclose what they know, whether anonymously or with their names attached.  They are afraid and they are watching us and how we handle things before deciding whether to take the calculated risk. 

The next step is also significantly different than Matthew 18:15-17.  Whereas that passage does have a public dimension which appears to be primarily for the benefit of the guilty party (i.e., to get him/her to repent and be restored), 1 Timothy 5:20 says in no uncertain terms that the public rebuke of a sinning leader is designed to be a deterrent to other leaders: to scare them into not following suit through their own sin!

So, what happens when we of the SBC refuse to challenge powerful leaders who have fallen prey to “power corrupts” and “absolute power corrupts absolutely?”  It not only allows those already high-and-lifted-up to keep getting away with their shenanigans.  It also emboldens other leaders who watch and see them get away scott-free to pull the same stunts themselves.

In regard to “gossip” and the like, it’s the stuff circulating behind the scenes that deserves the name.  By the way, I don’t even really know Drs. Patterson or Mohler personally and, thus, have almost no direct personal knowledge of them at all (although I, along with many others, did get to watch with utter shock as Dr. Mohler spewed like a volcano in San Antonio).

So, yes, in one way, I have been guilty of “gossip”–until I posted my friend’s letter.  He does indeed have considerable personal knowledge of these situations, as do others in the wings.  And, his letter finally brings the information out of the whispering into the light.  Even though you do not know who he is, I promise you that his reputation is spotless and that he is highly trustworthy.

Bottom line here: I confess and repent of the sin of past “gossip.”  I apologize publicly to Drs. Patterson and Mohler for passing on gossip about them–and other SBC leaders who seem to be following in their paths, at least partly because no discipline for the either ungodly, or at least highly immature, behavior of the ‘big dog’ leaders has been forthcoming (1 Timothy 5:20). 

I am not, however, guilty in regard to the open letter I posted.  It is anything but free-floating ’gossip,’ but instead quite specific charges that loyalists are simply attempting to blow off by using anonymity as a smokescreen.

Speaking of anonymity, would you perhaps see it differently if you thought God Himself viewed anonymity–and employed it Himself–in a positive way?

But first, what is the definition of ”anonymous?”  It means “having an unknown name or means of identification.”  That is significant.

In that light, consider these examples related to God for starters :

- God’s angels going into Sodom, looking like men, but anonymous–without identifying themselves (Genesis 19:1ff.)

- The anonymous (i.e., in this case, unidentified) presence of the Lord’s army of angels in protecting Elisha (2 Kings 6:17)

- God’s angels who still walk among Christians anonymously to test our hospitality (Hebrews 13:2)

- Jesus walking on the road to Emmaus anonymously (Luke 24:13-35), seeing absolutely no reason to reveal His identity to those disciples until the perfect timing–in “the breaking of the bread” (24:30-31)

Key Point: God–or God’s agents–clearly act anonymously quite frequently.  So, it simply cannot be concluded that, with God, anonymity is wrong.  If you try to argue that it is, you are convicting God of sin!  And, I don’t think He will be too happy with your ‘holier than God’ attitude!

Further, an example of anonymity and required protection for the vulnerable which is clearly pleasing to God has to do with Israel’s conquest of the Promised Land.  Joshua sent out two anonymous spies to go into the Land, focusing on Jericho.  There, they were protected by Rahab (Joshua 2), who was later spared (6:22-23, 25), then highly commended in the New Testament for her faith in doing so (Hebrews 11:31).  Now, by the logic of those criticizing my friend and me, both the spies and Ruth were in the wrong here.  But, that’s hardly the ‘take’ of either the book of Joshua or the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Another Key Point: Obviously, God is not upset with someone protecting the vulnerable who have been involved in gathering information behind the scenes in order to know the true state of affairs.  In fact, the opposite is true.

Now, let’s look at a biblical example of an “open letter.”  In Nehemiah 6:6-7, we read from just such an open letter from Sanballat, a rival Persian government official, to Nehemiah. 

Now, does Nehemiah decry the ‘open letter’ format?  Not at all.  Instead, he quickly, openly answers the charges (6:8), because he had absolutely nothing to fear, due to his actual transparently godly behavior.  In the case before us in the SBC, it would require both presidents to allow their inner circles to testify on oath without fear of reprisal for the charges to be legitimately affirmed or refuted.  And, at present, the tight-knit protective dysfunctional groups around the presidents are keeping secrets, so such full access will not be allowed. 

A further key point: Suffice it to say here that there is absolutely nothing problematic about an ’open letter’ in and of itself.  It is, at worst, a neutral communication format.

On top of this biblical material, please ask–and honestly answer–the following questions?

- Is there any biblical passage which clearly rules out anonymous documents?  (Certainly, I know of none and, since quite a number of the books of the Bible are technically anonymous–even if we think we know who wrote most of them because of external witnesses–I honestly do not see how anonymous documents could be construed biblically to be a negative concept.)

- Biblically, is there an ethical problem with someone not signing a document?  (Absolutely not.  Many biblical books aren’t “signed.”  There is only a problem with acting as if you are someone else in authoring a document, such as in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3.)

- Is a biblical document to be considered more or less true based on attribution of authorship versus anonymity?  (No.  Yes, there was a little more hesitation to accept Hebrews in the early church because nobody knew for sure who wrote it.  But, that did not prevent its canonical acceptance at all.  There it sits in your New Testament as a loud testimony that anonymous letters can be completely trustworthy!)

Before closing, allow me to bring up for consideration an indirect version of what my friend is trying to do, but which can only be used when the character of the recipient is so absolutely trustworthy that you are fully confident that you can expect a positive outcome.  In 2 Samuel 12, the prophet Nathan approaches the king with what was purportedly a sad story of a poor man whose lamb was taken from him by a rich man (12:1-4).  Of course, the story was nothing more or less than God-inspired subterfuge.  It portrayed David’s tragic affair with Bathsheba and his related sins against her husband, Uriah (12:7-12). 

After the story, Nathan confronted David with the words: “You are the man!” (12:7) and David’s response was “I have sinned against the Lord” (12:13).  David did not attempt in any way to excuse or dodge the truthfulness of the prophet’s accusations.  So, Nathan, who confronted him, was completely safe, with David apparently even naming a son after him (1 Chronicles 3:4).

However, things are dramatically different at an earlier point, when David confronted Saul–who was pursuing David and trying to kill him–with his sin (1 Samuel 26:17-20).  While Saul does indeed admit his sin (26:21), David still knows that he is not at all safe with Saul, who has not proven trustworthy to not retaliate.  So, David wisely does not accept Saul’s assurance of safety (21:21-25).

Does anyone who is reading this who has a shred of objectivity really think that my friend would have chosen to make these allegations by anonymous letter, expecting in advance exactly the kind of criticism he has received, if he really felt there was even a decent possibility of a fair and open reaction by either of these presidents?  Surely, if it even rose to the level of a calculated risk, he would not have taken this completely predictable abuse from most of you, if he thought he could have gotten a fair hearing from the powers that be.  And of course, there is no such animal as a ‘witness protection program’ in the SBC.

Coming full circle, what did I do with the contents of the letter I received last week?  I went into the pulpit Sunday morning a week ago and verbalized three of the six areas to the congregation just before my sermon.  The other three were of a different nature and were faced and dealt with in our monthly ‘town hall’ (feedback/question and answer) meeting after church yesterday.

Yes, it stung and was humbling to have to do this.  But, helpful additional congregational input is now coming in and the people who gave the input anonymously to this deacon felt heard.  Overall, humility by leaders (1 Peter 5:3, 5, 6) and the followers having a sense of having their concerns heard is always a very good thing.

Would any of you please tell me how this sort of desperately needed leaderly humility (Matthew 20:25-28; James 4:6) and having the concerns of the rank-and-file truly heard is even remotely possible in the ‘circle the wagons to defend the great one at all costs and nothing else matters’ administrative defense posture of at least the two SBC entities referenced in the open letter?  Since, realistically, it is not, how else can such long-hidden information ever see the light of day other than through such an act of thoroughly biblical and ethical ‘last resort’ courage as my friend’s anonymous open letter? 

Coming Wednesday: Break in series (III): “An Exercise in Careful Application, Coutesy of Scott Lamb and Peter Lumpkins”

A Timely Explanatory Word (II)

Four things need to be expressed at this time:

1) What happened in regard to my anonymous professor friend’s open letter was unfortunate and very sad.  I really did not take it personally, but have had the most overwhelming sense of sadness for him, praying fervently on his behalf, since he was the courageous one in all this.  By God’s grace, he has seen fit to continue our friendship, contacting me earlier today and assuring me of his appreciation of my apology.

2) Although some people submitted comments in regard to the open letter here, I deleted all of them without reading any of them.  But, I did so not to bury the comments.  I did so simply because I said up front that I was going to be out of town and not accessible to a computer and that I was not going to take comments.  I stand by that crystal-clearly-stated “boundary.”  End of discussion.

3) However, to compensate, I am going to run all the comments that came in since yesterday in regard to my apology.  Also, I am not going to comment myself.  In other words, say what you want.  This has been a difficult experience for me, but I do not have the ego that requires defending myself and I am willing to admit when I truly am wrong (though, from my experience with a few of my readers–their egos apparently will not let them admit when they’re in the wrong).  So, take your best shot!  It will give me the opportunity to learn better how to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) in humility.

4) Yesterday, I was too upset–angry about what happened, then, after dealing with that (Ephesians 4:26-27), very sad for my friend–to lay out my posts for next week.  But, after prayerful consideration, here’s what I’m going to do:

Coming Monday: Break in series (II): “Some Biblical and Cultural Reflections on Anonymity”

Coming Wednesday: Break in series (III): “An Exercise in Careful Biblical Application, Courtesy of Scott Lamb and Peter Lumpkins”

Looking ahead: Following my standard local newspaper column next Friday, it is currently my plan to do one additional ‘break in series’ post on Monday, September 24, then return to my ongoing series on ‘The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention Today’ on Wednesday, September 26.

A Timely Explanatory Word, plus ‘Fridays are for… Newspaper Articles’

If you are reading this, you are probably aware that I posted an anonymous open letter from an SBC seminary professor to the trustees of Southwestern and Southern seminaries on Wednesday.  Since I had to be out of town at a retreat which lasted from Monday morning until Thursday mid-afternoon, and then I had to travel home, I asked for no comments here or on SBC Outpost, where it was re-posted.  So, I left town to go to where I essentially had no computer access, assuming that would be the case, as well as having assured my anonymous professor friend there would be no comments allowed.

Imagine my shock when I found out that Outpost decided to take comments, in spite of my clear request not to do so.  Interestingly, though, my anonymous professor friend took it better than I did–except for one part–and, in regard to this, I completely agree.

When he noticed the comments, he actually took the criticism, including about anonymity–as well as the later obligatory “drive-by” from well-known Conservative Resurgence mouthpiece, Hershael York–quite well, except from those people related to Outpost.  Why?  Because I had let these people know that I had been contacted by a professor who insisted on anonymity, who has some very important information to offer.  They knew my conditions in re-posting it to Outpost from my blog and seemed positive about doing so, and I gave assurance to my anonymous friend accordingly.  As a result, we expected their support, even if their opinions about anonymity are different than mine–and, by the way, unlike the CR, those having a hand in SBC Outpost are allowed to disagree with each other–and we do fairly frequently!

Bottom line: Outpost guys, I still love you and respect you.  But, in my humble opinion, you blew it this time. 

Relatedly, how can I blame my professor friend for feeling betrayed?  After all, unless you have been a professor–I have–who lives in great fear of losing your job–your only income to support your family–if you express even the smallest disgreement with, or concern with, the direction of the school where you teach, how can you understand where he is coming from on this?  And, this single experience may well mean that many more professors or administrators who have serious reservations about much of what has happened at that school, or decisions currently being made, will be even more afraid to speak out in any way.

Boys and girls, what that also means is that many people inside and outside the SBC will continue with the mistaken impression that Paige Patterson and his blog mouthpiece, Malcolm Yarnell, speak for the whole faculty/staff at SWBTS and that Al Mohler and his mouthpiece, Hershael York, represent a monolithic faculty/staff viewpoint at SBTS.  I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth in both cases, but this incident is going to make it a lot harder for anybody else to find that out.

As for me, Hershael and the others can feel free to say whatever they wish.  “If I perish, I perish.”  When I was thinking about starting a blog after the SBC meeting in San Antonio, I sought the wisdom of some already hosting blogs and got some helpful advice.  The best among those thoughts was “Make sure that your ego is not in it, so that, in that respect, you have nothing to gain or lose.”  Well spoken.

As a result, it’s irrelevant to me what is said about me.  It is, however, highly relevant that you understand that the points made in my friend’s open letter are true and that those in and around the inner circle at both SWBTS and SBTS know they are true, unless, of course, they are in utter and complete denial.  Even more relevant, most of these insiders are going to try to deflect legitimate criticisms or questions by focusing on my friend’s anonymity, or what has taken place behind the scenes here since yesterday.

In conclusion, if you hear nothing else, please hear loud and clear my sincerest apology to my professor friend for what happened.  He deserved better and, when the dust settled, even though I didn’t do it, I am still responsible for letting him down.

Repentant of my failure to protect a friend, Boyd

Yet again, here is my column from last week’s issue of the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian, as an example of my writing style for a different audience, which has a significant evangelistic focus.

                 “Gentle Rain and God’s Grace”            

At least five mornings per week, for health reasons, I walk for an hour and a half.  This morning, about halfway through my walking course, the drizzle turned to light rain.  That made me think of something I observed last Saturday afternoon, coming back from our church men’s group retreat, which was held so far out in the southern end of the Texas Hill Country that we were less than an hour from the Texas-Mexico border at the Rio Grande, not far from Del Rio.           

It rained Saturday and some of our men started discussing cisterns, in order to capture the water for later usage.  That, of course, is the easiest way to make effective (and efficient) use of the water, since, otherwise, with all the exposed rock in the Hill Country, the vast majority of even a slow rain still runs right off into the creeks, then the rivers and lakes, then rather quickly to the Gulf of Mexico.           

Well, while still walking, my thoughts roamed on beyond how cisterns capture the water for effective use.  I remembered this verse in Matthew’s Gospel: “[God] causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (5:45). 

This reality that God shows exactly the same mercy and care and concern for all people, whether they are moral or immoral, close to Him spiritually or so far away that they refuse to admit that He exists, is called by theologians “common grace.”  It is named that because things originating with God, like the sunshine and rainfall mentioned in Matthew 5:45, are the common experience of all mankind, completely irrespective of whether or not they are Christians.

However, there is another kind of grace—which can simply be defined as “God’s undeserved mercy”—that, to paint the whole picture, we should mention here.  It is often called “special grace” or “saving grace” (not to be confused with the recent TNT network program starring Holly Hunter).  In contrast with “common grace,” “special grace”/“saving grace” is not received by all people.  It comes only to those who believe in Jesus Christ and, thus, become Christians.  We read about it in Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works so that no one can boast.”

But, there is also a sense in which salvation in Jesus Christ is a combination of “common grace” and “special grace.”  You see, as John 3:16 states, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.”  Thus, as part of God’s “common grace,” Jesus went to the Cross and died for the sins of the entire world.  But, only some people will believe in what Jesus did in paying for their sins, thus receiving God’s “special grace.”

This is why it is often said “The death is Christ is sufficient for the whole world, but is efficient only for believers.”  That means that every person who ever lives can potentially be saved, because Christ’s death was enough (“sufficient”) to pay for their sins and make them right with God.  But, it also means that God is not going to force salvation on anyone.  Christ’s work only becomes practically applied (“efficient”) in an individual’s life when they trust Jesus Christ’s death on the Cross and Him alone.  As Acts 16:31 says in a very compact way: “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.”  It’s that simple.

To get back to the illustration with which I began, the gentle rain is like the loving sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross to pay for the sins of every single person who has ever lived or ever will.  But, though potentially “sufficient” to meet many needs, the rain runs off and is of little positive effect (“efficient”) unless it is caught in a cistern (or some other container).  That is like the open arms of faith, embracing God’s grace and receiving Jesus as your Savior and Lord. 

Coming Next Week: Two more ‘break in series’ posts on Monday and Wednesday, as well as my column on Friday, before returning to the series on the Holy Spirit the next week.

Guest Post: An SBC Professor Speaks Out

I am very pleased to welcome the following opinion piece by a respected professor whom I have known for some time in one of our six Southern Baptist seminaries.  Because of his fear of reprisal, I have assured him of complete anonymity as long as he chooses not to reveal his identity. 

I have not told him what to write in any way, shape, form or fashion, nor did I know what he was going to say after he contacted me with the idea to do this until he submitted it.  He has chosen for his thoughts to go public in this venue to most effectively voice his concerns about things of which he has extensive ‘up close’ knowledge in the academic arena of the SBC.  His piece is published without any editing on my part.

Unfortunately, since I am the liaison here and I will be out of town when this is posted, neither he nor I will be able to take comments.  However, if the Lord prompts him to say more or He gives other professors a voice in regard to these, or other important issues, comments are a real possibilility, though each writer would have their own say-so in the matter.

Please note: This sort of guest posting is barely even a work in progress (i.e., it’s a new idea and I don’t really know the best way to handle this).  But, if it develops, I hope it would be a forum for voices not heard otherwise. 

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE TRUSTEES OF SBTS AND SWBTS

From a Current SBC Seminary Professor

Dear Trustees,

Like most seminary professors I know, I am grateful for your service to the churches of the SBC.  The work of a seminary trustee has never been easy, and arguably is the most important stewardship entrusted to any Southern Baptist.  Thank you for serving!

You likely are not aware of some of these issues, and attempts to raise these concerns with you have not been successful.  Other matters have been made public but you have not acted on them.  Thus I am making this appeal to you openly before the people of the Southern Baptist Convention in general.  In the past the SBC was spared disaster when rank and file Southern Baptists became informed of how truly liberal our seminaries had become.  Courageous trustees did not simply rubber stamp the presentations of liberal seminary administrations.  Instead they investigated the concerns of Southern Baptists and took appropriate action when needed.  Thank God!  Though the issues now are different, courageous trustees are still needed for the long term health of our seminaries and ultimately our convention. 

I am writing to you anonymously because I do not want to lose my job as a seminary professor.  Not that I feel worthy of being fired for what I am doing, but because I am concerned my president might do so for exposing these matters.  No doubt some will equate my anonymity with cowardice.  But of one thing I am sure: doing this has required more nerve than my years of silence watching good people—and the SBC–being hurt. 

My prayer is that you will consider whether the message is true rather than the praiseworthiness of the messenger.  When appealing to Southern Baptists regarding such matters, some bloggers have troubled me and my fellow professors by using insensitive presentations and even coarse language.  But my colleagues in various SBC seminaries have not thereby dismissed everything the bloggers have written.  I hope you likewise will not turn a deaf ear to me and other seminary professors who might find the courage to speak up. 

For the record, I have fully supported the SBC conservative resurgence.  I celebrate that liberalism was turned out of the seminaries and conservative, biblically faithful professors were hired.  I wholeheartedly accept and teach the inerrancy of the Bible.  I have no mental reservations about the BFM 2000 and happily teach in accord with it.  Like all the professors I know, I am glad that today’s SBC seminary presidents zealously watch over the doctrinal fidelity of our teaching.  None of my colleagues desires a return to pre-conservative resurgence days when liberal professors ran the schools and presidents covered for them. 

But we now face an alarming development.  Disturbing actions by some of our presidents are being covered by administrators and in some cases by their trustees.  Though faculty morale has suffered at Midwestern and its trustees are becoming increasingly aware, I shall focus on Drs. Patterson and Mohler because their institutions are significantly more influential.  Moreover, beyond the schools entrusted to them, these two presidents often act behind the scenes as if called to be custodians of SBC life in general.  (This is no secret among many professors, and agency heads and their administrators know this well.) 

Church discipline is much discussed these days in the SBC.  Ironically, presidents of our seminaries are not easily disciplined.  It is true that one conservative SBC president was removed for character issues, but Drs. Patterson and Mohler have seemed immune to correction. No one expects that their home churches will look into character issues related to these leaders’ actions at their schools or in the SBC.  And though some faculty question why SWBTS and SBTS administrators do not challenge their presidents, it is unreasonable to expect this of men whose jobs and futures are in the hands of these powerful denominational leaders.  Oversight of our seminary presidents has been vested in you, their trustees.  And responsible, attentive supervision is a matter not only of faithfulness to the churches of the SBC, but of caring for the presidents themselves.  Great power without exacting accountability is dangerous for anyone’s soul.

For now, I will focus on just a few actions of these presidents that disturb not only many Southern Baptists, but also their faculties.  Though some of these actions have not been widely known, to some degree the faculties of both presidents have suffered a loss of confidence regarding their character and consistency. 

Southern Baptists are grateful that SWBTS trustees stopped Dr. Patterson from the $90 million embarrassment with The Investment Fund for Foundations.  But has Dr. Patterson’s apparent self-serving handling of finances at two of our seminaries been a subject of serious trustee scrutiny?  This matter is no longer news, though many of us wonder if all the details will ever be known because no trustee investigation has been apparent.  (Some particulars continue to be divulged such as the refrigerated fur closet built for Mrs. Patterson at the SEBTS manse.)  SWBTS faculty desire to respect their president, but they ask the same questions as do many concerned Southern Baptists.  You, the trustees of SWBTS alone can engender confidence that Dr. Patterson is as accountable to you as are his faculty to him. 

Regarding Dr. Patterson’s stewardship of SWBTS faculty, morale at SWBTS would rise dramatically if trustees would require of Dr. Patterson a clear biblical explanation when forcing the departure of excellent professors.  Many of us still do not understand the scriptural basis for Dr. Patterson’s handling of Dr. Klouda.   How did her teaching Hebrew violate the Bible’s teaching?  And why is it acceptable to have a female teaching beginning Arabic to men at SWBTS this semester?  Why Arabic but not Aramaic?  Since no careful biblical exegesis was presented as justification for Dr. Klouda’s exodus, the same is unlikely now in the matter of a female Arabic teacher.  But it comes as no surprise that SWBTS faculty members would be nervous about their futures when trustees do not demand reasoned and consistent application of the Bible in their president’s leadership. 

Faculty morale has suffered at SBTS, too.  Dr. Mohler’s busy speaking schedule, television appearances, daily radio program, and frequent blogging (often several times daily), have made him one of the most visible evangelical leaders today.  He has also been busy behind the scenes to position himself as a viable candidate for the next SBC presidency.  Yet, in spite of his busy life elsewhere, it is widely known around SBTS that Dr. Mohler has discouraged his administrative cabinet’s esprit de corps.  His fits of anger, selfishness and disrespect toward his administrators have hastened or prompted the departures of more than a half dozen.  Sadly, when one SBTS trustee inquired of the board chairman about these things, the chairman refused to consider the matter.  Instead he contacted Dr. Mohler, and soon the inquiring trustee received a phone call from Dr. Mohler’s most loyal lieutenant effectively stopping any further queries.  Though administrators have long covered for Mohler, many SBTS faculty know about these things.  They are discouraged by the continuing departures of administrators they love. 

More can and perhaps will be said about other troubling facets of the presidencies at these two seminaries, but enough has been said for now.  Suffice it to say that no one on Dr. Patterson’s faculty is embarrassed by his frequent emphasis on the great commission.  But doing the work of an evangelist also requires consistent biblical character lest the messenger of the Good News be discredited.  Dr. Mohler’s frequent emphasis on truth resonates well with his faculty, but knowledge of his critical character flaws undermines his credibility. 

Of course, some professors will agree with what I’ve written, some will strongly disagree, and others will want to ignore it.  Loyalists at these institutions will likely blog or write white papers in defense of their presidents.  I for one, respect any fellow professor who seeks to reason his views from the scriptures.  Unfortunately for the SBC, professors who differ from the party line cannot publicly communicate their views without fear of recrimination.  After the International Mission Board released its controversial new guidelines for appointees, Dr. Mohler not only defended the new policies but also told his faculty not to speak against them.  Southern Baptists would be wise to know that when their seminary presidents publicly address denominational issues not related to the BFM2000 or conservative theology, this by no means represents the views of many SBC seminary professors.  (I will not be surprised, however, if a few loyalists push for votes of confidence for these presidents, but such measures are worthless unless done with complete anonymity.) 

All the SBC professors I know want to be about the business of teaching and preparing students for faithful Gospel ministry.  I do not know a single one who resents being fully accountable to his administration for his teaching and lifestyle. 

These same professors also truly want to support and follow the lead of their presidents, but morale at these two institutions has suffered.  Your responsible supervision is the answer, and Drs. Patterson and Mohler themselves would benefit from the personal accountability they badly need. 

Thank you for considering this urgent request.  Know that many pray for you often. 

One Concerned Professor