Page will appoint committee members from BGCT, BGAV

[Sandy]

[Norm]

[Wade Burleson]

Norm, you said,

"What is established in baptist life is that moderates and liberals hold a theology which can embrace the conservative and fundamentalist, not just to cooperate (read fellowship), but to fully include them in the intelligence and design stages of decision-making."

Do you mean what you say? Do you accept Calvinists? Do you accept inerrantists? Would you, if you were leadership in the SBC, fully include them in intelligence and design states of decision-making?

Do you really mean what you say?

My own experience is one that makes me feel that people on both extremes of the theological pole of Southern Baptists are exclusionary and volatile in their name calling and rhetoric. Am I mistaken?

[Norm]

Wade: Norm, you said, "What is established in baptist life is that moderates and liberals hold a theology which can embrace the conservative and fundamentalist, not just to cooperate (read fellowship), but to fully include them in the intelligence and design stages of decision-making."

Wade: Do you mean what you say?

Norm: Yes, and I have a history of advocating such and serving on a licensure council for considering a fundamentalist. I voted affirmative to licensing the individual. I have laid hands on the heads of fundamentalists being ordained.

Wade: Do you accept Calvinists?

Norm: Yes.

Wade: Do you accept inerrantists?

Norm: Yes.

Wade: Would you, if you were leadership in the SBC, fully include them in intelligence and design states of decision-making?

Norm: Yes.

Wade: Do you really mean what you say?

Norm: Yes, and I have a history of such.

Wade: My own experience is one that makes me feel that people on both extremes of the theological pole of Southern Baptists are exclusionary and volatile in their name calling and rhetoric. Am I mistaken?

Norm: I can't say; your experience is your own to interpret. But, in terms of mine, no, you are not mistaken. Exclusion and name calling may be found in any group. But in terms of exclusion, one needs to note the basis for why one is being excluded.

[Wade Burleson]

[rdenton]

[Haruo]

[pjerwin]

[Ed Pettibone]

[pjerwin]

The portrayal of inerrantists as fundamentalists who demand others adopt their beliefs or be consigned to hell is a ludicrous distortion, a caricature by definition.

But in this discussion, let's first admit that any institution -- Baptist or otherwise -- has the freedom -- and the responsibility -- to set its own parameters, otherwise we're not talking about academic freedom, but academic anarchy.

Then, let's begin with the idea of "Christian" institutions. In what sense is an institution "Christian?" Is it simply a factor of ownership or does the designation "Christian" have implications for faith and practice of those in that institution? Of course, the answer is subjective, but I would venture to say that most people would expect a "Christian" institution to be run with Christian views of faith and practice. Should a Christian institution employ atheists or non-Christians as their Bible or theology teachers? Probably not -- even though those atheists and non-Christians may be fine persons and great scholars. One who applies to be a student in a Christian institution should expect that his or her education will have an explicitly Christian worldview; those who wish to teach in Christian institutions should know that they will be expected to teach an explicitly Christian worldview. Granted, there is quite a diversity as to what "Christian worldview" means, so it ought to be more closely defined.

Then, let's move to the idea of "Baptist" institutions. In what sense is an institution "Baptist?" Is it simply a factor of ownership or are there implications for the faith and practice of those in that institution? Of course, the answer is subjective, but I would venture to say that most people would expect a "Baptist" institution to be run with specifically Baptist Christian views of faith and practice. Should a Baptist institution employ atheists, non-Christians, those who are anti-Baptist as their Bible or theology teachers? Probably not -- even though those folks may be fine persons and great scholars. One who applies to be a student in a Baptist institution should expect that his or her education will have an explicitly Baptist Christian worldview; those who wish to teach in Baptist institutions should know that they will be expected to teach an explicitly Baptist Christian worldview. Granted, there is quite a diversity as to what that worldview consists of, so it ought to be more closely defined.

The argument holds when discussing "Southern Baptist" institutions. The question at that point is who should be able to determine a Southern Baptist institution's academic parameters. Denominational leadership, who are selected by denominational adherents, should be able to directly or indirectly -- through trustees, etc. -- be able to set the parameters of the denomination's institutions. Those within the denomination who disagree with those parameters should seek change through the mechanisms afforded by denominational polity.

The bottom line is that institutions should employ those who reflect those institutions' ideals. Students attending those institutions should understand that their education will be reflective of those ideals. If an institution's ideal is complete academic freedom, then potential professors should be prepared for that kind of atmosphere and potential students should expect it. If there are parameters on the extend of academic freedom, potential professors should not expect to be able to teach outside those parameters and students should be able to expect to receive an education within those parameters.

There is an annual meeting called the Southern Baptist Convention which sets the general -- and sometimes specific -- parameters by which its entities are to be directed. During the year between Conventions, the Executive Committee of the SBC is responsible for ensuring that entities of the SBC are directed according to the dictates of the previous Convention. Since the current consensus -- like it or not -- is that the BF&M2K reflects "those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among" Southern Baptists and it espouses inerrancy, unless and until the BF&M2K is amended, revised or replaced, Southern Baptists should expect that entities of the SBC will be directed accordingly. Thus errantists should probably not be employed, at least not as teachers of Bible and theology. If a teacher does not agree with the Convention's position, he or she ought not seek employment therein; if a student cannot function within those parameters, he or she should seek education elsewhere.

The flip-side of this is the case of Baptist institutions of non-Southern Baptist persuasion -- or at least not explicitly Southern Baptist. The ideal of many of these institutions is unqualified academic freedom. In such an atmosphere, some inerrantists could easily be employed -- and probably should be if diversity is truly part of their ideal. Potential proessors should expect to be allowed as much freedom as the institution permits and students should expect whatever comes their way.

Now, let's be honest about the term "non-inerrantist:" there are differences between the views of errantists and those who simply don't feel comfortable with the term "inerrant." Heck, there can be vast differences among errantists, from those who believe the Bible to be nothing but errors and dangerous to healthy living, to those who simply believe that there are actual errors in the Bible but there is something of value in it, to those who believe there are errors in the Bible, but that there are no doctrinally significant errors. It is much less clear where those who simply don't feel comfortable with the term inerrant stand.

[scottaerwin]

[Norm]

[rdenton]

[Norm]

[pjerwin]

[pjerwin]

[Ed Pettibone]

[pjerwin]

[Ed Pettibone]

[pjerwin]

[Ed Pettibone]

[rdenton]

[Norm]

[Hal Eaton]

[rdenton]