Pending Name Change for Central Seminary

[JE Pettibone]

Some of you have heard that Central Baptist Theological will be changing names in the near future.

We have received notice that they plan to start official use of the new name as of January 2018. The new Name will be The Marshall School of Theology.

[Rvaughn]

Among other things, that will differentiate from another one by that name in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Thinking of that made me wonder if there might be a lot with that common name Central. There may be others, but I only found three. CBTS in Shawnee, KS, Minneapolis, MN and Virginia Beach, VA. The latter recently changed their name as well, to Virginia Beach Theological Seminary.

[JE Pettibone]

Among other things, that will differentiate from another one by that name in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Thinking of that made me wonder if there might be a lot with that common name Central. There may be others, but I only found three. CBTS in Shawnee, KS, Minneapolis, MN and Virginia Beach, VA. The latter recently changed their name as well, to Virginia Beach Theological Seminary.

Ed: R.L., I have long wondered why the schools in Virginia Beach and Minneapolis where named "Central" in the first place. Central to what?.

The Kansas City area is rather close to the center of the country. The existing school there, founded in 1901 changed to Central in the 1940's while the one in Minnesota was founded in 1964 . I have found nothing on the one in Virginia. perhaps Dave Roberts knows something about that one.

[Haruo]

Ed: R.L., I have long wondered why the schools in Virginia Beach and Minneapolis where named "Central" in the first place. Central to what?.

Virginia Beach is near the center of the Eastern Seaboard, and Minnesota is near the center of the Northern Tier. POV is a large part of everything. Non-Baptists have a similar difficulty figuring out what Baptists mean by "moderate", right Timothy, Joshua?

[Tim Bonney]

Virginia Beach is near the center of the Eastern Seaboard, and Minnesota is near the center of the Northern Tier. POV is a large part of everything. Non-Baptists have a similar difficulty figuring out what Baptists mean by "moderate", right Timothy, Joshua?

No doubt Haruo. Of course "moderate" about what? Is always the question. (or liberal or conservative.)

For Missouri Synod Lutherans, far right conservatives of the Lutheran family, the conservative thing to do is have a wine and cheese party while proclaiming Biblical inerrancy.

In the UMC the "liberals" often are the ones who are into ancient liturgical worship while the "conservatives" and "moderates" are using praise bands and electric guitars.

And, now you are a liberal if you are pro-LGBTQ even if your subscribe to all the ecumenical creeds of the ancient Church.

[JE Pettibone]

Ed: R.L., I have long wondered why the schools in Virginia Beach and Minneapolis where named "Central" in the first place. Central to what?.

Virginia Beach is near the center of the Eastern Seaboard, and Minnesota is near the center of the Northern Tier. POV is a large part of everything. Non-Baptists have a similar difficulty figuring out what Baptists mean by "moderate", right Timothy, Joshua?

Ed: Fact is there are a lot of Baptist, especially Fundamentalist and Liberals, who have difficulty figuring out what other Baptists mean by "moderate". And Hauro what have you to say about naming a new unrelated institution the same of another with an established history and reputation. That question was implied in the part of my post that you did not quote.

BTW, does any one here know what if any larger Baptist organization, the schools in Virginia and Minnesota are related?

[Rvaughn]

Ed: R.L., I have long wondered why the schools in Virginia Beach and Minneapolis where named "Central" in the first place. Central to what?.

Haruo's answer may easily explain what those two locations are "Central" to, and seem like plausible explanations. There might be others as well, such as philosophical rather than geographical. The Central Baptist Association, which broke away from the Eastern District Primitive Baptist Association in 1956, chose their name because they believed their teachings were "central" to the Bible, "varying neither to the right nor the left." I have no idea why either of these schools chose the name Central, but just pointing to that association to notice that the name Central doesn't have to be geographically motivated.

The Kansas City area is rather close to the center of the country. The existing school there, founded in 1901 changed to Central in the 1940's while the one in Minnesota was founded in 1964 . I have found nothing on the one in Virginia. perhaps Dave Roberts knows something about that one.

According to their web site, Central in Minnesota was founded in 1956 rather than 1964 -- but still well after the Central in Kansas.
http://www.centralseminary.edu/about-central/history

BTW, does any one here know what if any larger Baptist organization, the schools in Virginia and Minnesota are related?

Central in Minnesota was born out of the "Fundamentalist-Modernist" controversy in the Northern Baptist Convention. It was started after the demise of Northwestern Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, which was founded in 1935 by William Bell Riley. I don't know exactly how their ownership/affiliation works, but they have connections to the Minnesota Baptist Association (which is the old Minnesota Baptist Convention formerly affiliated with the NBC/ABCUSA) and the New Testament Association of Independent Baptist Churches (which was founded after the "neo-evangelical" drift of the Conservative Baptist Association). They may also have connections to the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International.

I don't know much about the VBTS, but their website is here:
http://www.vbts.edu/

[Tim Bonney]

\

Ed: Fact is there are a lot of Baptist, especially Fundamentalist and Liberals, who have difficulty figuring out what other Baptists mean by "moderate". And Hauro what have you to say about naming a new unrelated institution the same of another with an established history and reputation. That question was implied in the part of my post that you did not quote.

BTW, does any one here know what if any larger Baptist organization, the schools in Virginia and Minnesota are related?

I think "moderate" is a tough word to define well.

[JE Pettibone]

\

Ed: Fact is there are a lot of Baptist, especially Fundamentalist and Liberals, who have difficulty figuring out what other Baptists mean by "moderate". And Hauro what have you to say about naming a new unrelated institution the same of another with an established history and reputation. That question was implied in the part of my post that you did not quote.

BTW, does any one here know what if any larger Baptist organization, the schools in Virginia and Minnesota are related?

I think "moderate" is a tough word to define well.

Ed: Tim I don't think Moderate Christianity is any more difficult to define than the other three manifestations of Christian Faith, Fundamentalism, Conservative and Liberal. In my experience, folk who feel a need to define their Christianity as one of the four, generally confess that no one of these manifestations is monolithic and that within each group their are individuals who do not support all issues that typically define their chosen group. I am generally willing to let others define themselves and each group identify their leaders and spokes persons.

I found a web site that to me further explains what I have said

http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blog ... hree-camps

Note: this article speaks directly to only Conservative, Moderate and Liberal. With no direct mention of fundamentaliam. For many years on these boards I have presented deffinitions of all four as by quoting an artile by David Dockery from a mid takeover issue of the THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR, a journal published at New Orleans Theological Seminary. It was a spring issue, unfortunately I do not recall the year, and my copy is in our storage unit in Florida while. we are still in Oklahoma. I may be able to find it latter this week at Bacone College in Muskogee or next week at Central Seminary in Kansas.

[William Thornton]

Reminds me of how SBC mods rued the fact that by being saddled with "moderate" they forfeited being known as "conservative" even though their allies at BP tried to piggyback "conservative" onto the label anyway. Didn't take...didn't work.

[KeithE]

Reminds me of how SBC mods rued the fact that by being saddled with "moderate" they forfeited being known as "conservative" even though their allies at BP tried to piggyback "conservative" onto the label anyway. Didn't take...didn't work.

Can you provide example people in the CBF or AOB who said such things? or BP trying to “piggyback” the conservative label? Just do not remember such. A search on BP for “moderates really conservative” yielded only articles which contrast mod and cons or tell of discord between mods and cons.
http://www.bpnews.net/search?q=Moderates+really+conservatives

As for me, these days I would be embarrassed to be labelled “conservative” religiously or politically.

[Dave Roberts]

I think the labeling to which William refers was that of the 1987 Peace Committee chaired by Charles Fuller (who interestingly was having an extra-marital affair at the time). They used two labels: the more conservative were tagged as "fundamental conservatives" and the less conservative group was tagged as "moderate conservatives." Neither label stuck.

[JE Pettibone]

Reminds me of how SBC mods rued the fact that by being saddled with "moderate" they forfeited being known as "conservative" even though their allies at BP tried to piggyback "conservative" onto the label anyway. Didn't take...didn't work.

Can you provide example people in the CBF or AOB who said such things? or BP trying to “piggyback” the conservative label? Just do not remember such. A search on BP for “moderates really conservative” yielded only articles which contrast mod and cons or tell of discord between mods and cons.
http://www.bpnews.net/search?q=Moderates+really+conservatives

As for me, these days I would be embarrassed to be labelled “conservative” religiously or politically.

Ed: Thanks Keith for the above link. I too would like William to come up with how he supports his claim that "SBC mods rued the fact that by being saddled with "moderate" they forfeited being known as "conservative". I believe he is painting with an unrealistically broad brush. SBC Mods where no more Monolithic than where SBC Fundamentalist.

BTW, how many Baptist Alliance people do you know who who where are not rather left leaning during the period from 79 through 92 when all six SBC seminaries came under the control of the takeover cable. I personally have little difficulty identifying politically as a conservative (Trump aside) but as Flick recalled recently In the latter days of the ole SBC net my signature read Ed Pettibone the Net Moderate.

[William Thornton]

Dave is right. The tags never stuck. I use mod/lib which has turned out to be a pretty good fit.

A of B was never in the running for any lable that contained "conservative".

[Rvaughn]

Here's one source that used the terms “fundamental conservatives” and “moderate conservatives” to describe the broad divisions in the SBC (pre-“resurgence”).

The conflict in many ways resembled a second fundamentalist-modernist controversy. In fact, both sides of the controversy described themselves as conservative, and both were. In the early days of the struggle for control of the SBC, the sides were often identified by the terms “fundamental conservatives” and “moderate conservatives.” Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, Randall Balmer, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007, p. 643

[Tim Bonney]

Reminds me of how SBC mods rued the fact that by being saddled with "moderate" they forfeited being known as "conservative" even though their allies at BP tried to piggyback "conservative" onto the label anyway. Didn't take...didn't work.

It didn't take but, SBC moderates are primarily people who anyone not Baptist would consider a conservative Christian.

From the outside the SBC fight often looked to other denominations like one group of conservative fighting with another group of conservatives over who was more Bible or conservative.

[Rvaughn]

Tim, I get your point, but this is really a matter of perspective, according to whether one was to the right or left of the "fundamental conservatives/moderate conservatives" in the SBC. For example, there are fundamentalists (who are not Baptists) who would have thought the SBC "fundamental conservatives" were a bunch of namby-pamby liberals.

[William Thornton]

Here's one source that used the terms “fundamental conservatives” and “moderate conservatives” to describe the broad divisions in the SBC (pre-“resurgence”).

From the beginning, the SBC had a much more centralized form of The conflict in many ways resembled a second fundamentalist-modernist controversy. In fact, both sides of the controversy described themselves as conservative, and both were. In the early days of the struggle for control of the SBC, the sides were often identified by the terms “fundamental conservatives” and “moderate conservatives.” Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, Randall Balmer, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007, p. 643

Balmer isn't a great resource on this. Mods had a problem because the label conservative was elusive. Baptist press tried to help by generating new labels: fundamentalist-conservative and moderate-conservative. Didn't work. Those in the SBC who were still scratching their heads over the conflict didn't fall for this. Cons considered it a transparently anti-conservative move by BP.

I'll check some more reliable sources.

[William Thornton]

Reminds me of how SBC mods rued the fact that by being saddled with "moderate" they forfeited being known as "conservative" even though their allies at BP tried to piggyback "conservative" onto the label anyway. Didn't take...didn't work.

It didn't take but, SBC moderates are primarily people who anyone not Baptist would consider a conservative Christian.

From the outside the SBC fight often looked to other denominations like one group of conservative fighting with another group of conservatives over who was more Bible or conservative.

I don't disagree on this.

[Tim Bonney]

Tim, I get your point, but this is really a matter of perspective, according to whether one was to the right or left of the "fundamental conservatives/moderate conservatives" in the SBC. For example, there are fundamentalists (who are not Baptists) who would have thought the SBC "fundamental conservatives" were a bunch of namby-pamby liberals.

I've met a few of those. Wisconsin Synod Lutherans for example. They don't even let women vote in business meetings. And yes, a lot of it is a matter of perspective. And it is also a cultural matter as to what is considered a liberal/conservative issue. There are evangelical denominations that have always had women clergy. There are conservative/fundamentalists denominations that use wine in communion and are ok with social drinking. In the Episcopal Church not using wine in communion would be considered at the least "liberal" thinking, at the most heretical.

But then we use those words from one Christian group to another and act as if they mean the same thing everywhere.

I also would argue that what is considered "conservative" is taking a hard right turn in many political groups where what is really "Alt-Right" is being re-imaged as "real" conservatism. And if you aren't alt-right you might be a dreaded liberal. And, yes, being "liberal" is only "liberal" if you are as liberal as the person you are talking to wants you to be.

[Haruo]

In the Episcopal Church not using wine in communion would be considered at the least "liberal" thinking, at the most heretical.

If the person planning the service knew in advance that all the communicants-in-waiting had either medical or moral objections to beverage alcohol, I can't imagine an Episcopalian seriously objecting to leaving the (fermented) wine out (and substituting the unfermented wine). Every Episcopal eucharist I've attended has made a non-alcoholic alternative readily available. At St. Paul's you hold up your index finger (and get grape juice plus a gluten-free host) and at St. Mark's the grape juice is at a designated station.

[Tim Bonney]

If the person planning the service knew in advance that all the communicants-in-waiting had either medical or moral objections to beverage alcohol, I can't imagine an Episcopalian seriously objecting to leaving the (fermented) wine out (and substituting the unfermented wine). Every Episcopal eucharist I've attended has made a non-alcoholic alternative readily available. At St. Paul's you hold up your index finger (and get grape juice plus a gluten-free host) and at St. Mark's the grape juice is at a designated station.

Haruo,

I was unaware that any Episcopal church offered unfermented grape juice. I've never seen it. I wonder if this is a regional decision? Or the norm? For my part, I'm glad they do. UM churches are now allowed to use wine in communion but most don't. I've never encouraged it because of my concern for persons who for one reason or another should not consume wine. We also offer gluten free bread and separate juice for those with gluten issues.

[William Thornton]

Delayed response...

Shurden, in his book "The Struggle for the Soul of the SBC" attributes the manufacture of the two hybrid, hyphenated labels for SBC cons and mods to Baptist Press. The labels were "fundamentalist-conservatives" and "moderate-conservatives." This was a prime example of BP's bias, since "fundamentalist" was a highly charged term familiar to all Americans. The state Baptist papers at the time could still be counted on for mod bias and the made-up labels appeared for a time but wasn't swallowed by most and it disappeared.

The problem for mods was evident. They didn't have much of a standard bearer. The angry Chafin, the irascible Shermans, et al didn't help. BP did their part in trying to hang the positively viewed "conservative" on SBC mods while at the same time hanging the negatively viewed "fundamentalist" on SBC cons. Manifestly didn't work, as mods continued to lose every SBC presidential election. The most salient comment any mod ever made was when one of the Shermans, I don't recall which, said, "I understand numbers."

https://books.google.com/books?id=7F6fC ... 22&f=false

[Tim Bonney]

William, I agree those terms just made everything muddier.

Right now the UMC is looking for solutions to what quite possibly could be a split and main difference between “liberals” and “conservatives” is the issues around sexuality and Biblical interpretation related to that. On all the other areas that divided Mod/conservative Baptists in the SBC both sides in the UMC are equally Mod/lib. Go figure.

[Sandy]

It didn't take but, SBC moderates are primarily people who anyone not Baptist would consider a conservative Christian.

Agreed, though the definition of "moderate" has become equated with all of the elements within the SBC which resisted and became opposed to the conservative resurgence, and isn't necessarily a theological or doctrinal definition. There are individuals, groups, and churches among those who fall into this general category who are as theologically, doctrinally and socially liberal as any far left group in a mainline Protestant denomination. There weren't very many of them, but they were there, within the SBC, and some technically still are, depending on their state convention affiliation.

William's link to Shurden's book won't let me copy and paste, but if you go down to the first couple of pages, to Glenn Hinson's article, his explanation is a good piece of evidence toward why moderates never gained traction. Hinson categorizes them as "fundamentalists" and then attempts to attach a more fundamentalist perspective of inerrancy and social position to them. SBC conservatives, though, were not fundamentalist, and Hinson's attempt at distinguishing between the two groups missed the point because it didn't characterize the theological and social values that were pulling Southern Baptists toward the resurgence. There is some of that in the SBC as well, but it wasn't active in pursuing convention power.

I also think Dr. Hinson's view of what is "historic Baptist" teaching regarding the scriptures is heavily biased toward his point of view. The Separate Baptists, which he credits with the development of much of what eventually became the SBC, held a view of the centrality of scripture quite compatible with, and similar to, the view of the Bible as "truth, without any mixture of error," a statement which is found in Baptist confessions of faith going back to before the Revolutionary war, and certainly the Baptist Faith and Message statements going back to 1925. Most Baptists, including the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists, have historically held to what I would call "practical inerrancy" if not the actual doctrine itself. What separates "fundamentalists" from conservatives and even the more conservative branch of moderate Baptists is specific literal interpretations of scripture that are incorrectly tied to inerrancy.

Interesting note. In looking at the website for the Alliance of Baptists, I noticed that the number of individual congregations who are now listed as their partners has increased recently, due to quite an influx from ABC-USA, including one church from Ohio which declares that it joined the Alliance because of a decision made by the state group of ABC-USA to withdraw from membership in the ecumenical Ohio Council of Churches. There might be some hope there for the SBC to reverse its declining numbers. In a recent venture to visit family in West Virginia that included a visit to their church on Easter, I found out that the church, which is one of the largest ABC-USA congregations in West Virginia, and one of the oldest, is moving to affiliate with the WVCSB.