In December of 2009, I received a Masters of Divinity from Southern Seminary. Recently, as I was looking over my class list and the required credit hours for my MDiv years, I thought about the classes that I enjoyed the most. Each of them were so good that I would take them again. Here are my five favorites in no particular order.

Hermeneutics with Robert Plummer

Plummer’s new book, 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible, gives an overview of what we discussed in this class. I took Hermeneutics my first semester, and I’m glad I did. This class set the course for me to interpret the Bible carefully throughout the rest of my seminary education and during my initial years of preaching and teaching in a local church.

Ministry of Proclamation with Hershael York

Don’t let the fancy name fool you. This was a basic preaching class. Each student was required to preach in class while being evaluated by Dr. York and the other classmates. But what could have been an awkward situation turned out to be a very encouraging exercise. The ethos of the class valued faithfulness, excellence, and the desire to listen to the Lord speak to us through one another. Even more memorable than the preaching segments were the casual conversations with Dr. York that concerned life, family, and pastoral ministry. There’s nothing like taking a class from a professor who has the life and ministry experience to back up his theory.

The Sermon on the Mount with Jonathan Pennington

This was a January class in which we worked our way through the entire Sermon on the Mount in five days. Dr. Pennington began the class with some issues of interpretation. The rest of the time was spent discussing the text itself. The big project turned out to be very practical. We were asked to craft 12 sermon outlines from the Sermon on the Mount. I wound up doing 34 because I was planning to preach through the Sermon on the Mount on Wednesday nights. That teaching series lasted more than a year and culminated in my memorizing the Sermon on the Mount and then delivering it by memory at church.

The Reformation with Shawn Wright

What I remember most about this class was the enormous amount of reading and outlining required. I probably did more work for this one class than two or three other classes combined. The good news was that at the end of the semester, I had worked through all the historical research and come out with a deeper understanding of Reformation theology. Because this was a difficult class, there weren’t as many students willing to take it. The smaller class size fostered an open atmosphere for fascinating discussions. I came to appreciate the different theological emphases of the Reformers and the pastoral motivations behind the cultural movement.

Contemporary Theology with Greg Thornbury

This was a “J term” taught by visiting professor Greg Thornbury from Union University. The reading requirements bogged us down in some very difficult and dense work from postmodern thinkers. But the class conversations were spectacular. The main thing that I remember about Dr. Thornbury was his passion for the subject matter that he taught. That excitement rubs off on students, even when the subject matter is difficult to comprehend at times.

(Favorite visual: Dr. Thornbury – eyes closed tightly, totally engaged in his teaching, gesturing like crazy while kneeling on a swivel chair that continued to slowly turn until he was facing the whiteboard and not the class.)

Grateful

Out of all the classes I took at Southern Seminary, I can’t think of one that wasn’t beneficial and enjoyable. I’m grateful for the educational opportunities God has given me, and I look back on all my seminary classes (but these in particular) with the fondest of memories.

The story that opens Ben Witherington’s book Is There a Doctor in the House?: An Insider’s Story and Advice on Becoming a Bible Scholar clues you in that this isn’t going to be a typical “how-to” book for higher education. In a few paragraphs, Witherington recounts an episode in his life that includes a sweaty run through an airport, an almost-missed plane, a pair of torn trousers, and an embarrassing greeting. The immediate impression is that humility matters. Bible scholarship is different than other forms of higher education, and Witherington makes that point over and over again, not just through the advice he offers those considering this path but also through the humble way in which he offers it.

The purpose of the book is narrow. Witherington isn’t writing for those who want to be serious students of the Bible without becoming teachers. Nor is he writing for teachers of the Bible who have no ambition at becoming published Bible scholars. Instead, his target is a growing number of seminary students who desire “to become a good and even well-published Bible scholar” (20). But even if Witherington’s target audience is narrow, he insists that the learning process must be broad. He writes:

“…to be a serious student, much less a teacher or scholar of the Bible, you must have a love for learning – and not just learning during a particular period of your life, but lifelong learning” (21).

Pushing back against the anti-intellectual climate of some parts of evangelicalism, Witherington lays out the necessity of careful thinking when it comes to the Bible. “Ignorance is not bliss when it comes to the truth of and about God’s word,” he writes. “Indeed, ignorance is the enemy of the truth” (23).

This emphasis on truth-seeking is felt throughout the book. He not only stands against those who embrace ignorance as a virtue (some segments of evangelicalism) but also against those who embrace agnosticism as a virtue (the postmodern turn). “It is important that you do not allow your piety to outrun the evidence or overrule the pursuit of truth in the service of the truth,” he counsels. “Christian Bible scholars above all must be truth seekers” (34).  And truth-seeking means that we are not dealing with ideas, but reality. He goes on to write:

“…in fact the writers of the New Testament are not merely encouraging us to enter a debating club where ideas are thrown around like Frisbees. The New Testament writers believe they are talking about realities – real persons like Jesus, real events like the resurrection, real experiences like the new birth. The moment theological or ethical reflections forget that ideas are ways of talking about such realities is the moment when one has untethered theological or ethical discussion from its historical or real foundation” (69).

There are some wise words of counsel here, particularly in relation to humility and the ability to admit when you are wrong. I love this quote:

“The Bible teacher or scholar doesn’t need someone to invent humility pills; just taking in and taking seriously regular doses of the wisdom of the Bible is enough to humble any normal person” (124).

And then there’s this good word of warning:

“It’s precisely when the text does not cough up the results you were expecting or wanting that you find out what sort of Bible teacher or scholar you actually are” (127).

The best part of Witherington’s work is his insistence that biblical scholarship be done in service to the church. “It is not enough to know the Bible if you want to teach it,” he says. “You need to know the God of the Bible” (77). He goes on: “Research by a Christian is never done just for its own sake, or even just to advance knowledge in a given field. It is done in service to the Lord and to His church” (83). Amen!

I resonated in particular with his desire to see more cross-disciplinary conversations in biblical studies. “Not only do we need more dialogue across disciplines, we need more Bible scholars who actually are committed to be biblical theologians and biblical ethicists, seeking to apply the insights they have gained from the Bible to current and pressing theological and ethical issues” (73). Yes, yes, yes! The church is hungry for scholarship that not only gives insight into the meaning of the text but presses those insights into application for today’s world.

As one who is considering future Ph.D. plans, I benefited greatly from the wisdom of Ben Witherington. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a helpful primer on becoming a biblical scholar with a heart for the church.

The cover story of this month’s Christianity Today is a lengthy profile of Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The story is written by Molly Worthen, a writer and journalist finishing her Ph.D. at Yale. The article covers the history of the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention as well as Mohler’s influence in the wider world of evangelicalism. After reading the story a few times, I wanted to weigh in with some thoughts.

First, I deplore the way that many evangelicals (particularly those in the conservative circles I run in) belittle Christianity Today. I’ve heard the jokes: Christianity Astray, Capitulation Today etc. Some dismiss CT as if the magazine never takes strong stands based on solid biblical reflection.

I have critiqued CT articles from time to time, but I don’t join the chorus of constant CT-critics. Generally speaking, the issues I sometimes have with CT’s coverage tend to be issues I have with the prevailing sentiments of evangelicalism. CT provides a snapshot of the para-church big-tent wing of evangelicalism, a tent that encompasses Christians with different views on a number of important issues. If I were to agree with everything I read in CT, I would no longer be reading the type of publication that CT seeks to be: an evangelical magazine that speaks from and to village-green evangelicalism.

Enough with that. Now, on to the cover story.

When I first heard about CT doing this profile, I thought, It’s about time! Albert Mohler is highly influential in a number of circles that are, in turn, highly influential for evangelicals. When you put these different circles together, you realize just how much influence Mohler exerts. Three circles stand out:

• The Southern Baptist Convention. (He is a denominational strategist who played an important role in the the Great Commission Resurgence, not to mention the fact that he casts the vision for the Convention’s mother seminary).
• The Religious Right. (Though he eschews the term “culture warrior” and is more nuanced than the typical voices in conservative politics, his cultural analysis is very popular. He has become a sort of spokesman for this wing of evangelical thought.)
• The Reformed Resurgence. (Through his leadership in Together for the Gospel, the Gospel Coalition, and his well-known Reformed theology, he has carved out a role as a guide to young Reformed types seeking church and cultural renewal.)

Looking at Mohler from the perspective of the Reformed Resurgence, the Religious Right, and the Southern Baptist Convention reiterates his status as a mover and shaker for evangelicals. In many ways, he resembles one of his mentors, Carl F.H. Henry. Speaking of Henry, the most ironic part of CT’s cover story is that it paints Mohler as being outside the mainstream of evangelicalism for his complementarian and inerrantist views when, in fact, it is Mohler (and not CT) who is carrying the mantle of former CT editor Carl Henry on these and other issues.

Worthen’s profile of Mohler is not condemnatory. She carefully presents his views on many issues. The best parts of the article are when Worthen is quoting Mohler or summarizing their conversations. She ably describes the building blocks of Mohler’s vision: for Southern Seminary, for the Southern Baptist Convention, for the conservative political movement, etc. Overall, Worthen’s article is neither a hack job nor a puff piece.

That said, Justin Taylor rightly described the article as “condescending.” The tone is negative at times, and Worthen’s condescension comes out in some of the offhanded remarks she makes in her reporting.

For example, when speaking of Southern Seminary’s current theological outlook, Worthen includes a parenthetical remark:

“As proof of the seminary’s current ‘diversity,’ some faculty protest that they are only four-point Calvinists.”

Her sarcasm aside, Worthen fails to understand the administration’s adherence to the Abstract of Principles, which ensures that all faculty fall in line as at least a moderate Calvinist. Her remark assumes that great theological diversity in a faculty is a virtue, whereas Mohler believes it is more virtuous for the faculty to be faithful to the confessional statement of the seminary founders.

Southern Seminary students aren’t portrayed nicely either. She describes the student visitors to Mohler’s personal library as “goggle-eyed” and gullible.

When it comes to Mohler, Worthen conveys respect for his accomplishments, but she wonders out loud if he is the intellectual everyone thinks he is. She writes of his personal library:

“A self-conscious air pervades the library, in the jumble of cultural artifacts intended to convey worldliness; in the shelves lined with a conspicuous number of Great Books, Harvard Classics, and other pre-packaged sets that seem the fruit of a single-minded mission to conquer a body of knowledge, or at least to give that impression.”

So the library may be part of Mohler’s attempt to come off as smart? As if the man, after all of his academic accomplishments, needs a big library to demonstrate his intellectual fortitude?

Later, she goes further, saying that Mohler is not so much an intellectual or theologian as he is an “articulate controversialist.” She trots out two of Mohler’s controversial positions (though it’s hard to imagine that his creationist views are that controversial for evangelicals, most of whom fall squarely into the Answers in Genesis camp and not Biologos). Because of the space she devotes to controversies, Worthen leaves out Mohler’s more important view of  ”theological triage,” a concept that is very influential for conservative evangelicals seeking to uphold sophisticated theological distinctions and yet engage in partnerships with Christians who hold other views.

Worthen’s most perplexing comment is her charge of elitism. She writes:

“Mohler is just as elitist as the moderates of Old Southern: he is certain he has the truth, and those Baptists who protest simply are not initiated into the systematic splendor of Reformed thought.”

It appears that, for Worthen, elitism equals being certain one has the truth. Is that necessarily so? Cannot agnostics be elitist? What about postmodern theologians who revel in uncertainty and easily dismiss the “ultra-rationalistic” theological viewpoints of earlier evangelicals? What about journalists who are certain that certainty equals elitism? If Mohler comes across as an elitist in this article, a closer reading makes Worthen come across even more so.

In the end, Worthen gets a lot of facts and details right, but she puts them together in a way that makes her portrait of Mohler unflattering. Yes, the article could have been worse. But it could have been better too.

In December, I hope to graduate with a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It has taken 4 1/2 years to meet all the requirements, but the Lord has been good to us, and the end is in sight.

Seminaries today are offering a variety of ways to take classes. If you are a current or future seminary student, you may have some questions about the different types of seminary classes offered. Here are some benefits and drawbacks to the different options.

ON-CAMPUS CLASSES

The benefit of taking classes on campus is that you are in a classroom with students and the professor. Your professor is right in front of you. You can communicate with him easily. Conversations with students in the hall – before and after class – are also beneficial. When the class is good, you can rejoice with other students. When the class is hard, you can commiserate too!

The seminary environment fosters a desire for learning and growth. In my experience, nothing quite replaces the classroom setting on campus with other students.

The drawback to taking classes on campus? As you go from class to class, you will usually have different course mates. Meeting lots of students is great, but you might not be able to build the kind of camaraderie you would like.

EXTENSION CENTER

Taking classes at one of the seminary’s extension centers is much like taking class on campus. A professor travels to the extension center location to be with the class.

The greatest benefit to being at an extension center is that you usually have the same classmates from class to class. Because of this factor, the class becomes a corporate unit, and you can enjoy long-lasting friendships with your classmates.

Furthermore, most of the other students are already in ministry (like you), so the class discussions tend to be more practical in nature. There is little “learning for learning’s sake.” The mindset is, “How can I apply this truth this week in my current church setting?”

The drawback to the extension center is that you rarely have the very best professors. Sometimes, the prominent professors will travel, but many times, that is not the case.

Also, the classes tend to be a little less intensive than those on campus. For example, the on-campus course requirements for a particular course may include two exams and two papers. The same course, taken at an extension center, might instead ask for two exams and only one paper. I suspect that the professors know that students are in full-time ministry and want to ease the load just a bit.

INTERNET CLASSES

The internet option allows you to stream lectures live online, or watch DVDs of the professor going over the lesson.

The benefit of an internet class is that you can work at your own pace. You can take exams and quizzes early if you’d like. (Procrastinators would probably not do well with internet classes, but planners can maximize the flexibility to their advantage.) If you pace yourself, you can finish the class more than a month early.

The drawbacks to the internet classes are obvious. You have no camaraderie with students. (The online forums, where you participate with students in a mini-blog, are helpful, but they cannot replace face-to-face interaction.)

Neither do you have easy access to the professor. Internet classes help you work toward your degree, but they are not as satisfying as extension center and on-campus classes.

Another drawback to internet classes is the price tag. For some reason, they are much more expensive than taking classes on campus. I suppose the price is designed to discourage internet classes.

J-TERMS

J-Terms are intensive, one-week courses in months starting with J (traditionally January, June, and July, although a few classes are now being offered in May and December). Most of these classes are on campus, but some can be taken at extension centers.

The benefit of a J-Term is that you can do your reading and writing projects off campus before and after the class actually meets. You can pace yourself to do much of the work ahead of time. Then, when the week of the class arrives, you can knock out the classroom hours, quizzes and exams in a short amount of time. It’s like taking an entire semester’s worth of material and cramming it into one week.

The drawback of a J-Term is the difficulty of sitting in class for so many hours in one week. It’s nice to get it done and out of the way, but even the exceptionally gifted professor can rarely hold the attention of students for that long every day. Still, I have learned a lot in J-Terms and have been thankful for the flexibility they offer.

INDEPENDENT STUDY

The final type of class available is an independent study. You can participate in an independent study only under special circumstances.

For example, I had signed up for an extension center J-Term this summer. The class was later canceled. I needed those credit hours to finish my degree by December. So the professor of that class agreed to do an “independent study” with me.

For the class, I was required to do a significant amount of reading. I participated in several one-on-one conversations with the professor. I did a book review and a longer-than-usual research paper.

The benefit of doing an independent study comes from the way that the class is tailored to the individual student. It also provides ample time with the professor one-on-one. The drawback is that you are not among other students.

CONCLUSION

There is no “best” option for taking seminary courses. Each of the options has been helpful to me, depending upon my stage in life and ministry. The best thing a prospective student can do is consider the positives and negatives and figure out which option best suits the current need.

Those of you who are currently in seminary, what options have worked best for you? Feel free to share in the comments section below…

Published by Oxford University Press, historian Greg Wills’ book, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859-2009 is now the definitive resource for understanding the history and identity of the oldest of the six Southern Baptist seminaries.

The research in these 500+ pages is groundbreaking. Over a period of several years, Wills combed through more than a million pages of documents. His access to recently-discovered records illuminates the details surrounding the crucial moments in Southern’s history.

Last year, I read and reviewed William Mueller’s book, A History of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859 – 1959. Mueller sought to establish a line of continuity between the Seminary’s founders and the administration in the late 1950′s. What Mueller tried to do, Wills actually accomplishes. Since Mohler has been president, Southern Seminary has been brought in line with the theological vision of the founders.

The book begins by telling the story of James P. Boyce and his tireless efforts to establish a seminary in the south. Boyce brought together the best Southern Baptist minds of the time: Basil Manley, Jr., William Williams and John A. Broadus.

The school’s founding took place in 1859, just two years before the Civil War. The war would temporarily close the seminary and place its future in jepoardy. But the founders exerted enormous energy to raise the financial support needed to give the school long-term viability.

Wills charts the seminary’s path toward liberalism. In the 1880′s, Crawford Howard Toy, an Old Testament professor, was forced to resign because of his higher critical views of the Bible. During the presidency of E.Y. Mullins in the early 20th century, the direction of the faculty moved in a leftward direction. I do not agree Wills that Mullins should be categorized a liberal. Wills uses the term based on Mullins’ methodology, but I would reserve that label for theologians whose doctrinal affirmations actually depart from orthodoxy. Wills is right, however, to point out the importance of Mullins for laying the foundation for the later controversies of the SBC.

The 1958 controversy, in which 13 members of the faculty were dismissed, is described in great detail. The 1958 controversy helps the reader understand the tension of being a left-leaning academic institution tethered to a largely conservative denomination.

The later years of the 20th century were filled with controversy, as the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirmed its commitment to conservative theology and sought to bring the seminaries in line with the prevailing sentiments of Southern Baptist constituents. Wills recounts the battle for the seminary’s theological direction, expressing his agreement with the conservatives. Yet he seeks to portray the facts in a clear and objective manner.

Anyone interested in Southern Seminary or the history of the Southern Baptist Convention simply must read this book. I could not put it down! Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859-2009 is a magnificent achievement.

Related Posts:

A History of Southern Seminary
The Other Side of William Whitsitt
Duke McCall: An Oral History
John A. Broadus: A Living Legacy
E.Y. Mullins: A Man of Books and a Man of the People

James Slatton has done Southern Baptists a service by offering us a fascinating portrayal of one of the Southern Baptist Convention’s most notable (and notorious) leaders.  W.H. Whitsitt: The Man and the Controversy recounts the fascinating story of Whilliam Whitsitt, the third president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a leader who found himself at the center of a controversy that raged for the last two decades of the 1800′s.

The Whitsitt controversy surrounded a “discovery” that Whitsitt made regarding the origins of the Baptist movement. Whitsitt wrote in an encyclopedia that Baptists “invented” immersion in the 1600′s. Of course, as a Baptist himself, Whitsitt did not intend to imply that Baptists were the first to baptize adult believers, only that they recovered the practice.

But Whitsitt’s discovery came at the time when the Landmark movement was gathering steam. T.T. Eaton, B.H. Carroll and other Baptist leaders were arguing that there had been an apostolic succession of Baptist churches (and thus baptism by immersion) since the first century. Whitsitt argued that the historical documents indicate that Baptists recovered the practice and that the idea of succession could not be sustained historically.

Slatton’s biography is a fascinating look at Whitsitt’s life. Whitsitt remains a pivotal figure in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention. He was the bridge between the founding generation and the second generation of Southern Seminary leadership.

Slatton was given access to Whitsitt’s personal documents and his “secret” diary. Surprisingly, Whitsitt comes across as quite arrogant. He calls James P. Boyce, the first president of Southern Seminary a “dunderhead.” He goes off on people who disagree with him, and he expresses disdain for friends as well as enemies.

But readers must also keep in mind that Whitsitt also talks about himself negatively. Many times, after preaching a sermon, he will dismiss his own delivery and content as sub par. He seems to be rather self-deprecating, so that his harshness with others is also reflected in his harsh treatment of himself.

Most interesting is Whitsitt’s sympathy for his colleague and roomate, Crawford Howell Toy, who left the seminary because of his unorthodox views of inspiration. Whitsitt appears to agree with Toy, even though he remained at the seminary.

Usually, after reading a biography, I better sympathize with the protagonist. Not so with Whitsitt. Before reading this book, I had seen Whitsitt as a good man and conservative scholar who became involved in an unfortunate controversy over Baptist history. Since Whitsitt was right on the issue of Baptist origins, I had seen him as a beleaguered hero of academic freedom.

Now that I’ve read this book, I am glad that Whitsitt left the seminary. The attitude he reveals in his diary, the sympathy he confesses for a colleague who became a Unitarian, and his disdain for his Baptist brethren have caused me to lose respect for the man himself. Southern Baptists were wrong to oust Whitsitt for his views on Baptist history. But perhaps the seminary was actually better off because of his removal.

Slatt recognizes the complexity of Whitsitt:

“He was a complex man. At one time he predicted Baptists eventually would drop their insistence on immersion – and should. In his most important published work, however, he identified immersion as their defining practice.

He agonized over the narrowness of his fellow Southern Baptists and whether he could stay with them in good conscience. Later, when the issue was joined, he took his stand as a Baptist to the bitter end – and a Southern one at that!

He argued that he had been assailed for the mere assertion of a mere historical fact, and that the issue was not doctrinal. Yet he consistently argued that at stake in the controversy was the essential Baptist doctrine of the universal spiritual church, and that it was the foundation on which the Baptist vision of the church stood! – surely a doctrinal issue.” (327)

W.H. Whitsitt: The Man and the Controversy gives us the long-overdue biography of a man at the center of a theological and denominational storm. James Slatton’s work is an unflinching portrayal of Whitsitt and his research is a gift to all Baptists who wish to learn lessons from Baptist history.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

Related Posts:
John A. Broadus: A Living Legacy
A Man of Books and a Man of the People
A History of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

The history of Southern Seminary fascinates me. I am intrigued by the stories of its founding, its survival through the Civil War era, its emergence as an important theological institution during the early 1900′s, and its late last-century liberalism which then gave way to a resurgent conservative theology.

Southern Seminary students and professors (or anyone else interested in the history of the seminary) will appreciate the autobiography of Southern’s seventh president, Duke McCall. Duke McCall: An Oral History (Nashville: Fields Publishing, 2001) contains McCall’s recollections of his life and ministry.

The story traces McCall’s early Baptist upbringing, his conversion, early ministry opportunities and his role as the president of Southern Seminary from 1951-82. Though the book was published in 2001, McCall actually sat down with the editor and recounted these memories in 1985, shortly after the death of his wife.

The autobiography is written in the form of an interview. Ronald Tonks (the editor) asks questions, to which McCall answers in story form. At times, the narrative meanders a bit, probably due to the nature of interviewing. There are a few moments of repetition, but nothing that causes the reader to grow frustrated. I actually found that the interview style helped to move the book along. Readers who do not wish to labor through 400+ pages will be able to quickly find the subjects that most interest them.

The most fascinating story in McCall’s book is the revolt of 13 faculty members against him in 1958. This controversy endangered his position as president, as well as the position of the school for the 1958-59 semester. The political machinations of McCall, the faculty members, and the board of trustees are fascinating. McCall maintains the rightness of his position, but he also humbly recognizes the mistakes he made in leadership.

McCall’s 30-year term as president of Southern is marked by an increasing trend toward liberal theology. While McCall stresses his conservative credentials throughout the book, he also makes it clear that the Bible is not inerrant. He wonders aloud if his friend, W.A. Criswell was motivated more by the desire to create a legacy for himself than to truly return the Southern Baptist Convention to more conservative roots. He criticizes the leaders of the conservative resurgence for “demonizing” the opposition.

McCall’s autobiography concentrates much more on the events of his life than his theology. What surprised me most about his book was not McCall’s liberalism, but the virtual absence of any theology at all. One finds more theological reflection in Billy Graham’s autobiography than in McCall’s – surprisingly, since McCall was the head of a theological institution. It seems that his lack of doctrinal commitment prepared the way for Southern Seminary to be overrun with professors and students who could claim to affirm the Abstract of Principles (Southern’s confession of faith), yet hold to that confession so loosely as to make it virtually irrelevant.

For a good history of Southern Seminary during the left-leaning years, I suggest you pick up McCall’s Oral History. It not only traces the main events of McCall’s life and ministry; it also contains several good insights into how an effective leader can run an institution.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

I am excited about the new series being published by Broadman and Holman called “Studies in Baptist Life and Thought.” With Dr. Michael Haykin at the forefront of this project as the series editor, Broadman and Holman promises to deliver a series of insightful books on Baptist history.

The first installment of this new series is devoted to the man who is most responsible for the tenor and content of the great expository preachers of the Southern Baptist Convention. John A. Broadus served as the second president of Southern Seminary in the 1889-95. But even before his leadership as president, Broadus gave Baptists an example of “balance, careful thinking, biblical faithfulness, and denominational statesmanship.” (xi)

John A. Broadus: A Living Legacy  consists of essays from a variety of Baptist scholars. The book feels, at times, as if it were condensed from a two-day conference on Baptist history. Because the scholars did their work separately, there is a fair amount of repetition in each essay, especially in the biographical information. (Occasionally, the repetition makes its way into the same essay!)

But the level of scholarship represented within these pages makes the book well worth the reader’s time. Here are some of the chapters I found most helpful:

In the introduction, Timothy George summarizes Broadus’ life and assesses his legacy.

Roger Duke summarizes and explores Broadus’ most important work: A Treatise on the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons. He shows how Broadus borrowed liberally from the principles of classical rhetoric. Broadus was also a firm advocate in learning the biblical languages and employing the Canons of Rhetoric in delivering a sermon. Broadus believed that a preacher does not invent the chief materials of a sermon. These materials are the result of previous acquisition and reflection. (The lesson here for preachers? READ!) Duke also shows that Broadus never believed in pitting systematic theology and biblical exegesis against one another.

David Dockery writes about how Broadus’ legacy was carried on by A.T. Robertson. Broadus was a careful scholar. The biblical text reigned supreme. Broadus’ legacy was earned by his devotion to biblical exegesis, expositional preaching and church-focused theology. Robertson learned from Broadus. He never feared taking into account recent developments in critical scholarship, but he held fast to the authority of the Bible.

Beecher Johnson’s chapter is the most practical. He uses Broadus as an example of a preacher who could preach “marketable messages,” but without “selling out the Savior.” How did Broadus manage to avoid sensationalistic preaching and yet still captivate his congregation? By modeling his preaching philosophy after Jesus’ teaching. Broadus encouraged his students to emulate Jesus, not chase the current fads.

Preachers should learn from John A. Broadus. The new book from Broadman and Holman helps us along in that task.

written by Trevin Wax. copyright © 2008 Kingdom People Blog.

Related Articles:
John A. Broadus Gravesite
Great American Preachers and Sermons – Interview with Larry Witham

The first Norton Hall in Louisville, KY

In 1959, Southern Seminary professor William Mueller wrote A History of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Nashville: Broadman Press), a chronicle of the seminary’s first one hundred years.

James P. Boyce, founder and first president of Southern Seminary

Mueller’s A History begins with a description of the need for a seminary. In desperate need of theological education, the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention desired an affordable, accessible institution of Christian education for pastors and laypeople.

The first half of the book centers on the seminary’s founding, fueled by the great vision of James P. Boyce in establishing the seminary and his tireless efforts in raising funds to keep the seminary going. Mueller tells the individual stories of each of the original faculty members. He highlights the different talents and gifts that each of the four founders brought to the table.

Crawford Howell Toy, who left the seminary because of his unorthodox views of biblical inspiration

The second half of the book centers on the two controversies that shaped Southern Seminary in the late 1800′s: the dismissal of Crawford Howell Toy from the faculty because of his denial of Scriptural inspiration; and the Whitsitt controversy, in which the seminary’s third president was forced to resigned under a cloud of controversy over his views on Baptist history.

In Toy’s case, the faculty’s decision was vindicated by Toy’s later abandonment of orthodox Christian faith. In the Whitsitt case, most Southern Baptist historians (and even Whitsitt’s successor, E.Y. Mullins) admit that Whitsitt was right. But with the financial status of the seminary in jeopardy as long as he remained in place, Whitsitt knew that only his resignation spare the seminary from irreparable damage.

William Whitsitt, third president of Southern Seminary

Mueller’s look at the history of Southern Seminary tells us as much about the state of the seminary in the late 1950′s as it does the history of the seminary’s first century of existence. With the theological direction in the 1950′s turning leftward, Mueller seeks to show that the new direction is still consonant with the conservative Calvinism of its founders. He tries to paint a picture of John Broadus (the seminary’s second president) as a progressive evangelical theologian. He upholds the Abstract of Principles, but wishes that it could be modified somewhat to better reflect the views of the faculty of that time.

In his retelling of the Crawford Toy controversy, Mueller mentions that Toy’s views would not have been controversial at Southern during the 1950′s, but he still applauds the decision of the faculty, since Toy eventually did depart from traditional Christian faith. It is unfortunate that Mueller did not understand that the seminary’s trajectory was beginning to mirror Toy’s, as the seminary turned leftward and adopted an increasingly liberal theological agenda.

Students of Southern Seminary who are interested in the seminary’s history will enjoy Mueller’s work. I am now looking forward to the upcoming history of the seminary’s first 150 years – written by professor Greg Wills.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

Southern Seminary has always held a prominent position in Southern Baptist life. As the oldest and most prestigious of the Southern Baptist seminaries, Southern has long promoted high academic standards and a strong emphasis on pastoral training for local churches. Since 1993, the Seminary has been guided by the leadership of Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., a prominent evangelical thinker and cultural commentator.

Though conservatives are thankful for the return of Southern to biblical fidelity, some people in Southern Baptist life have begun to worry that the Seminary has moved too far to the right – especially in the issue of Calvinism.

Today, a widespread myth exists that the Seminary student and population faculty is made up primarily of 5-point Calvinists.

Of course, Dr. Mohler’s Reformed theology is no secret. Nor is the Calvinism of several prominent professors at Southern Seminary. But one should not mistakenly assume that the entire faculty and student population holds to the Reformed understanding of doctrine and salvation.

Consider this:

Currently, not one of the deans at Southern Seminary is a five-point Calvinist.

Calvinism is not a litmus test for teaching at the seminary; the Abstract of Principles is, and the Abstract leaves room for disagreement on the extent of the atonement and irresistible grace.

Calvinism is not the main subject of interest among faculty members or students. 

In the cafeteria, on the lawn, or in the extension center, Calvinism is sometimes discussed, but not as often as one might expect. As I was discussing this post with a good friend of mine (also a student at Southern), I realized that in all the hours of theological conversation that we had shared, we had never once discussed our own views on the extent of the atonement. I suspect that such is the case for many other Southern students. 

Recent LifeWay Research statistics show that 27% of graduates from Southern Baptist seminaries are likely to call themselves 5-point Calvinists. Despite the alarm sounded in some corners, the fact of the matter is: 73% of Southern Baptist students do not belong to this category.

From my own experience as a student of Southern, I suspect that the majority of Southern Seminary students that I have encountered on campus and at the extension center I attend (Nashville) are not 5-point Calvinists.  

Furthermore, Louisville is not a hotbed for Hyper-Calvinists. (Historically, Hyper-Calvinism is the errant teaching that one should not evangelize, and I have yet to meet a Southern Baptist who believes this.) Those who stand against Calvinistic teaching need to refrain from labeling Calvinists as “Hyper” unless the shoe actually fits.

Perhaps there are some who fit the category of “hyperactive” Calvinists  - students who are still in the proverbial “cage-stage” of Calvinism and who are actively seeking to convert all other Christians to their doctrinal viewpoint. The problem with the hyperactive strain of Calvinism is not theology, but sin, particularly the sin of pride and arrogance. It is the same sin that lies at the root of Church Growth controversies, when a young pastor enthralled with Bill Hybels proceeds to divide a church by throwing out all hymns and organs. Immaturity and selfishness comes in all forms, not merely Calvinist.

But even if a handful of vocal Southern students might fit the ”hyperactive” description, the blame does not necessarily fall on the Seminary. Some students are convinced Calvinists before ever going to Southern, and in any case, the hyperactive are a small minority that happen to get the most press. Many faculty members seek to temper Calvinist fervor of the “hyperactive.”

It is true that most of the student population may indeed be friendly to certain aspects of the Calvinist resurgence. There are many students like myself who, theologically, lean Reformed, even without espousing 5-point Calvinism. Many of us agree with some aspects of church reform (the recovery of church discipline, integrity in membership recording, avoiding manipulation when doing altar calls, etc.). But one should not assume that all Southern students are 5-point Calvinists seeking to push Reformed theology on our churches.

Furthermore, many of the 5-pointers I know are not agressively seeking to cause strife and discord in local churches, and it is unfair to present them in this light. Many of those most passionate about Reformed theology are also extremely passionate about personal evangelism. Some of them evangelize so regularly and so confidently that I am put to shame! Just as it is unfair to present all Southern students as 5-point Calvinists, it is also unfair to present all 5-point Calvinists as being of the “hyperactive” type that care more about debating TULIP than sharing the gospel.

Southern Seminary, like the wider Southern Baptist Convention, contains both Calvinists and non-Calvinists. Next time you hear someone speaking of Southern Seminary as “Calvinist,” I hope you will be inclined to correct the misconception and provide some additional details in order to put an end to some of the false, sweeping generalizations about Southern.

written by Trevin Wax. copyright © 2008 Kingdom People Blog.
Photograph taken by Steve McCoy.

Related Articles:
Let Grace Abound in Us, Fellow Seminary Students
Calvinists for Evangelism
The Virtue that Should Best Characterize All Calvinists