Seminary gives association six months to vacate property

[Timsings]

Timsings,

What is it about the Reputation have you heard about SWBTS that makes it "in the toilet?" WHile it is not going the direction I would like it to go, in some segments in academia I am hearing good things about the school. I don't like some of the militancy against Reformed Theology, but I also would recommend the school over many others because of some good things happening. What specifics about their reputation do you have?

The reason I ask is because this is what people said about SBTS when Mohler took over and SEBTS when Patterson first took over. Today, no one doubts the rigor of the SBTS, some saying it is by far the best Academic institution of the SBC Seminaries and has received some great recognition around the world. SEBTS is respected for its scholarship far beyond the years before Patterson, but not by people who denied the innerancy of Scripture... they hated what happened and they bashed the seminary for their new stands. Is SWBTS in transition? Yes! Yet, I do not think it is going in the toilet. From my experience, when I heard such comments in the past it was because the Seminaries actually believed the Bible and taught it as true... some people don't think that is as academic. I think it is more Christian and more academic.

Call Patterson's actions antics... I will call it a fight for the very Word of God... a fight for the Gospel of Jesus Christ itself. I know that Luther was bashed for his actions.

First, let me say that I do not view the takeover of the SBC as a doctrinal struggle. It was a power grab cloaked in a doctrinal dispute that could not be resolved because there were no means for resolution. I have said that before on this forum, and I stand by that assessment.

When Russell Dilday was fired from the presidency of Southwestern, the seminary was on sound financial footing, had a top-notch faculty, of which my father was a prominent member, and students eager to attend. But, in the last few years of Dr. Dilday's tenure, the seeds of the decline were sown. Almost immediately upon the announcement of Paige Patterson's appointment as president, students began leaving or choosing to attend other seminaries. Faculty began leaving, and the financial stability of the seminary began to suffer. There have been questions as to whether Southwestern's accreditation is in jeopardy, something that had never happened before. The latest business about dropping the health insurance for retirees is abominable. Now the attempt to grab the association building that the seminary did not build. I call that putting the reputation of the seminary in the toilet.

It is very easy to sit back and claim that doctrinal issues were driving the takeover of the whole SBC. People were fired, and lives ruined because people would not come over to the side of the fundamentalists. It is easy to try to take the high road by claiming that some sacrifices had to be made. But when the people involved are members of your church (this was true for me as well as my parents), your colleagues, or in Dr. Dilday's case, not just my father's president, but his friend whom he had done revivals with, it is hard not to take it personally.

Tim Reynolds

 

[Ruiz]

First, let me say that I do not view the takeover of the SBC as a doctrinal struggle. It was a power grab cloaked in a doctrinal dispute that could not be resolved because there were no means for resolution. I have said that before on this forum, and I stand by that assessment.

Then you disagree with the findings of the Peace Committee, where both Liberals and Conservatives affirmed the main issue was doctrinal. I disagree with you because of the focus for years on books by prominent Evangelicals that led to the resurgence. While I do not doubt some it was about politics, on both the left and right, I do doubt that the majority of people it was about politics.

When Russell Dilday was fired from the presidency of Southwestern, the seminary was on sound financial footing, had a top-notch faculty, of which my father was a prominent member, and students eager to attend. But, in the last few years of Dr. Dilday's tenure, the seeds of the decline were sown. Almost immediately upon the announcement of Paige Patterson's appointment as president, students began leaving or choosing to attend other seminaries. Faculty began leaving, and the financial stability of the seminary began to suffer. There have been questions as to whether Southwestern's accreditation is in jeopardy, something that had never happened before. The latest business about dropping the health insurance for retirees is abominable. Now the attempt to grab the association building that the seminary did not build. I call that putting the reputation of the seminary in the toilet.

I do not know the purpose of this paragraph. Financially, things happen and often happen most dramatically during great change. The measure of a good seminary is not finances, but faithfulness to God's Word. Yes, the seminary has suffered in reputation from certain segments of liberal Christianity because people don't like Patterson's changes... That happened at SEBTS too, eventually things turned around and it got back on stable footing and respected footing. It is in transition. Yes, students who may have chosen to go under a liberal regime now go somewhere else but those who would not consider SWBTS before now are considering the Seminary. Like SEBTS, it saw years of lean but that happens in transitions.

It is very easy to sit back and claim that doctrinal issues were driving the takeover of the whole SBC. People were fired, and lives ruined because people would not come over to the side of the fundamentalists. It is easy to try to take the high road by claiming that some sacrifices had to be made. But when the people involved are members of your church (this was true for me as well as my parents), your colleagues, or in Dr. Dilday's case, not just my father's president, but his friend whom he had done revivals with, it is hard not to take it personally.

One of my good friends, Jim, was fired/forced to resign because he was liberal. We had lunch together on a regular basis, almost weekly. Almost daily I was at his office and when I went into the Ministry, he was one of my references. I love the man. Yet, he was liberal and I am conservative. He complained to me about the issues that were forcing him out and I did sympathize with him... and prayed for him as a friend. However, I also told him that I understand and agree that if the leaders' doctrine is as mine, I would not want him in his position. Thus, I understand having friends to lose their position because of the resurgence. However, I also agree with the decision. Jim was not my only friend to lose their position, another man that I trained also lost his position. My opinion was that if you cannot read the entire Bible and say, "This is God's Word that we should believe, it is without error" then I think you should not be in the ministry. Unfortunately, many people believe the Bible is errant... cannot be fully trusted.

This is my view. Not a political view to gain power... I am no longer a Southern Baptist and could care less about your politics... This is not a view of hatred towards people... liberals who believe the Bible is errant are often nice, good, and decent people. This is not a view that would prohibit me from being friends with you... many of my friends (and a past reference) were liberal. This is purely a doctrinal issue to me. While I have met people on both sides who made this political, who made this personal, and who set forth a strawman argument, I believe most of us who were around and saw people lose jobs understand it was a doctrinal issue, because someone decided that Genesis was errant and wrote a commentary with their church's money they sent to the Cooperative Program... then they found out this view was being taught in their seminaries using their money. They didn't want people being taught the Bible is errant. To me, I would never knowingly want to support any person who believes the Bible is errant... or allows such person to teach in a school I support.

I condemn those who make this just about politics... but I also condemn those who believe the Bible is errant... Political or not, who cares. It is evil to believe God's Word is errant.

 

[Ruiz]

Three more points about the general thread here.

Why do we feel like it is important to villainize people in debates such as this? I hear things like, "It is all political", "He really doesn't believe this doctrine", "he is not an academic scholar", etc.... Does making them the villain make you right? Do you justify your own position because you can villainize others? Can we all acknowledge that every person is a sinner, both sides have done things that are wrong, and impure motives haunt every single person on this list, in real life, and in churches. Yet, villainizing people does not make you right nor superior. It seems judgmental. The height of being political, in my opinion, is villainizing the other side (and both sides do this).

Secondly, can we all acknowledge that money, attendance, and respect of man is not the most important part of any seminary or church entity? The most important part is Glorifying God! Jesus glorified God when about 5,000 people left him in John 6... Jeremiah glorified God even though there is not one recorded convert in his entire ministry. As well, we should seek to glorify God in this conversation.

Finally, I do believe it is proper to frame the issue as either one side wishing to associate with homosexual affirming churches and those who do not wish to do so. Or, the bigger issue, those who believe the Bible is errant and those who do not. To me, this is the issue. Attack people as you may want to, fine! I can acknowledge there is evil among people on both sides. However, that never addresses the issue.

 

[go2church]

Three more points about the general thread here.
Finally, I do believe it is proper to frame the issue as either one side wishing to associate with homosexual affirming churches and those who do not wish to do so. Or, the bigger issue, those who believe the Bible is errant and those who do not. To me, this is the issue. Attack people as you may want to, fine! I can acknowledge there is evil among people on both sides. However, that never addresses the issue.

It's not churches it is CHURCH, singular. Out of almost 400 churches this is all about one church. One church that has been kicked out of the SBC, pulled out of the BGCT before being kicked out and would probably leave the association in soon enough.

Who is associating with churches who affirm homosexuality? Well evidently SW is because they have not returned any money that came from TBA churches and they are going to keep receiving that money for six more months - compromising liberals! If it was really about that, they should account for all the dollars coming from those TBA churches and give it all back - yeah, that's not going to happen because that is not really what this is all about.

If you think this is about homosexuality or who believes the Bible and who doesn't you are just being intentionally obtuse or are dreadfully uninformed about the way Pope Paige operates, those are total red herrings. Pope Paige wants to build an unwelcome Welcome Center and is going to create a crisis, bully and intimidate whomever needs it in order to get the land building space he wants.

So Pope Paige (being homophobic like the rest of the SBC leadership) pulls out the homosexual agenda card, SBCers march in step and away we go.

 

[Ruiz]

It's not churches it is CHURCH, singular. Out of almost 400 churches this is all about one church. One church that has been kicked out of the SBC, pulled out of the BGCT before being kicked out and would probably leave the association in soon enough.

Who is associating with churches who affirm homosexuality? Well evidently SW is because they have not returned any money that came from TBA churches and they are going to keep receiving that money for six more months - compromising liberals! If it was really about that, they should account for all the dollars coming from those TBA churches and give it all back - yeah, that's not going to happen because that is not really what this is all about.

While in this one situation, there may be only one church... it is still one church and does not change the nature of the discussion. As well, churches who believe the Bible is errant is much larger than one mere church. In my local area I can list a number of Baptist Churches who believe the Bible can be errant. I can list liberal "Baptist Seminaries" who believe the Bible can be errant. That is much bigger than church.

However, the issue remains the same. One church or many churches, should we associate with such.

If you think this is about homosexuality or who believes the Bible and who doesn't you are just being intentionally obtuse or are dreadfully uninformed about the way Pope Paige operates, those are total red herrings. Pope Paige wants to build an unwelcome Welcome Center and is going to create a crisis, bully and intimidate whomever needs it in order to get the land building space he wants.

Again, you are showing your colors by now attacking me. I am not being intentionally obtuse and I am not dreadfully uninformed. If I am uninformed, please tell me and show me by evidence where I am uninformed. You also continue to attack Paige. Again, if this is the type of Christian character you believe the association would support, you give me further reason to jettison such an organization.

Yet, if you want to continue to attack people... I am afraid you are the one being political.

The issue is whether we should associate with a church that affirms homosexuality and churches who affirm the Bible is errant. You seem to affirm that we should associate with such churches. I believe we should not. That should be the basis of our discussion, not attacking people. In my opinion, such villianization of people is unChristian and shows that you probably have little to no argument to advance.

So Pope Paige (being homophobic like the rest of the SBC leadership) pulls out the homosexual agenda card, SBCers march in step and away we go.

Can you define homophobic? In my definition, I would not consider standing on the Word of God saying homosexuality is a sin is homophobic. As well, I am not afraid of homosexuals. I may disagree with this lifestyle from Biblical convictions, but I can also consider some homosexuals friends and love them. There is nothing scary about homosexuals. They are sinners who should turn to God like other sinners and repent of their sins to embrace a life of Holiness. But, I am not afraid of them.

 

[HScott]

Who is associating with churches who affirm homosexuality? Well evidently SW is because they have not returned any money that came from TBA churches and they are going to keep receiving that money for six more months - compromising liberals! If it was really about that, they should account for all the dollars coming from those TBA churches and give it all back - yeah, that's not going to happen because that is not really what this is all about.

You have hit the nail on the head! IF this were about the issue of homosexuality, then SWBTS should have stopped taking any funds from the Tarrant Baptist Association following Broadway Baptist Church's ouster from the SBC in June 2009 (full disclosure -- I voted for Broadway's removal). IF homosexual affirming or supportive churches in the association were the problem, then why not move to also cut all ties with the TBA? IF this is the issue, then Southwestern should return all monies received from any of the member churches of Tarrant and not take one more penny. That they have not (and most likely) will not take this action speaks volumes as to their motives.

Southwestern has "unclean hands" in this situation, particularly with regard to the money that they have continued to receive. Regardless of your views on homosexuality (I believe the Bible clearly affirms it as a sin), the issue, IMO, has apparently been used in a cynical and unChristian way to get back property. That is, unless one believes that only actions -- not motives or intent -- can be unChristian. I do believe that the inerrant Word of God does have something to say about one's motives or intents being sinful. Thanks and God bless,

Howell

 

[preachinjesus]

The church where I serve allows homos3xuals to attend just like we allow adulterers. (Granted we don't go out of our way to find them and it sure can't be a comfortable place to attend if you're in sin)

I wonder if we would be grounds for dis-association from the convention?

We don't allow people with known, open s3xual sin to be members or in volunteer leadership of our ministries. We have a yearly leadership covenant for all of our positions which outline God's standards of life and forgiveness.

While I am not making excuses for Broadway; I wonder how many churches are understanding of the complicated issues confronting our churches?

Does your church accept candidates for membership who live together? How do you discipline members who have affairs? or are engaged in extra/pre-marital s3xual relationships?

 

[Ruiz]

You have hit the nail on the head! IF this were about the issue of homosexuality, then SWBTS should have stopped taking any funds from the Tarrant Baptist Association following Broadway Baptist Church's ouster from the SBC in June 2009 (full disclosure -- I voted for Broadway's removal). IF homosexual affirming or supportive churches in the association were the problem, then why not move to also cut all ties with the TBA? IF this is the issue, then Southwestern should return all monies received from any of the member churches of Tarrant and not take one more penny. That they have not (and most likely) will not take this action speaks volumes as to their motives.

Southwestern has "unclean hands" in this situation, particularly with regard to the money that they have continued to receive. Regardless of your views on homosexuality (I believe the Bible clearly affirms it as a sin), the issue, IMO, has apparently been used in a cynical and unChristian way to get back property. That is, unless one believes that only actions -- not motives or intent -- can be unChristian. I do believe that the inerrant Word of God does have something to say about one's motives or intents being sinful. Thanks and God bless,

Howell

Howell,

Does SWBTS receive direct funds from Tarrant? Or, does SWBTS receive funds indirectly from the Cooperative Program? As well, does Tarrant give to the Cooperative Program or do local churches give to the Cooperative Program? From my understanding, and I could be wrong, CP dollars go from the church to the State to the CP (some churches elect to forego the state and give directly to national) and that is distributed back to entities like SWBTS. Associations are on the receiving end of money, not the giving end of the money thus they don't give directly to SWBTS. Broadway, which is not a member of the SBC, is not giving money to SWBTS. As well, individual churches do give.

Yet, no matter the answer to those questions, I have no problem with people that I disagree with supporting my ministry. If they wish to support what we stand for, great! Yet, I will not support an organization with my resources. Yet, for me to support you in a way that would violate my conscience, is a different story.

Let's take Abraham as our example. Was it wrong for Abraham to take the blessings of Egypt when he was given it, even though Egypt was pagan and worshipped false gods? I think Abraham had no obligation to return those blessings. However, when Abraham gave a tenth, he did not give it to Egypt or the other three kings after the battle to get Lot back... but he gave it to the king of Salem, Melchizedeck. He was right to accept money from Egypt, and right not to bless the other three kings but only the king of Salem with a tithe. He was right not to bow to the other three kings, but only to the King of Salem.

Like Abraham, if you want to support my ministry then I will let you. Yet, when I give of my tithe to the Lord, I will only support those I agree with.

 

[Ruiz]

The church where I serve allows homos3xuals to attend just like we allow adulterers. (Granted we don't go out of our way to find them and it sure can't be a comfortable place to attend if you're in sin)

I wonder if we would be grounds for dis-association from the convention?

We don't allow people with known, open s3xual sin to be members or in volunteer leadership of our ministries. We have a yearly leadership covenant for all of our positions which outline God's standards of life and forgiveness.

While I am not making excuses for Broadway; I wonder how many churches are understanding of the complicated issues confronting our churches?

Does your church accept candidates for membership who live together? How do you discipline members who have affairs? or are engaged in extra/pre-marital s3xual relationships?

I know of no church who wouldn't allow homosexuals to attend. In fact, I know of many churches who have outreaches to them. Yet, the clear stance is that you must agree with our doctrine and practice to be a member, they would not be allowed to be members.

I used to have Satanists come to my services when preaching. We always lovingly welcomed them. No SBC church would be dis-fellowshiped for you reaching people with the Gospel.

Historically, there is a strong line between allowing people to attend (which has never been an issue) and allowing members or supporting sinful behavior.

 

[HScott]

Howell,

Does SWBTS receive direct funds from Tarrant? Or, does SWBTS receive funds indirectly from the Cooperative Program? As well, does Tarrant give to the Cooperative Program or do local churches give to the Cooperative Program? From my understanding, and I could be wrong, CP dollars go from the church to the State to the CP (some churches elect to forego the state and give directly to national) and that is distributed back to entities like SWBTS. Associations are on the receiving end of money, not the giving end of the money thus they don't give directly to SWBTS. Broadway, which is not a member of the SBC, is not giving money to SWBTS. As well, individual churches do give.

Ruiz,

I do not know whether SWBTS receives any funds DIRECTLY from any of the churches of the Tarrant Baptist Association. Regardless, they do receive funds which flow through the Cooperative Program from these churches. It is the height of hypocrisy to accuse the entire association of being out of "theological harmony" with SWBTS because of a single church --all for the purpose of invoking a reversionary clause for property -- yet for two years following Broadway's removal from the SBC, to remain in "friendly cooperation" with said association and her churches. That SWBTS did not sever all ties with Tarrant two years ago, but only now -- when it seems they need the property to build a "Welcome Center" -- raised this hot-button doctrinal issue to wield as a club, seems to disingenuous and hypocritical.

The reversionary clause language will determine if they can get the property back. If the grounds include the other two non-doctrinal issues, then SWBTS will probably get the property back. If the doctrinal issue surrounding homosexuality is the only valid one, then I would strongly argue that the seminary should not be allowed to use that argument since they have never severed ties with the association over this issue in the last two years.

As to taking money from those who do not support our ministry, I have a limit. Obviously, people who are not Christians -- even pagans -- give. As a pastor, I do not know who gives to the ministry nor do I want to know who gives to the ministry. But, if someone of questionable character or in a business that was perhaps legal, but not moral, wanted to make a big donation to the church, I would be inclined to reject it. I don't have specifics, but if and when that time comes, I would try to be wise in what we did.

Finally, I think that the church should be a place that welcomes all kinds of people from all kinds of backgrounds to public worship services and to be under the teaching and preaching of the Word. However, that does not mean that we endorse or support the background or lifestyle of the individuals, particularly when those lifestyles are sinful. If people are living in open sin (i.e., a heterosexual couple living together outside of marriage), they are welcome to attend, but they would not be eligible for membership unless and until they repented and made the situation right. Thanks for the continued dialogue. God bless,

Howell

 

[Ruiz]

Ruiz,

I do not know whether SWBTS receives any funds DIRECTLY from any of the churches of the Tarrant Baptist Association. Regardless, they do receive funds which flow through the Cooperative Program from these churches. It is the height of hypocrisy to accuse the entire association of being out of "theological harmony" with SWBTS because of a single church --all for the purpose of invoking a reversionary clause for property -- yet for two years following Broadway's removal from the SBC, to remain in "friendly cooperation" with said association and her churches. That SWBTS did not sever all ties with Tarrant two years ago, but only now -- when it seems they need the property to build a "Welcome Center" -- raised this hot-button doctrinal issue to wield as a club, seems to disingenuous and hypocritical.

Again, I am not going to try to defend every decision, my purpose has been and continues to be that I support the decision. Whether it was late or with impure motive, that is for God to judge and I have never said I believed people are always pure in their motives.

However, the decision is right. I would not want to associate with any association that would allow a church in good standing who allows homosexuality. People want to make this an issue of motives... of which I am not qualified to judge. As well, I do not know what was going on behind the scenes that brought this to the forefront today. Those issues limit my appraisal.

Yet, concerning the issue, they have made the right decision. If it is for impure motives, they will have to answer to God for that. Yet, the decision is right.

The reversionary clause language will determine if they can get the property back. If the grounds include the other two non-doctrinal issues, then SWBTS will probably get the property back. If the doctrinal issue surrounding homosexuality is the only valid one, then I would strongly argue that the seminary should not be allowed to use that argument since they have never severed ties with the association over this issue in the last two years.

I am not a lawyer, but in business 2 years does not reach the statute of limitations nor signify full endorsement. There may be other legal issues they have to cross, and I cannot truly address the legalities without seeing the actual terms and I am not qualified as a lawyer.

As to taking money from those who do not support our ministry, I have a limit. Obviously, people who are not Christians -- even pagans -- give. As a pastor, I do not know who gives to the ministry nor do I want to know who gives to the ministry. But, if someone of questionable character or in a business that was perhaps legal, but not moral, wanted to make a big donation to the church, I would be inclined to reject it. I don't have specifics, but if and when that time comes, I would try to be wise in what we did.

As I noted, the Egyptian Pharaoh gave Abraham a very substantial gift. Hagar was a part of this exchange, but there was much more. You may have a limit, but at best I see this as merely a "meat offered to idols" issue and I would not make an issue either way. As well, the amount that is actually given to all the seminaries is only $0.08 for every dollar sent to the cooperative program. That means, if a church gave 10,000.00 to the CP, they only gave $800.00 to all six seminaries. Thus, SWBTS is looking to get a little more than $100.00. This is not really a significant amount of money (source here)

Finally, I think that the church should be a place that welcomes all kinds of people from all kinds of backgrounds to public worship services and to be under the teaching and preaching of the Word. However, that does not mean that we endorse or support the background or lifestyle of the individuals, particularly when those lifestyles are sinful. If people are living in open sin (i.e., a heterosexual couple living together outside of marriage), they are welcome to attend, but they would not be eligible for membership unless and until they repented and made the situation right. Thanks for the continued dialogue. God bless,

Howell

Howell, please read my other posts. I encourage anyone to come to my church and welcomed Satanists to come into the public worship. However, Broadway is doing more than wanting and encouraging people to come to church, they are allowing these people to become members without rejecting this lifestyle and they are not standing clear that this lifestyle is sinful. I agree, we should want all kinds of people in our worship. Yet, those who proclaim the name of the Lord should repent of their sins, turn from them, and reject that and any other contrary lifestyle. If they are unrepentant and continue to embrace a life contrary to the Bible, they should be removed from the Church. This, afterall, was Paul's admonition to the Corinthians.

The issue is their embracing this lifestyle.

 

[Timsings]

. . .I condemn those who make this just about politics... but I also condemn those who believe the Bible is errant... Political or not, who cares. It is evil to believe God's Word is errant.

I stand condemned. I'll let you try to figure out for what.

Tim Reynolds

 

[go2church]

Fine, I think SW and Pope Paige are full of bologna on this one, you don't. Another question related to the same issue.

If SW prevails and gets the property back, don't they stand the risk of alienating all/ most of the TBA church that they already claim don't support SW? Not very neighborly in the least and pretty short-sighted.

If SW does not prevail don't they and Pope Paige stand to lose a great deal of credibility considering the reason they would not prevail is because the allegations that have been made are unsubstantiated?

Just seems to me that perhaps they should learn to live with the agreement they made in good faith until another agreement could be made, say buy the building out right or offer them another building. I'm sure there are many in the TBA who are just as uncomfortable having to associate with SW for association business. Surely something could be worked out.

 

[Ruiz]

Fine, I think SW and Pope Paige are full of bologna on this one, you don't. Another question related to the same issue.

If SW prevails and gets the property back, don't they stand the risk of alienating all/ most of the TBA church that they already claim don't support SW? Not very neighborly in the least and pretty short-sighted.

If SW does not prevail don't they and Pope Paige stand to lose a great deal of credibility considering the reason they would not prevail is because the allegations that have been made are unsubstantiated?

Just seems to me that perhaps they should learn to live with the agreement they made in good faith until another agreement could be made, say buy the building out right or offer them another building. I'm sure there are many in the TBA who are just as uncomfortable having to associate with SW for association business. Surely something could be worked out.

As I said previously, if I were the TBA, I would not want to be in a place that has said they don't want me. Yet, you raise interesting questions about the political and social ramifications of the decision, even if they don't lose the property. I don't think the political/social ramifications are if SWBTS fails to get the property back as if they would be successful. To that end, you are severing relationships, that is a part of this decision.

Overall, this is a decision with tremendous ramifications. Sometimes tough decisions are needed in Christianity because of Christian doctrine. This is one of them.

 

[Jerome]

Baptist Press—Association Seeks Building Sale to Resolve Southwestern Seminary Controversy

The Tarrant Baptist Association's executive board voted unanimously Jan. 24 to offer to sell a building that has been a point of contention with Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

If the seminary is unwilling to buy the building on its campus in Fort Worth, Texas, for fair market value, the TBA executive board asked that the matter be referred to a three-member arbitration panel as stipulated in a 1982 affiliation agreement, according to TBA moderator Al Meredith.

The executive board also resolved to pray for seminary leaders in the matter.

 

[Ruiz]

Baptist Press—Association Seeks Building Sale to Resolve Southwestern Seminary Controversy

I think these measures are reasonable and I would hope that SWBTS would agree to these measures. If TBA paid for the building, they should receive financial compensation for that building.