Seminary trustees to confront president over audit, management issues

Well they are as are far left that are gone from the cooperative and even those that have stayed.

 

The issues surrounding Dilday have since come to light and his "moderate" stance has done nothing except further divide the Convention.

He is the darling hero of the CBF and every time there is a liberal concern they are right in the midst of it -- from pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, women pastors, etc.

 

The willful ignorance of what actually happened is stunning. Not surprising, but still stunning.

 

I am unaware of “issues surrounding Dilday” that have “since come to light” that have divided the [Southern Baptist] Convention. The Convention (or at least the part that remains) has never affirmed Dilday.

Outside of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dilday remains very popular amount most. However I have discovered, to my great disappointment, that Dilday is very much a political figure, wielding the most blatant machinations behind the scenes. In particular, his mobilization/manipulation of people to introduce his resolutions in a BGCT convention a few years ago regarding the Sloan/Baylor controversies made me realize that Dilday was probably not a completely innocent victim of the trustees when he was fired at Southwestern.

Obviously, the trustees were lying regarding many of the documented facts regarding the firing of Dilday – the Texas Baptist Historical Collection has all sorts of primary documents generated from both sides that demonstrate this. I can’t know whether or not Dilday was lying, but I am convinced that there was quite of bit of information that was not released to the public for reasons which would be embarrassing to both sides. That would explain why the trustees told the lie (actually, a couple of contradictory lies) about their motivation for changing the locks on the door to the President’s office. I am assured that there was material in the office which would be very damaging to persons on the “conservative resurgence” side of things located in the personnel files. I have been given very specific information on what that was and how it was removed from the office before the trustee’s representative was able to retrieve it (I actually know the person who retrieved the material, although that person did not tell me directly, but told a mutual friend who told me). Was Dilday consciously using it as leverage against those who opposed him? Maybe, maybe not. However, it would certainly explain everyone’s actions very neatly, and why such patent falsehoods were perpetuated around the event.

He became a martyr (one of many) for the non-“conservative resurgence” folks, but not for all of us.

In the midst of the massive dishonesty surrounding the firing of Dilday in 1994, Dilday could easily stand before the television cameras and news reporters and simply repeat the publicly-known sequence of events with credibility, while the trustees were trapped in a web of lies (many of which they did not originate) which they had to tell to keep spinning from upsetting the course of the “conservative resurgence.” In a very real sense, some of the trustees were martyrs for their cause, and they were treated quite shamefully – especially since many of them probably didn’t really know what was going on. They trusted their leadership, they were used for their votes, and then abandoned to twist in the wind of public opinion.

The Texas Baptist Historical Collection in Dallas has a fascinating collection of documents from those weeks (from both sides) that documents the desperation of the trustees to get words of support from folks like Jerry Vines (from a fax sent by a trustee to Vines from Bailey Smith’s Fort Worth offices) that said something to the effect, ‘we did what you told us to do and now we are being hung out to dry. Please give us some support.’ A week later Vines published a statement of support. There’s also some documents from certain faculty members and leaders that are filled with contempt and condescension toward the trustees and those that supported them, which was also incredibly ungodly.

I don’t think it is fair to say that the CBF is pro-abortion, affirms homosexual acts, or is pro-“women pastors” since the CBF has no official position on such things and there are wide differences of opinion within the membership.

And just because the CBF affirms Dilday does not necessarily make him what you suggest he is… that’s just guilt-by-association reasoning. The CBF also explicitly and officially affirms Jesus, but that does not make Jesus into the type of “liberal” Person you claim the CBF would support.

And you probably gather by now, I'm not a big fan of any side of this fight. There is very little of the Kingdom of God in it and I don't want to divert my energies to building up religious fiefdoms. I just want everyone to repent, tell the truth, and move forward. And if the SBC, CBF, BGCT, or any other human institution falls, so be it. God will raise something else up if it is necessary.

Now that I’ve officially offended everyone, I think this thread needs to return to the subject of the future of Midwestern.

 

Non-sequitar to the discussion at hand, not that it isn't an important question overall.

 

Ya think? :wavey:

When I hear someone start a paragraph that lacks proper documentation with the word "obviously" it is generally something other than obvious.

He became one of the leaders, and as far as I can tell, he is not yet a martyr.

So, in other words, he could speak half-truths and because others were not aware that there was another side of the story he could retain some semblence of respectability that would otherwise vanish were all the facts known -- his doctrinal stance, for instance.

I think it is fair to say what I said. That they keep that sort of stuff under the radar does not make it any less obvious. I've been involved with a goodly number of congregations who were either aligned with the CBF or dually aligned with CBF and someone else, and they were some of the most liberal congregations I've ever seen. Anecdotal yes, but before you go jumping about, check to see what the CBF often stands up for and supports (without saying, of course).

Not when Dilday was one of the leaders of the movement...

What the CBF does with Jesus is astounding in light of the Scriptures. They make Him out to be close to a universalist who only "loves" in sort of a Rob Bell spun direction.

I'm thinking you are more one-sided in this than you realize, but that is probably because you have ties with some of the players and are hearing just their side.

 

Or willing to admit

 

The meme out of Texas has always been "the resurgence lied." Yet the resurgence is still in effect, leading institutions, churches, etc., and doing so in a decidedly biblical and conservative fashion. Something doesn't jive with the meme in the face of the evidence to the contrary.

Most of the "damaging" information regarding resurgence people was that they <gasp> actually wrote and called each other to plan their efforts. As if that was somehow ungodly or something. Nevermind that the opposition had done likewise -- and stacked the Convention for decades with moderates who allowed such liberal-leaning doctrines to come to be -- so as to almost render the SBC an entity like the Methodists, PCUSA, American Baptists, etc., in other words, dying from their liberalism.

 

How about I am as close personally with some of the resurgence folks as some of you are with Texas folks... :thumbsup:

 

I'm not trying to be mean here to Midwestern, but are there any scholars of note that came from Midwestern? I can't think of any.

Perhaps that is has been the problem with Midwestern, it never has been able to distinguish itself enough for it matter in seminary circles on the whole or SBC circles specifically.

 

Working very long hours today to finish multiple projects for tomorrow, so I don't have time to respond to some of the comments yet.

However, I think all of us can agree that we need to pray for all parties involved in the meeting at Midwestern tomorrow.

May God have mercy on all who attend and may truth, mercy, love and wisdom characterize the day.

 

Okay, here's the latest. Dr. Roberts is out at Midwestern.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37155

Here's a part of the article from Baptist Press

 

There were all kinds of half-truths and whole lies being told in those weeks... even until today.

He had the advantage in the court of public opinion because he certainly didn't have to justify things like the changing of the locks on the door to the President's office. The trustees had several excuses for it, depending on whom you talked to, and none of them made much sense:

- to keep student's out of the office (students were not issued keys to the President's office... all they had to do was lock the door)
- to keep Dilday from looking at the list of names of the large donors that was kept in the President's office (was told this one directly by Ken Hemphill, even though one of the major roles of a seminary president is fund-raising and Dilday would likely be on a first name basis with any major donors)
- that this sort of thing is done in private corporations all the time (which is a lousy excuse for doing anything... and frankly, no company I've ever worked for has ever had any sort of policy like that - although I know they exist - and it certainly doesn't jibe with the excellent review Dilday received the day before)

Yes, the attacks on his doctrinal stance began shortly after his firing. They conveniently used alleged stances he had made in an out-of-print book on the doctrine of scripture - a book I had used as part of my undergraduate research for a major paper in Christian Doctrines on the inspiration of scripture. They completely misrepresented his viewpoint and used guilt-by-association tactics to try to tie him to viewpoints which he explicitly rejected in his book.

I think the problem here comes from people assuming that the CBF is structured the same way that the SBC is structured, and that the annual meetings are similar to the SBC. Just because someone is invited to speak at a "Break Out" session at a CBF meeting does not mean the position/doctrine is endorsed by anyone. The SBC meetings, as far as I know, do not have anything comparable to Break Out sessions - it is simply an enormous business meeting. The CBF meetings are designed to have a strong educational component where pastors and other interested Christians can listen to various points of view and interact with them. A number of years ago Greg Boyd was invited to talk about Open Theism at a CBF Break Out session and CBF bashers wasted no time in claiming that the CBF was endorsing Open Theism. The reality was that Boyd was heavily questioned regarding his views so people could have a deeper understanding of the position direct from an advocate of that position.

The same thing goes with issues surrounding homosexuality, etc. You'll find a number of congregations who are affiliated with the Alliance of Baptists who also partner with the CBF for mission work who are definitely pro-affirming of homosexual relations. You will also find a large number of congregations affiliated with the CBF who are strongly against affirming homosexual relations.

I have no doubt about it.

I find it strange that you claim they support something without them giving evidence that they are supporting those things.

Actually, I know quite a few people, including some of the big names, on both sides. I have been on both sides of this battle - in the back rooms - and now I'm on neither side.

Furthermore, I was at Southwestern before, during and after this event. I saw things that have never been reported publicly. I've gone through the reams of documents collected from people on both sides of the issues that are available for anyone to view at the Texas Baptist Historical Collection in Dallas. I also live less than two miles from Southwestern Seminary and have lived and worked in the community since 1990.

I think I have a fairly balanced view of the situation... especially since I find fault on both sides. Seriously, which is more likely? One side (take your pick) is completely innocent or the both sides share some blame? The fact that I'm willing to admit that instead of shilling for one side or the other should tell you something.

 

Well Satan, "the Father of Lies", is still active in the world today, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Just because something is "effective" by human standards doesn't make it true. Pragmatism is not the arbiter of truth.

I did not specify what kind of material because I cannot prove it, although I have multiple trustworthy sources which confirm a number of specifics. However the material is not like what you are imagining.

This is just about all I'm going to say about it:

- it was part of the seminary's official personnel files regarding issues involving employment
- it had to do with moral and character issues - nothing political
- it was legally actionable
- it is were to become public knowledge, it would also be detrimental for the seminary
- the trustees were concerned that Dilday would use the information to destroy the seminary as well as discredit one or more persons

The ones who ran the good-ole-boys club that controlled the Convention leadership agencies before the "Conservative Resurgence" were wrong. They enjoyed their power and shutting out those they considered "fundamentalists." And there actually were some doctrinal issues in the seminaries, although not to the extent that has been claimed. However, because of the unwillingness of the old guard to treat the "fundamentalists" with respect and take care of real issues in a couple of the seminaries, Pressler and Patterson had a built-in receptive audience for their campaign to take over the Convention.

The problem today is that you have a new good-ole-boys club controlling things, shutting out anyone who does not toe-the-line on lots of non-bibilical opinions and things well outside the Baptist Faith and Message. Furthermore, they have tried to lock things down in the Convention so that the people has a smaller voice than ever before because they don't want to be overthrown like the people they overthrew in the 1970s-1990s.

It's the same power grabbing as always, except the Convention is still in decline.