SBTS - Mohler lays out 'core values'

Not being a 5 pointer, I wouldn't ever go to Southern anyhow, but 21 "core values"? They seem more like goals, far different from a core value. I have come to think that core values should be limited to 6 or 7 for an organization. As for the increase in enrollment... so what!

 

Hello go2church,

I'm no expert; however, I believe that enrollment is up at all six of the SBC Seminaries. I know that every fall since 1998 (when I arrived) SEBTS has announced record enrollments. I know that Midwestern Seminary was struggling at one time but I believe that things are well on track there now. I saw where Midwestern had recently purchased some adjoining property with an existing building that will help provide need room for expansion. Anyway, I'd say that the increase in enrollment at SBC Seminaries indicates that more and more SBC members are answering the call to full-time ministry and heading off to school to prepare. It is exciting to see God at work in the lives of our brothers and sisters in Christ!

[ October 21, 2002, 04:45 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

There are many non-5-pointers at SBTS. And there are many who claim the title who have no clue what it entails (I affectionately refer to them as the callow & clueless Calvinists). And there are many who allow Calvinism to distort their view of reality ministry. And then there are those who try and focus upon the true purposes of the church and leave the C/A debate for those who spend more time reading Piper than they do reading their Bibles.

Of course all of the above is just my own humble opinion

 

Enrolment at SBC seminaries is up, compared to what? Compared to record levels reached in the 70's and 80's? Southern had more than 3,000 full time students in those days. The 2,400 they now have includes part timers, single class registrations and others which were not included in their reported figures in the past. Southeastern has a bachelor's level program now which it didn't have in the days before Bro. Paige entered the scene, and the number of "non degree" students there is quite high.

Back in the 70's and 80's, the seminaries were almost exclusively training for ministers and missionaries. The declines in their enrolment after the conservative "resurgence" were related not only to the opening of alternative schools by others, but by a shift in the ultimate purpose seminary education is being used to accomplish. Many students in seminaries today are not preparing for ministry careers, but are non-traditional "part-timers" who are performing less traditional ministry functions. The number of students in SBC churches who are preparing for full time missions and ministry careers continues to decline.

 

MHolmes:

Your post simply reveals your ignorance of the situation. SEBTS was at one of its lowest points ever when Patterson entered the scene. To try and suggest there has been a decline since that time is a farce. SBTS is not as high as it was at one point in its past, but there has been no decline as you suggest since Mohler took the helm. Laying all of the "we are right-you are wrong-look at the number" tactics aside, it is simply inaccurate to suggest the seminaries have declined since the CR.

 

I'm not suggesting they've declined. I've got my SBC annuals out from previous years. Their own reports to the SBC have indicated that they have declined since the alleged "conservative resurgence."

Southeastern had more than 2,200 full time students during the year before the so called resurgence took over the trustee board. It barely has that many total students now, including part time, bachelor's level and the Biblical studies program for those without college degrees. According to its own reports, its enrolment has dropped about 6 percent since 1998.

Southern has declined significantly since Mohler arrived on campus, including from last year to this. At least, that's what they report to the SBC in the annual book of reports. During Honeycutt's tenure as president, enrolment reached 3,500 full time students, not counting doctoral or part time students. Their 2,400 figure now includes both part time and advanced degrees.

Nor did I suggest that the alleged conservative resurgence was the exclusive reason for the drop in enrolment. The traditional "seminary student" used to be a full time student who came straight out of college to prepare for ministry or missions occupations and was graduated before age thirty. There aren't many of those around any more. Today's seminarian is in his forties, living and already serving on the field, and needs off campus and distance learning courses to finish his degree. Since the SBC seminaries are reluctant to offer these, their enrolments are down. Southeastern under Patterson, has done more in this area than the others, so it experienced somewhat of a surge in its enrolment after it fell off to nothing when he first arrived.

When I was a student at Southwestern in the Dilday years, there were more than 5,000 students on the Fort Worth campus alone, and about 1,000 more in Oklahoma and Houston. Now, under Hemphill, the whole thing, branch campuses and all, only has about 3,300. That's what they report to the SBC.

 

The creative "counting" of the Southern Baptist leadership strikes again, they use the same "math" when they count their missionaries.

 

MHolmes:

The only thing I can tell you is that I have been a part of both SEBTS & SBTS during the "transition" years and there is no doubt that SEBTS was extremely low (below a 1000) when I arrived (around the same time as Patterson). SEBTS has grown drastically since those early 90s years.

SBTS has been a little more difficult to discern. The flagship seminary has maintained consistent numbers for many years and will continue to do so with or w/o Mohler. I do know in recent years the on-campus population leaves little room for parking, etc.

If your contention is that the seminaries are down b/c of the transition in the type of students SBC churches are sending, that is one thing. However if you are suggesting the seminaries are on the decline, that is just not factual info.

BTW, it is my belief that SBTS will not grow at the rate of SEBTS. The seminaries reflect the leadership of their presidents. Bottom line: Patterson will build SEBTS much like a mega-church. Mohler is more of a northeastern-high church type prez and the seminary will reflect this leadership.

On a side note, enrollment and numbers play no factors in the necessity of the Resurgence. But we can save that discussion for another time and day.

 

Is that the same math the detractors employ when they suggest droves of missionaries are upset and leaving the SBC over the BF&M controversy?

What is that thundering sound I hear? It must be all those upset missionaries fleeing the SBC. Oh wait ... there has to be more than 10 or so to create such a stir. Maybe the rumbling is simply the CBFers talking about the massive departure that has not transpired.

 

Brainwashed is brainwashed--whether it be Mormon, Roman Catholic, or the "new" Southern Baptist.

BTW, many state conventions did not endorse the BF&M 2000, to the dismay of the Baptist Vatican in Nashville.

 

FearNot did not log out again and posted under his user ID. I am removing the post and will log in under my user ID and replace the post.

[ October 22, 2002, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: FearNot ]

 

Could that be because many state conventions remain in the clutch of CBF/"Mainstream" leaders? How many local churches endorse the BF&M 2000? I know my church endorses it and has made it part of our updated Constitution and By-laws. I don't think it is entirely accurate to try and indicate that the majority of individual Southern Baptists and individual SBC Churches do not support the BF&M 2000 just like it is not accurate to say that great numbers of SBC missionaries don't support it. Clearly, the overwhelming majority of SBC missionaries do support the BF&M 2000.

 

I didn't expect thundering herds of missionaires to leave the SBC, I always thought that was a straw man. What I did expect and has happened is that good, solid missionaires have been "forced" (I understand forced is a somewhat loaded word and open to interpertation) out of their ministry. I thought the 2000 BF&M should be applied to new incoming missionaires. Following the 1963 BF&M falls well within the bounds of accepted orthodox theology and I see no harm in allowing missionaires to remain under that confession, especially if they were taught in SBC seminaries according to the '63 BF&M.

Also the difference between Southern and Southeastern will be much more noticeable considering that the president's have significantly different views theologically speaking.

 

Hello go2church,

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Clearly, the overwhelming majority of SBC missionaries have endorsed the 2000 BF&M and have not been "forced" out of their ministries. Only a handful have not yet endorsed it and the IMB is rightly calling on them to decide what they will do. It only makes logical sense that if I receive my pay from SBC members who support the 2000 BF&M then I should represent their views in my mission field. This whole argument is really blown way out of proportion.

 

I was going to respond to this but I have to wait for a word from the Baptist Vatican as to what I can say.

The old "you think differently than me therefore you are brainwashed" ship will not sail in this sea. Sorry.

 

g2c

The 63BF&M is no longer the defining doctrinal statement of the SBC. W/o getting into an extensive discussion on whether previous missionaries should be "grandfathered" into the present SBC/IMB requirements, I will simply say that the people have a right to know that those whom they support are preaching & teaching doctrine that is in accordance with and not contrary to their stated beliefs. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Does the SBC have the right to change the rules in the middle of the game? Absolutely. Each individual and church also has the right to choose whether they want to be a part of the newly defined group. The request of the IMB is well within the parameters of how the SBC functions.

 

As I said, I am not suggesting at all that the SBC seminaries are in decline. The enrolments they report to the convention every year do not "suggest" that they are declining, they verify that they are.

Part of that is due to the alleged resurgence. Part of it is due to cultural and demographic changes and the fact that the SBC seminaries are slow to change to accomodate and adapt to the needs of students.

Baptist Press itself, last October, bemoaned the fact that only about 20 percent of the churches in the SBC have "adopted" the new 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. My church hasn't and won't, mainly because we are BAPTIST and we don't need a convention or heirarchial ecclesiastical organization telling us what we need to believe. If they don't want to cooperate with us because we won't adopt their document, then they can take a hike. That's not what they are there to do. Our church doesn't need the SBC to minister in Christ's name in our community.

 

I can't speak for all the SBC Seminaries; however, as a current student at Southeastern College at Wake Forest (and as soon as I graduate in December I'll be a student of SEBTS), I can tell you that we are not in a decline. I believe that when Dr. Patterson came to SEBTS in 1992 there were just over 400 students here. One lagre dorm was boarded up because there was no need for it. Likewise, I believe that there was talk of closing down SEBTS due to the limited enrollemnt at that time. Today we are bursting at the seams. We have built millions of dollars worth of new student housing and it is almost at capacity. The campus is packed with students. If that is decline I say let's decline some more! I have been a student here since the fall of 1998 and every fall since then we have announced a new record enrollment. I think your distinction between full-time and part-time students is pointless. It does not speak to the actual number of students at a given school. However, it simply speaks to the changing economy and the age of the student body (as you have pointed out above).