Tennessee Baptist Colleges in Trouble

What schools does this involve? Just wondering...

 

Tennessee Baptists to investigate teaching at three colleges (updated)
Date: 11/12/2004
By Greg Warner

SEVIERVILLE, Tenn. (ABP) -- Tennessee Baptists turned back an attack on "anti-Christian" teaching in public schools but agreed to investigate the biblical views taught in their three affiliated Baptist colleges.

Messengers to the Tennessee Baptist Convention Nov. 9-10 in Sevierville asked the education committee of their Executive Board to investigate what is taught at Carson-Newman College in Jefferson City, Belmont University in Nashville and Union University in Jackson.

The action came in response to an allegation from Brady Tarr, a current Carson-Newman student, who told messengers some of the college's professors -- particularly in the religion and science departments -- teach that the Bible has errors and contradictions.

During an unusual hour-and-a-half discussion, messengers debated if Carson-Newman teaches that the Bible is inspired and authoritative and that the Christian message of salvation is unique and exclusive.

Carson-Newman President James Netherton was asked to respond to Tarr’s question. "Carson-Newman doesn’t teach the Bible has errors," the president said. "I believe every single member of the religion department is called by God and they all believe the Bible.

"If you treat the Bible with great honesty, a number of things must be read and placed in a proper perspective," he continued.

"The Bible is what we believe. It is at the center of our faith," he said.

Netherton was asked by a messenger if Carson-Newman professors would be willing to affirm the 2000 "Baptist Faith and Message" doctrinal statement. "We haven’t asked them that question," the president responded. "We Baptists have not made the 2000 'Baptist Faith and Message' a test. We have worked hard to be a non-creedal people."

A motion to investigate the teachings at Carson-Newman was expanded to include the other two convention-supported schools. Another amendment stipulated that the investigation should be done in conjunction with the schools' trustee boards.

Messengers later agreed to wait on a report of the education committee before acting on the allegations. The committee will report to the Executive Board, then to the convention next year.

Each of the Baptist colleges is governed by a trustee board. Some critics worried the investigation would usurp the role of trustees.

"It bothers me that there is a scenario, a cloud, an inference that the trustees are not reliable or are not doing their job," said Bill Sherman, pastor of First Baptist Church of Fairview, according to the Knoxville News Sentinel.

David Dockery, president of Union University, told Associated Baptist Press he is not concerned the committee's investigation will interfere with the work of school's trustees "since the motion was to do it in conjunction with the trustees. If they were to do it by themselves, that would be problematic."

Dockery said Union's trustees would appoint a committee to respond to the motion. "We recognize our accountability to the Tennessee Baptist Convention and we will be happy to participate," he said.

Union is considered the most conservative of the three schools.

"We clearly affirm the full truthfulness of the Bible and believe in God the father, maker of heaven and earth, without apology," Dockery told ABP. While Union faculty members hold a variety of views about creation, he said, that does not include evolution.

Administrators at Belmont and Carson-Newman did not respond to requests from Associated Baptist Press for comment Nov. 12.

In other college-related business, messengers were told Belmont University trustees have no desire to leave their affiliation with the Tennessee Baptist Convention, despite a move that would take away the convention’s current ability to elect the school’s trustees.

A report from the convention's Executive Board acknowledged Belmont's proposal was "a good faith response" to the board's request that each convention institution rewrite its program statement in the form of a covenant.

Leonard Markham, president of the Executive Board, said the board's education committee is "continuing discussion with Belmont University in the resolution of this matter." He said the board had agreed to take no action concerning Belmont before January.

Also during the Tennessee convention, a proposed resolution promoting Christian schools as an alternative to public education did not make it to the 1,700 messengers for debate. The resolutions committee declined to act on the proposal, which the committee chair said was "not wise."

The proposed resolution was not as strident as one rejected earlier this year by the Southern Baptist Convention -- part of a nationwide anti-schools campaign led by the group Exodus Mandate -- which urged Christians to remove their children from "anti-Christian" and "godless" public schools and put them in "thoroughly" Christian schools or educate them at home.

Supporters of the Exodus anti-schools resolution promised to seek its passage in at least 10 Baptist state conventions this fall.

The resolution introduced in Tennessee advocated Christian schools and home schooling but did not call for Christians to abandon pubic schools.

''I want to be positive in promoting Christian education,'' Larry Reagan of Dresden, who wrote the resolution, told the Associated Press. "I don't want the resolution to be portrayed as attacking public education."

Nonetheless, the resolutions committee decided not to introduce Reagan's softer version.

Messengers -- who numbered 1,804 -- elected Roger Freeman, pastor of First Baptist Church in Clarksville as their new president. He was the first TBC president elected without opposition since 1987.

A budget of $35.55 million was adopted for 2005, the same as the 2004 budget.

Messengers also approved a change to the convention bylaws that would allow the convention president to have a vote on all standing committees of the convention, including the committee on committees and committee on boards.

Markham, a former convention president, noted the president -- although elected by messengers -- does not have the same right as the Executive Board president in regard to voting on committees.

-- This article contains information from the Baptist & Reflector, newsjournal of the Tennessee Baptist Convention.

From www.abpnews.com

 

He was talking about Netherton's comments. And while those exact comments don't seem like double-speak, I would expect you'll see some coming from CN over the next year. But I wouldn't expect any of the three schools--not even Union which is the most conservative--to have faculty members sign a statement of agreement with the BF&M.

The most striking thing to me were the statements made by the presidents of Belmont and Union in response to the motion to have the study committee. (Netherton had yet to comment publicly.)

From the BP article:
Fisher (of Belmont)stated: "I am quite surprised by the motion and the overwhelming vote in favor of the investigation. Each of the three institutions has a governing board that has been fully affirmed by the Tennessee Baptist Convention. According to the TBC bylaws, each board is responsible for the
oversight of their respective institution and is the final authority in
all matters, so I'm a little confused as to who does what around here."

Dockery stated: “Union University recognizes its responsibility and accountability to the churches of the Tennessee Baptist Convention. We will be glad to cooperate and participate in the study that was called for at this year’s convention. We believe our trustees will be happy to lead this process and as a result we should be a better institution with better relationships with the churches in days ahead.”

Which president do you think knows he'll have the most 'splaining to do come next Fall?

 

OK folks, I have been involved first hand with this one so I think I can speak with some credability. I know Brady Tarr (the college student being referenced here) personally. He is a bright young man (3.9 Chemistry major due to graduate in December) and a young man of integrity. He attends Carson-Newman College and he is committed to his local church here in Morristown. The first time I met Brady was about a year and a half ago when one of my college students brought him to our church to introduce him to me. All Brady wanted was the chance to share with a local Pastor his concerns over what he had been taught about the Bible, creation, and the foreknowledge of God during his time at C-N. I listened to what Brady was saying, and I decided that if things were really as bad as he said they were, then I needed to go on campus and find out what was happening.

For the past year and a half, that is exactly what I have done. The first on-campus experience I had was during a CLW time (what used to be called chapel) where the Church Relations Director, a political science prof, and a philosophy prof were asked to speak on the subject of "When Faith Meets the Academy." In that meeting, the professors all agreed that "using creeds or doctrinal statements as a means of doctrinal accountability is an act of cowardice, and should be avoided." In other words, they plainly said that professors (even those of a Baptist institution of higher learning) should never be asked to teach within detailed doctrinal boundaries. I was disheartened to say the least.

My next experience came during a CLW lecture on "Women and the Christian liberal arts school." It was taught by a tenured religion faculty member who basically championed egalitarian (feminist) causes throughout her lecture. She plainly stated that each woman is free to determine the call that she believes God has placed upon her life, and that such a call could certainly be one into pastoral ministry. That seemed to be an odd statement coming from a professor who teaches in an institution that is affiliated with the TBC where there are currently almost NO women filling TBC pulpits.

My last on-campus experience was the clincher for me. Dr. Charles Kimball, head of religion at Wake Forest University, was invited on campus to "preach" during CLW time (I use the term "preach" very loosely - I don't know that anyone has preached there during CLW time in years). FYI, Dr. Kimball recently penned a book entitled "When Religion Becomes Evil" in which he cites five sure indicators that one's religion has "become evil." The first of those five indicators is that one has placed there faith in absolute truth claims (eg. - John 14:6) and has sought to proclaim those truths to others. Thus, it's bad enough he was invited to speak, but when he got there he preached a message out of Acts 10 and talked about the conversion of Cornelius. The biggest problem with his message was that he read most of ch.10, up until v.36, then he stopped reading. Then he proceeded to preach a message on the usefulness of inter-faith relationships and the merits of inclusivism. What's amazing about that is if you will read the rest of the text that Dr. Kimball conveniently left out, you will see that vv.36-48 plainly show that salvation is only through Jesus Christ! It doesn't get much more deceptive than that. What's worse, Dr. Kimball had the endorsement of C-N's religion department, campus ministries, and department for church relations when he spoke on campus!

Now, aside from my own personal experiences, your question is does C-N have some religion faculty who teach that the Bible contains errors? They certainly do! And how do I know? Because I spoke with one of the religion faculty and he told me that there are only two self-professed inerrantists in the entire religion dept (one full-time faculty member and one part-time). What's more, there definitions of inerrancy are more along the lines of "inerrancy of purpose" rather than inerrancy of the original autographs. That means that the other approximetly 12 folks who teach within that department are not even inerrantists. Let me tell you, that doesn't sit too well with the vast majority of the TBC churches.

Further, biblical creationism is no longer being taught in the Biology classrooms of the college. In fact, there's not even one faculty member in that department who believes in a literal six-day creation of the Earth. All of them espouse theistic evolution. How do I know? I had that confirmed to me by the head of the Biology Dept. He told me that biblical creationism is not a valid scientific understanding of creation, and that's why it wasn't presented in the classroom any longer. NOT EVEN TAUGHT ANYMORE!

As for where the religion faculty stand on exclusivity of salvation in Jesus Christ, I think their invitation of Dr. Kimball onto campus says it all. If all the religion faculty do believe this, then why endorse and invite a man onto campus to teach contrary to that? This was the very question I raised from the floor of the TBC annual meeting last week. My concern was "forwarded" to the appropriate committee who will be doing their own investigation.

Quoted from Anleifr:
He (President Netherton) has said,"Carson-Newman doesn’t teach the Bible has errors," "I believe every single member of the religion department is called by God and they all believe the Bible," "The Bible is what we believe. It is at the center of our faith."

My friend, I know this is what Netherton said, but he is dead wrong. He did one of two things when he made this statement: He either demonstrated that he has no idea what's going on in the religion dept., or he chose to misrepresent what's actually being taught within the religion department. By the way, when I asked my question on Day 1 of the TBC annual meeting about whether biblical creationism is being taught in the Biology classrooms anymore, he simply answered by saying that all the faculty believes that God created everything (ie.- theistic evolution) and that biblical creationism was briefly mentioned in one upper-level Biology class (Bio 317) that is not even a required course for Biology majors.

The bottom line is that it is WAY past time for an investigation like this. My prediction is that as the TBC attempts to "tighten the screws" down upon its three schools, Belmont will be the first to leave (probably in 2005) and C-N will not be too far behind them. Union will be our only remaining school, and personally I will be glad because we obviously have no way of regaining any kind of doctrinal accountability at Belmont or C-N. You may be interested to know that the TBC currently gives each of its three schools 2.3 million a year (almost 7 million altogether), and for the last two years the TBC has finished the year significantly under-budget. In other words, we could use some of the money that is currently being handed to those who don't want doctrinal accountability to fund more missions and evangelism within our own state. Who knows - we could possibly even use some of that money to start a new TBC school that will agree to teach within biblical boundaries throughtout their existence.

Sorry this was so long, but I felt like I needed to provide many details that most of you would probably have no idea about. I have been watching this thing unfold for almost the last two years now and I can unequivocally tell you that the TBC has done the right thing by beginning an investigation of its schools.

 

RandR, what you don't know is that though Dr. Netherton didn't respond to the Baptist Press, he did issue his statement to the faculty. As I understand it (and this was confirmed by a C-N faculty member who wished to remain anonymous), Dr. Netherton addressed the faculty on 11/18/04 and told them that he would not allow C-N's professors to be investigated by the TBC as long as he was President of the school. That didn't make the Baptist Press, but as I said, it was confirmed to a close friend of mine by a C-N faculty member. So, how interested do you think C-N and Belmont are in remaining affiliated with the TBC?

 

Todd:

What bothers me greatly is that you have not stated that you have done anything about what you have observed.

What are you doing about it?

 

An, I'm sorry to admit that your comments are not that well informed. I'm sure you think you have the scoop on Brady, C-N, and TBC life from your computer in Ft. Worth, but could it be possible that there are a few things I might know about those aforementioned things that you don't since I have first-hand knowledge of this whole situation? You say you doubt Brady's knowledge of the Bible, but on what grounds? Have you discussed this with Brady? Do you know his view of biblical inspiration? Do you know where he stands on inerrancy? One thing you don't know about Brady is that he invited a prof onto campus from SBTS last week who came and lectured on the issue of inerrancy. That said, Brady knows a lot more about the issue than you seem to give him credit for. Of course, I'm sure you just assumed that since he wasn't a religion major that he didn't have sufficient knowledge of the subject matter - dumb assumption. By the way, Brady has no problem with the fact that liberal views of the Bible are taught at C-N. After all, C-N's mission statement says that they are a "Christian liberal arts" school. One would expect both sides to be taught. What bothers him (and me) is that there are only two inerrantists in the entire religion department. What's more, how can C-N ethically hire folks to teach within the religion department who believe that the Bible contains errors when they have a historic affiliation with a state convention in which biblical inerrancy has been a hallmark of TBC life? Doesn't seem that C-N is very interested in representing the doctrinal values of the state convention with whom it is affiliated. This is sad because were it not for the Bible-believing inerrantists who started the school (which was originally called the "Mossy Creek Baptist Seminary") there would be no C-N. Very sad indeed. That's why C-N (and Belmont) are often viewed as wayward children. They had a wonderful birth and were raised well, but then rebelled and have now turned aside to every wind of doctrine.

First, to say that the Bible doesn't affirm the necessity of agreement on crucial issues of the faith is wrong. How did Jude say it: "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Liberals have branded the defending of our Christian faith as "creedalism" because that carries a certain stigma. Yet, the Christian church has always sought to defend the faith "once for all delivered" by committing to preach and teach within the doctrinal boundaries of that faith.

Second, I will agree that a teacher at some secular university should not be disqualified from teaching for their unwillingness to teach within doctrinal boundaries. But you miss the point: C-N is not a public institution. It is a private institution that has given itself the distinction of offering a Christian education to its students. Further, it is affiliated with the TBC, and has been for many years now. How ethical is it for C-N to accept 2.3 million $$$ from the TBC if it is not even willing to honor the Convention by what is taught in the Religion and Biology Departments (among several other departments)? Do we not bear some moral obligation towards those who support us? Certainly we do, and so does C-N. If they don't want to teach within biblical boundaries, then they can refuse TBC money and life would be much easier - same applies to Belmont and Union for that matter. Accepting TBC money with an unwillingness to also accept their doctrinal accountability is irresponsible and unbiblical!

First, she is not free to believe and teach that doctrine if it doesn't represent the doctrinal values of the TBC - not in good conscience she can't. And by the way, where does the Bible "say just the opposite." I wasn't aware that there was a passage of Scripture that opened up the pastorate to women. What I have found though is 1 Tim. 2:11-15, 1 Tim. 3:1-7, 1 Cor. 14:34, and several other passages that seem to give you no ground upon which you can stand to prove your point. May I ask if you are affiliated with the CBF?

An, your understanding of things is even worse than I thought. Do you actually believe that Muslims and Christians can possibly worship the same God? One little problem: We espouse faith in Jehovah who is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Muslims have no concept of a triune God. Furthermore, Jews are in the same boat. How can you possibly think that we are all worshiping the same God? This is disturbing and quite honestly it causes me to wonder if you have entered into a relationship with the God of the Bible.

By the way, I'm the person who sat in the Q/A session and asked Dr. Kimball the question (of whether all groups worship the same God). His response to me was as follows: "Young man, that's a very difficult question, and one I don't think I can answer with a yes or a no." I felt like saying, "Excuse me, but aren't you supposed to be the head of religion at Wake Forest? You can't even tell me if we're all worshiping the same God or not? How can you possibly speak to the merit of inter-faith relationships if you're not even sure if we're all trusting in the same God or not?" This is ludicrous.

You speak of balance, but what you don't know is that there has been a liberal indoctrination on the C-N campus for a number of years. Besides, a man coming in and advocating the merits of inclusivism has nothing to do with balance. Rather, it has everything to do with an ungodly worldview that will send our young college students to hell if they place their faith in it. What's sad is that this man was not just invited by the Religion faculty, but he had their blessing as well. What message do you think that sends to an impressionable 19-year old who is not sure what to think about the whole thing? I think Jesus said it would be better for a millstone to be cast around one's neck than for that person to mislead a little child (cf. Mt. 18). These students may not be children, but they are still very impressionable, and I can tell you that Tennessee Baptists don't want impressionable minds believing that all good Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. will be in heaven!

Wow, you say that the BF&M 2000 doesn't affirm the inerrancy of the Bible, but then you quote the very line that affirms said inerrancy - "truth without any mixture of error for its matter." I'm sorry, but source hypotheses will not make that cut. Dynamic views of Bible inspiration will not make that cut. The dismissing of historical Bible truths as allegorical will not make that cut. All of those things are currently taught as fact within the religion department of C-N at this point.

Further, you say that the Bible doesn't make the inerrancy claim of itself. How did Paul say it: "All Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos)" (2 Tim. 3:16). That means that if every word of the Scripture is the very Word of God, then it must be inerrant for God is its Author and God can not err. Complete biblical inerrancy is the logical obligation of verbal plenary inspiration (but I'm sure you don't believe in verbal plenary inspiration even though it is plainly affirmed in the aforementioned verse).

Besides, what does it mean when someone says that they believe the Bible when they don't believe it is the very Word of God? Don't they actually mean that they believe part of the Bible? If that is the case, then who gives that person the right to ajudicate which parts are inspired and which parts are not? I've always wondered about that - seems like we're trying to make ourselves smarter than God when we say such silly things.

That is ridiculous and you know it. I wouldn't dare blame one of the religion faculty for having a copy of Kimball's book in their study - in fact, I've even toyed with the issue of purchasing a copy for myself. It's one thing to familiarize yourself with an individual's work, but it's an entirely different matter altogether to endorse someone's work. That is exactly what the Religion faculty of C-N did and I have the e-mail that was sent to all faculty, administrators, and students that can prove it.

Wow, so now we are not only worshiping the same God as everyone else, but creationism is "bunk." These are some startling revelations. I was under the impression that trustworthy exegesis and hermeneutics actually mandated that biblical creationism is the only acceptable view of creation - silly me! Of course, you would probably reply that biblical creation is not a matter to be taken up in a science classroom, but I would reply by stating that there are volumes of good science written by very capable scientists that would challenge such an assertion. Liberals usually fire back to that by alleging that such science is not "good science." If that is the case, then why not present it in the Biology classroom and let it be exposed for the "bunk" that you say it is? What are the profs afraid of - that some unsuspecting college student might actually believe in the biblical view of creation? Oh my, that would certainly be a travesty on a Christian campus of higher learning that is affiliated with the TBC.

Theistic evolution (the view that all C-N Biology professors espouse) can't possibly be valid because it teaches that dinosaurs became extinct long before humans existed. The only problem with that: Death didn't enter the world until Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden (cf. Rm. 5). If there was no death, then how did dinosaurs become extinct (and before you answer, remember that Paul said that all creation was subjected to the results of the Fall - Rm. 8:20-22). Those who teach theistic evolution don't have a conflict with some state convention, they have a problem with God's Word, as I suspect you do if you think biblical creationism is "bunk."

Here we go with the conspiracy theories. You are speaking of that which you have no idea about. Before you insinuate that Lonas Tarr's influence had anything to do with this, you ought to at least be sure that there is some relation there. Yes, Brady is Lonas' grandson, but Lonas has not said a word of support for Brady during all this - he has remained silent (in the public sphere), and I suspect he will continue to do so. Because I was one of the people who spoke in support of Brady from the mic (on two occasions) at the annual meeting, I know you're not speaking of me when you mention some "high ranking TBC and SBC folks." I am a young Pastor of a small East TN congregation that has virtually no influence in convention matters. I assume you're actually speaking of Hollie Miller (former TBC Pres and Pastor of Sevier Heights Baptist Church). He is a personal friend of mine and I spoke with him about all this yesterday morning over the phone. He had nothing to do with Brady's comments or the motion for an investigation. In fact, that has been the simplistic beauty of this whole thing - it had no formal pre-convention organization, yet God used the comments of one young man to rally the messengers of the TBC to finally do that which was right. Thus, you can drop your whole conspiracy theory - this is just a group of Bible-believing Pastors and churches seeking to do that which is right in the sight of God without showing partiality from one school to the next.

 

GB, I have spoken to the Head of Church Relations. I have spoken to the Campus minister. I have spoken to several faculty members. I have attended several CLW sessions. I have spoken to a couple of school trustees about these matters. I spoke to these matters from the floor of our TBC annual meeting, twice.

GB, are you suggesting that I go and try to shut down C-N or something. I am just one Tennessee Baptist trying to make a difference. The only people that have the power to make any decisions at this point are the school's trustees and the messangers to the 2005 TBC annual meeting. The fate of our colleges rests in their hands.

If you would like to suggest that I follow some other course of action, I'm all ears. Will you covenant to pray for me as I seek to honor God in this endeavor?

 

What you are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg I saw in a situation I was involved in.

Don't you pastor a church? Isn't your church a part of an association of churches? Get the people in your church together and stand as a church. Get the other churches in the local association to stand with you. Get your DOM to participate. You need to stir up the people to do what is right. But you must take the lead. expect those in leadership to try and sweep it under the rug. But you have a higher obligation to not let them escape and stand tall. Write some letters and having meetings with other pastors and lay people who collectively will do something. Start scheduling some meetings to plan a course of action.

I have been there before, so I know it works. They may ignore you but they cannot ignore a large group of people who will not be ignored. The situtation I was in not one SBC church would help us. A number of pastors told me they don't get involved in things outside of their church. As a pastor I got some of the church people together and we planned a course of action. Eventually the right thing was done. Initially they wanted to sweep things under the rug but we would not let them. We exposed them and they were embarassed. At that time we got immediate action.

I prayed for you tonight. Keep us posted.

 

GB, I certainly thank you for the prayers.

I didn't mean to imply that I was just trying to take this thing on by myself. Not only is Brady involved, but we have mobilized several men from our local association to take action. Also, I am part of a group called Concerned Tennessee Baptists that will be taking some action on this. I have also been in contact with the Chairman of the Education Committee who will oversee the work of the coming investigations. Your point is well taken though - this type of effort can't be done alone.

What complicates the issue for us is that the majority of the folks in Brentwood (including the Executive Director) are not willing to listen when we voice our concerns. It is a pretty well-known fact that the Executive Board, Committee on Boards, and Committee on Committees are pretty well-stocked with moderate/liberal minded folks who would just have us to turn our heads from walks going on in our schools. Therefore, what we are doing will have to come from the bottom up - a genuine grassroots effort.

 

I grew up in the TBC, and there were signs 20 years ago that Belmont was abandoning its historic Baptist identity and Carson-Newman wasn't far behind. In fact, I actually thought Belmont no longer was a Baptist institution at all.

 

An, these posts are getting much too lengthy and so I don't want to respond to everything you posted, but I simply won't pass up the opportunity to speak to several important matters:

That sounds like double talk to me. You plainly said you doubted his knowledge of the Bible. Because you neither know Brady nor have you ever asked him about his knowledge of God's Word, you made an assumption on his understanding of the Bible. And that was a dumb assumption.

What the conservative Christians of the TBC want are teachers in our TBC schools who are committed to the Word of God and who will covenant to teach within biblical boundaries. Of course, the issue then becomes "who sets those biblical boundaries?" That's a good question, and that is why I am in full favor of making each of the teachers at our three schools sign-off on the BF&M 2000. That's not creedalism - that's good stewardship. How can we in good conscience continue to lend our good name and our resources to some state institutions of higher learning who are not willing to be doctrinally accountable? Say what you will, but if there are no clearly defined doctrinal boundaries, then education pretty much accepts an "anything goes" attitude and that is exactly what we currently see going on with C-N and Belmont. Both of those institutions know that they are not honoring the doctrinal convictions of the TBC, and that is why they should simply refuse the annual 2.3 million and part ways with the TBC. That would resolve this whole matter, but alas it will not be that easy.

So that answer your question, Brady, myself, and scores of others here in the TBC aren't only looking for balance in the classroom (which we certainly do want), but we also want the institutions to hire only those who would be willing to affirm some doctrinal statement that reflects the convictions of those within the TBC (which would most likely be the BF&M 2000). If such an affirmation were required of the faculties of C-N and Belmont, the vast majority of those schools religion, Biology, and philosophy departments (among many others) would all be asked to leave. This is what all the tension, and now investigation, is about.

An, you may classify yourself as a conservative, but your posts "runneth over" with classic liberal spin. Evolution is indeed a crucial issue, because if that is how we have been created then we are simply products of pure chance and the god of deism is now the god to which we must give an account. Women in the ministry is indeed a watershed issue, but only if we are concerned about obeying God's Word and submitting ourselves to its authority. (Parenthetically, you say that 1 Tim. 2:11-15 has nothing to do with women being prohibited from the pastorate, but what does that passage of Scripture precede? The qualifications for Pastor! Let's practice sound hermeneutics here!) Inerrancy is indeed a crucial issue, because how can we know anything sure of "the divinity of Jesus, salvation, and the existence of God" if God has not granted us a sure revelation of those things in His Word? Your comments sound kind of like the person who says, "We ought to just forget about all this doctrinal stuff and focus on Jesus." There were some guys who tried to separate the person of Christ from the words of Christ towards the end of John 6. They weren't to successful in their attempts, and neither we will be if we attempt to do the same. These are crucial issues, and if we don't think so, then we're not much better than those quasi-followers of John 6 who wouldn't accept what Christ said about eating His body and drinking His blood.

Either you haven't read the BF&M 2000 or you are just choosing to explain away what it says by arguing for hermeneutical license. "Truth without any mixture of error" means that God's Word is an inerrant Word. As for evolution, the BF&M says that God is the Creator of all that is - not simply the organizer or first cause of creation.

Absolutely, and if they aren't willing to receive such accountability, then they are being dishonest and deceptive.

I believe so, for why should we give CP $$$ to those who have demonstrated that they're not willing to reflect SBC values throughout their respective ministries? That makes no sense, and it is certainly not good stewardship. Further, if you advocate egalitarian ministry then you can't in good conscience affirm the BF&M 2000 because it expressly denounces said ministry (see Article VI of the BF&M 2000).

What I'm saying is that someone can't begin to worship God "in Spirt and in truth" (John 4:23-24) until they have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and such indwelling only comes by professing faith in the triune God of the Bible. Someone can attempt to worship Jehovah (as do the Catholics), but they will never be able to do so until they trust the God of the Bible ALONE for their salvation.

If you don't feel you can give a simply "no" answer to the question "Do all Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, etc. worship the same God?," then I'm afraid these conversations are pretty pointless. Aside from the other considerations you voiced, the answer to the question is quite simple - WE CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WORSHIPING THE SAME GOD. And as I have stated, even if someone (say a Jew or a Catholic) were attempting to worship the God of the Bible, they couldn't possibly do so apart from saving faith in Him. This question is not complex - it is really quite simple.

What Dr. Kimball actually said (and keep in mind I was there) was that he didn't think that "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and the salvation of others within different faiths (Islam, Hinduism, etc.) were contradictory to one another. That's riding the fence if I've ever seen it. Either Christ is the only Way, or others within different faiths can be saved apart from Christ, BUT YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. If it is possible, I'd love for you to explain how.

If you think that egalitarian ministry, open theism, theistic evolution, soteriological inclusivness, and source theories of the composition of Scripture are "very conservative," then I'm wondering what school of theology you attended. Those are doctrines that even the father of the liberals (Fredrich Schliermacher) could agree with. You'll have to explain that one.

Yes, because liberals were routinely seeking to separate the Living Word from the Written Word. More clarification was needed to say that such a practice is ungodly and unacceptable for those who are seeking to honor God.

I'll assume you're a logical person (not a hard assumption because you seem to be quite intelligent). Tell me how "God-breathed" can't possibly obligate one to accept comeplete biblical inerrancy. If every word of the Bible is the very Word of God (as Paul plainly testified), then the Bible must be inerrant because God (the Author of Scripture) can'e err - if He can then He ceases to be God. Liberals and moderates despise this plain logic, and so rather than lash out against it, they have simply chosen to try and define which parts of the Bible are "God-breathed" and which parts are not.

You make my point. They change the meaning of theopnuestos to "inspired" so that they can say that the Bible is an inspired/inspiring book. I would agree with the liberals: If the Bible is only partially inspired or just inspiring, then the Bible plainly contains errors. Yet, that's not what Paul said, is it? No, he said it was "God-breathed," and thus it must be inerrant.

There is absolutely no way that someone can say they are an inerrantist if they believe in macro-evolutionary theories of creation. Such theories of creation not only deny the plain exegesis and exposition of Scripture, but they are rooted in humanist attempts at biblical hermenutics that didn't even exist until the time of Charles Darwin. If those theories of evolution can be argued from God's Word, then why didn't they exist before Darwin's time? I think we all know the answer to that question. Either we believe that God's Word is inerrant when it speaks of creation or we must attempt to allegorize the first 2 chapters of the Bible (which is the current practice of those within the religion and biology departments of C-N).

Both are problems right now - that is why messengers to the TBC voted overwhelmingly to launch an investigation of all three schools. It was interesting to see that Dockery welcomed the investigation, while Fisher and Netherton have both scoffed at it. That says volumes.

Conversely, there is a lot of good science out there that suggests that the Grand Canyon couldn't have possibly been etched out over millions of years - why is it not presented in the Biology/Geology classrooms? By the way, there is not "Biblical Creationism" class at C-N. What I said is that there is only one course (Bio 317) that even mentions biblical creationism (in passing) and that that particular Biology course is not even required for Biology majors. Thus, someone could very conceivable go through the Biology Department at C-N, receive their degree in Biology, and never even hear of the scientific evidence that supports biblical creationism. This is ludicrous, seeing as how C-N (and Belmont and Union) are affiliated with the TBC.

So you're implying that creation only suffered some of the effects of the Fall without suffering them all? Who gives you the right to make that claim? Besides, if death and disease had entered the world before the time of Adam and Eve, then wouldn't those same maladies have effected Adam and Eve even if they had never sinned? Further, how can we say that Adam and Eve lived in a perfect world if death and destruction had already touched it prior to the Fall of man? Here again, it seems that your hermeneutic is one that is not only forced upon the Scripture because of a priori convictions, but it creates many more problems than it solves. Don't you agree? If not, then I'd love to see how you answer the aforementioned questions.

My friend, the truth is that all our institutions of higher learning should be accountable to the TBC. At this point, there is no accountability, and when questions are raised (like the questions being asked by Brady) nobody seems to want to provide any answers. That's why this investigation is long overdue. If it is determined that these institutions are teaching apostate doctrines, then a choice will have to be made by those institutions. If they want to honor their affiliation with our convention, then they can covenant to teach in accord with the convictions of our convention. If they don't want to do that, then they can cut the ties and do their own thing. Either way, a decision must be made. For all who are interested, that is the truth.