Your Seminary Recommendation

I'm a Southern Baptist, but I pick Gordon-Conwell Seminary. It's scholarly and practical. IMO the SBC seminaries are still going through growing pains since the conservative make-over.

 

Truett in Waco is doing great things

 

RD,
liberal seems strong. Isn't moderate a better description of Truett?
Tom

 

IMO liberal means denial of basic Christian truths like the trinity, resurrection of Christ, faith in Jesus as the only way to salvation or denial of the authority of the Bible, for example. Moderates in the SBC don't tend to deny these basic truths. Liberals will, however. I think it can be incorrect and somewhat disrespectful to hang the "liberal" label on everybody whose view may be slightly different than what you (not you personally, Dr. B. I mean, in general) might believe.

 

I agree. The definition of liberal is not "one who differs in any way from strict fundamentalism." This use of liberal ceases to be an accurate descriptor and becomes simply a pejorative term.

 

I agree that "Liberal" is a term which should be used only for those who deny the basic doctrines of the Faith not for those who reject the particularities of our denomination or our pet hobby horses.

 

I'd agree that a lot of Southern Baptists like to throw those labels around without really knowing what they mean, or whether they apply to what they have labelled.

"Conservative" and "Moderate" are broad categories, and from a theological perspective, I've had trouble telling the difference. Moderates tend to be less bothered by people who disagree, and that seems to be just about the only difference. I know pastors of churches that are labelled "moderate" who are really more conservative in their theology and practice than some of the more well known "conservatives."

My church gets labelled "moderate" and sometimes even "liberal" because we use video projectors and media shout to put the words of the choruses we sing up on screens at the front of the sanctuary, because our worship is completely contemporary in style, because I don't wear a suit and tie to preach (I have a collection of various colored polo shirts that I wear with navy blue or khaki dress slacks), because we don't tell people to sit or stand during praise time, because we let people lift their hands and express themselves to the Lord, because we don't have a Sunday night service and a whole bunch of other things.

As to Truett Seminary, there are several Truett graduates serving churches around me, and if they are an example of the kind of graduate the school is producing, it is a theologically sound, conservative school that has a unique grasp on training ministers to serve churches in our culture. Their graduates seem to be particularly adept at getting churches started in some of the more ethnically and culturally diverse neighborhoods in the city, where the traditional Baptist congregations have become declining collections of people over 60 whose brand loyalty keeps them driving in from the suburbs as long as they can. I know of three places in the city where a formerly empty Baptist church building is now packed to the rafters with a young, vibrant congregation and all three are pastored by Truett grads.

As to what seminary I would recommend, well, I got an excellent education at Brite Divinity School in Ft. Worth, at Texas Christian University. A lot of Baptists would have trouble dealing with the atmosphere there, expecially if you expect seminary to be more of an indoctrination than a learning experience. I didn't always agree with the professors, but the disagreements challenged me to find support for my position, which strengthened it. Since graduating from there, I've heard some Baptists criticize the school for its "liberalism," which I didn't see at all. It is heavily academic, which was sometimes tedious, and if you want someone to draw your boundaries for you, you'd be disappointed, but what I learned from there was something more valuable than just plain theology, and that was the skill of how to study the Bible being led by the Holy Spirit.

 

IMO liberal means denial of basic Christian truths like the trinity, resurrection of Christ, faith in Jesus as the only way to salvation or denial of the authority of the Bible, for example. Moderates in the SBC don't tend to deny these basic truths. Liberals will, however. I think it can be incorrect and somewhat disrespectful to hang the "liberal" label on everybody whose view may be slightly different than what you (not you personally, Dr. B. I mean, in general) might believe. </font>[/QUOTE]You are correct in observing that folks too often use “liberal” to blacken anyone who is different from them. However, you are not quite accurate in defining liberal. You have articulated the common misunderstanding of liberalism. You must take the term in its historical context and usage for it to have meaning. It is not just what you think it means or want it to mean. Dr. Bob, whose upbringing and spiritual heritage is historic Fundamentalism, is accurate in his definition and usage. On the other hand, I grew up in SBC circles during the 1950-60”s. These people were called liberals, not moderates, during the 1950-70’s when it was hip to be liberal. (When I was at liberal SBC Furman University, the liberals wore their label as a badge of distinction and pride.) The term moderate was coined later to avoid a bad connotation. With the conservative resurgence, it became unpopular to be SBC liberal so these folks have morphed themselves into moderates by redefining the words. Nothing else has changed. It’s more about feelings and fitting in than doctrines and beliefs.

The so-called moderates, who spurn the liberal label, may hold some of the basic doctrines but they do redefine others and deny some beliefs that you have not included in your basic list. For example, they may speak of the authority of the Scriptures but they stop short of claiming inerrancy. They may claim to believe in inspiration but they balk at accepting plenary verbal inspiration. Also, their view of creation is a kind of theistic evolution. All of these are classic liberal positions. A classic liberal is one who still professes to believe the faith but he holds altered or liberal views of various doctrines—he is not a professed atheist. (BTW, during the Fundamentalist controversy, the terms liberal and modernist had different meanings.) Thus, Dr. Bob is historically accurate and right in his statement. Let’s use words accurately for their denotative meanings rather than the connotation to achieve a good feeling about folks whom we like.

 

If you want to discuss what is liberal, I submit the following:

Paul Pressler wrote a book called "A Hill On Which To Die", in which he discusses his role in the events in the SBC. In it, he published a portion of a master's thesis done by a SBTS student in 1976. At that time, the student surveyed students entering the seminary, after the first year, after the second year, and PhD students. He asked questions such as "I know God really exists," "Jesus is the Divine Son of God," and "Jesus was born of a virgin." Those entering responded 96% to 100% in favor. After each year at SBTS, the numbers steadily declined, to the point that only 32% of PhD students agreed that Jesus was born of a virgin.

I take this as proof that as of the mid-1970's, SBC seminaries were immersed in liberalism. As I understand it, they have thankfully turned around.

"Liberal" has nothing to do with the liveliness or deadness of the service. You are correct that many have mixed this up.

We should not tolerate those who want to 'question the academic possibilites' of denying the virgin birth or the deity of Christ. We should not teach students to question these essentials, but they should be taught, along with the heresies that have been excommunicated over the centuries. At the same time, we should indeed question the cultural norms, and the 'way we do church' in order to reach the present generation.

 

With the conservative resurgence, it became unpopular to be SBC liberal so these folks have morphed themselves into moderates by redefining the words. Nothing else has changed. It’s more about feelings and fitting in than doctrines and beliefs.

The so-called moderates, who spurn the liberal label, may hold some of the basic doctrines but they do redefine others and deny some beliefs that you have not included in your basic list. For example, they may speak of the authority of the Scriptures but they stop short of claiming inerrancy. They may claim to believe in inspiration but they balk at accepting plenary verbal inspiration. Also, their view of creation is a kind of theistic evolution. All of these are classic liberal positions. A classic liberal is one who still professes to believe the faith but he holds altered or liberal views of various doctrines—he is not a professed atheist. [/QB][/QUOTE]
______________________________________
If you're correct and you might be, I think we need to recognize that Liberalism is represented on a continuum and we probably need to come up with some sort of label for the main line Protestants who reject most of the distinctives of the historic Christian faith. I'm not quite ready to label fairly solid denominations like the Church of the Nazarene, James Dobson and HB London's denomination as Liberal because they don't subscribe to the doctrine of Inerrancy. IMO Nazarenes and Truitt Seminary students generally look a lot different than liberal Congregationalists, Methodists and American Baptists I encounter in the northeast, for example, who might deny the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ.

[ August 07, 2005, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: PatsFan ]

 

I would disagree re the inerrancy of the autographs . IMO that is a basic tenet. Guess I'm more conservative than I thought