Question about Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe I'm just too much of a fundamentalist (from a separatist standpoint) to fit in long term with the SBC as it is at this point with the vast diversity of views on nearly every side.

No, you sound more like a former Presbyterian who finds it hard to shake the "warrior child" mentality, even as a Baptist! :lol:

That's actually pretty accurate except that I came into Presbyterianism with the "warrior child" mentality fully intact! To cut a long story short, the "warrior" mentality was actually a hindrance to me joining a congregation of the Only Perfect Church in the first place. The justification controversy was raging at its hottest then and the report on that issue was still a couple of years away.

With regard to how I view evangelicalism (including the SBC) the second volume of Iain Murray's biography of Martyn Lloyd-Jones had a profound impact on me. By contrast, those who take their cues from Keller and others of a similar mindset identify a lot more with the late John Stott on the issues that caused the division between them. (And they disagreed on a lot more than just whether or not evangelicals should get out of the Church of England.) Not realizing the number of those of the latter mentality among younger SB's was one of the main sources of my frustration in having to don the warrior helmet again.

The Lloyd-Jones (and MacArthur, even if you take out the teetotalism and dispensationalism) brand of evangelical separatism is deemed "fundamentalism" by many Southern Baptists, including many of the "Young, Restless and Reformed." With some of them (and I'm referring to Calvinistic men) if you question anything that an apparently successful ministry is doing, especially a Calvinistic ministry, you're called a fundamentalist, (or some other label depending on the issue) which is often an attempt to dismiss the concern without addressing it. "Don't bother with that fundy."

I don't know that anyone who strongly identifies with the position Lloyd-Jones took with regard to Graham, Packer, etc. can be fully at home in the SBC or any other similarly broad based denomination. I know a good many men of that mindset who do make that their home from a denominational standpoint, but to borrow a term from our political discourse, they are basically SBINOS (in name only) who have little or no interest in denominational involvement beyond the local church or at best the associational level. Where I get hung up is "but the $$ I put in the plate is going to support such and such abomination." But that's probably inevitable to some extent no matter what your affiliation is if you support any kind of work beyond the local congregation.

With regard to the "New Evangelicalism" that Lloyd-Jones differed with (in a somewhat less strident way than American fundamentalists did) there's a good case to be made that the turnaround of SBTS (and the SBC in general) is their greatest triumph. Both Mohler and Moore have been strongly influenced by Carl F.H. Henry. With regard to cultural engagement coupled with orthodox protestantism (albeit somewhat less broadly evangelical, being a denominational school) they seem to be succeeding where Fuller failed.
 
It may simply be wise to avoid offending people on this issue, at this time, in order that the seminary's leadership on other fronts may go forward without distraction.

Perfectly said! I guess my seminary is my library. Filled with all the greats such as Augustine, Chrysostom, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Owens, Bunyan, Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Hodges, Boyce (SBC Founder), Pink, Berkouf, Sproul, & Piper. (Chrysostom & Aquinas are used for reference only). Of all those men Augustine, Luther are tied in second, and Calvin is my favorite. I like Calvin not just because his teaching is so clear and lucid and easy to understand, but most of all I like his fruit. MISSIONARIES WORLD WIDE.
 
From a practical standpoint, I think it is because most of the students live on campus while the employees do not. I think they are just trying to avoid the type of problems that sometimes result from alcohol use by students in any college or university. The last thing a seminary wants to be known as is a party school.

At Westminster Seminary of California, one (student or employee) is also not allowed to drink on campus. The reason, if I remember right, is due to their insurance policy that they keep. This may be the case for other seminaries as well. So when considering SBTS on the issue of no drinking on campus, other seminaries may also share fault even though the reasoning behind the probation may be different.
SBTS and Dr. Mohler are admirably challenging firmly entrenched aspects of SBC culture on several important fronts. This is effective and necessary work within that denomination, and it might be sidetracked if the seminary got embroiled in controversy over secondary issues such as alcohol. It may simply be wise to avoid offending people on this issue, at this time, in order that the seminary's leadership on other fronts may go forward without distraction.
I couldn’t agree more. Of course this is only speculation of policy and beliefs behind closed doors with Mohler and with those that work with him.
 
So when considering SBTS on the issue of no drinking on campus, other seminaries may also share fault even though the reasoning behind the probation may be different.

Except SBTS' prohibition extends to all students, including those off-campus, at all times with exceptions only for health and communion.
 
Let me reiterate -- I have absolutely no problem with a no-alcohol policy for the school campus, and I would not have a problem for on-campus students. But I would be on campus at most two or three weeks a year (and that would be just during the daytime). I would gladly refrain from using alcohol even during those times. But to extend that policy to me when I won't be anywhere near the campus (or no closer than I am now) 24/7 for the next 3+ years seems a bit much to me.
 
So when considering SBTS on the issue of no drinking on campus, other seminaries may also share fault even though the reasoning behind the probation may be different.

Except SBTS' prohibition extends to all students, including those off-campus, at all times with exceptions only for health and communion.

Anna, am aware of that. I was just dealing with the issue of drinking on campus.
 
Perhaps I'm being a crumudgeon, but that policy really bothers me. I could understand maybe not allowing alcohol in on-campus housing, but to require complete abstinence for any and all students seems to be binding the conscience a bit much. And I'll just beat anyone to the punch - I know if I don't like it, I don't have to go there; their school, their rules, etc. I would like to know what their reason is for the rule because surely they can't argue that scripture prohibits it.

They think they can argue prohibition from Scripture.

That's an interesting point and, if true, sheds a bit of a different light on the handbook phrase "regardless of personal conviction or ecclesiastic tradition." I hope it's not true, however, because it would make me question the exegetical methodology of the institution. At this point, though, I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Tim,

I have not spent any time at Southern so maybe I am wrong, but while attending Southwestern and DTS I have heard the argument of abstinence from Scripture. Seeing that all three institutions have the same alcohol policy and the fact that many of the profs could teach at any of them (I know some that have taught at least two of them), it does not seem to be a stretch to assume that at minimum some believe that prohibition can be shown through Scripture.

It is not uncommon for a typical Dispensational to claim prohibition as Biblical. Even Johnny Mac will argue that being around alcohol is sinful.
 
Let me reiterate -- I have absolutely no problem with a no-alcohol policy for the school campus, and I would not have a problem for on-campus students. But I would be on campus at most two or three weeks a year (and that would be just during the daytime). I would gladly refrain from using alcohol even during those times. But to extend that policy to me when I won't be anywhere near the campus (or no closer than I am now) 24/7 for the next 3+ years seems a bit much to me.

To me as well.

I don't think they wrote the student handbook with students in modular/distance ed/indepenent studies programs in mind, even if their language sounds all-inclusive.
 
It is also very possible they do not want the reputation that many secular colleges have as a 'party' school, would that be a good thing for a Seminary?

For whatever reason, many within the secular world believe Christians should abstain from drinking, they do not understand Christian liberty in this area, and hold Christians to a higher standard..

The typical conversation is not "your a christian why aren't you having a drink"

it's more..

"I didn't know it was okay for Christians to drink" or "I thought you were a Christian, why are you drinking?"
 
"your a Christian? Why are you drinking? Christians aren't supposed to drink"

Or "I didn't know it was okay for Christians to drink" or "I thought you were a Christian, why are you drinking?"

I think theese are great questions to get asked. I've been asked them before and I happily give them my answer explaining that there is absolutely nothing wrong with alcohol in moderation. I explain to them that the scriptures only condemn drunkenness or alcohol abuse, but moderate alcohol consumption is actually applauded in scripture.
 
All of this is just another indication that you should instead work on a serious Ph.D. at some Scottish or English school.

Some schools have programs where you can go just a few weeks a year. The European model minimizes course work and focuses on the dissertation. Spurgeon's College/University of Wales would be one such.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top