|
Beware
False allegations Sixteen dedicated people make up the BGCT Seminary Study Committee. Unfortunately, unfounded allegations confront the committee. Assertions are that somehow the work was not thorough, was vindictive, had a predetermined outcome or outside sources severely influenced them. I would like to answer as many objections as I can. I. "The committee did not conduct a true and thorough study, because we did not interview students and faculty." A motion made at the annual BGCT meeting in El Paso last year chartered the committee. The motion said in part that a committee was to be formed to examine the financial resources, theology and philosophy of the SBC seminaries and the BGCT-supported seminaries. The committee discussed many avenues of carrying out this directive. After the presidents voted to refuse our offer to visit us in Dallas, we responded to their offer to visit them on their campuses. The questions and facts we were seeking did not seem answerable by students or faculty. Neither students nor faculty determines financial matters, theologies taught or philosophy of the schools. The six presidents have continually criticized us for not speaking to these two groups of individuals. We did talk with several current faculty members and found them hesitant to speak to us. They were afraid of retribution by seminary officials and trustees. Many faculty persons exhibited paranoia, low morale and discouragement about the changes that have occurred in the six SBC seminaries. As a committee, we have pledged not to reveal anything that might identify those that spoke to us. The students are another matter entirely. When we spoke to the presidents, we told them exactly how many of our committee members would be visiting their school. We suggested to them they could invite a similar number of their choice to meet with us. In at least two cases, more were present from their number than our number. This was agreeable to us. None of the presidents chose to invite any students. Not even one. Providing they thought having students present was a good idea, then they could have done that. I repeat: Not one president chose any student. II. "The committee was heavily influenced by CBF." While it is quite true that some members of our committee have varying connections to CBF, others have no knowledge at all. In fact, they never discussed CBF in any of our meetings at any time. To my knowledge, it never came up. There was no need for it ever to come up. This was a Texas Baptist committee, not a CBF committee. No official, agent or CBF board member ever contacted our committee. Again, there was no reason this should have happened. To think that our committee had CBF influence is ludicrous. I have seen several attempts by Baptist Press trying to tie us to CBF. One news article attempted to tie the committee to CBF, then closed with remarks about homosexuality and abortion. I laughed. I could not follow the reporter's logic at all. Likewise, neither the BGCT staff members nor its officers influenced the report. While it was true that Dr. Wade and various members of the staff attended committee meetings, none influenced the outcome of the report. They never voted on a single item. They were very helpful to understand procedure, research and data. III. "The committee had already determined its outcome either before the committee was formed or early in its study." I can assure you this is the figment of someone's overactive imagination. An early letter from Paige Patterson showed such a thought. SBC presidents, meeting with Charles Wade in Nashville, alleged he said the committee would defund their schools in case they required their faculties to sign the new 2000 BF&M statement of faith. The committee wrestled about whether we should even make recommendations in our report. We did not do the first draft until just before our whirlwind tour of the SBC seminaries. Mike Chancellor, vice-chairman, the four subcommittee chairpersons and I had met to put something on paper. The full committee did not see that proposed first draft until the seminary tour ended. The recommendations were not in the first draft. Later, the recommendations went through multiple changes and refinement. Again, it is laughable to say anything was predetermined. Furthermore, all committee persons agreed that nothing would go into the report that was not provable. Our committee has backup paper on every part of our report. It is fully true. IV. "This report is vindictive and filled with anger." Where? What part of the report shows anger, or a desire to get even or to be vindictive? Pathos fills the report. Often the committee sat in stunned silence as we uncovered unpleasant, but truthful facts about faculty mistreatment. Most of the members had some personal connection to one of the six SBC seminaries. Two members had not attended any seminary. The committee did its best to express the profound regret for the action we believe should be taken. I heard no glee. Members expressed no joy in recommending a cutback in funding. I did hear joy in being able to help students to have lower costs to attend Logsdon or Truett seminaries. Currently students at Truett and Logsdon pay more per semester. The committee felt it was wrong for our students at our BGCT schools to pay more than students attending any of the six SBC schools. Knowing that this would help them to get their education, and that increased funding at Truett and Logsdon would attract more students did bring joy. Yet, we see no reason to send an excess of funds to schools that have:
Other criticisms exist but none have been voiced as frequently as these.
October 2000 |