Article 1
We need a new
seminary “for such a
time as this”
By Marv Knox
Al Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, hit the mark when he said the seminary’s April 17-19 trustee meeting marked a “defining moment” in the history of the school. Last week ranks with Southern Seminary’s 1859 founding, its post- Civil War near death experience, its 1877 move to Louisville and its 1958 faculty-firing crisis. Each of those occasions pruned and shaped the seminary. But last week, the president and trustees chopped at its roots.
By now, you’re familiar with the recent history of Southern Seminary. In 1993, the trustee board—stacked with political partisans after years of victory within the Southern Baptist Convention—elected Mohler as the seminary’s ninth president. Mohler immediately vowed to return the school to its historic roots. Problem is, Mohler has treated the seminary like a weed with a single taproot, rather than a towering beech tree with a variegated system of roots.
Mohler’s “root” is the seminary founders’ l9th century version of one type of 16th century Reformation theology developed by John Calvin. To his credit, Mohler quotes the seminary founders quoting Calvin. To his discredit, he ignores the multi-faceted trunk onto which the seminary seedling was grafted. By the time the seminary began growing, Baptists had melded together two strains of Reformation theology. Calvinism, with its emphasis on the sovereignty of God, was there. But so was Arminianism, with its emphasis on individual responsibility before God. Together, both strains enabled Baptists to tend the fertile fields of the American frontier and grow a strong and vibrant seminary in that good soil.
This is more than a dusty history lesson. Mohler’s search for the roots has severed the trunk of Southern Seminary. His quest for a single taproot that burrows all the way into the grave of Calvin has chopped through many other roots that have given the seminary life. In the case of Southern Seminary, history and theology provide progressive clues that explain what is wrong today.
1. Seeking to be true to Calvin, Mohler has revised Baptist history and violated Baptist principles.
Mohler’s brand of hyper-Calvinism is common to the extreme segments of the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions, but not traditional Baptist life. To be sure, some fairly early Baptists appreciated Calvin’s high view of the sovereignty of God. But just as surely, early Calvinists persecuted Baptists’ true spiritual forebears, the Anabaptists and Mennonites.
Baptists who survived synthesized some of Calvin’s teachings with the views of another reformer, Jacobus Arminius. So, most of us came to believe that all humans are spiritually depraved, but that those whom God saves will remain saved (which Calvin would approve). But we also came to believe that God wants “whosoever will”—every person who will accept Christ—to be saved (which Arminius would approve). Baptists reflect both strains of thought, not purely Calvinism.
2. The complete revocation of all Arminian thought severs Baptists from their most distinctive doctrine.
The “whosoever will” concept of Baptist theology shapes a very important aspect of our thought and practice. Because of this belief, we affirm the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. That’s the notion that every person has the opportunity to reach out directly to God and the responsibility to respond to God. This thought shapes not only how we relate to God, but how we relate to each other. True Baptists respect the “priestly” aspect of every other believer. We affirm the right of each believer to seek God’s will and God’s truth in light of Holy Scripture and in companionship with the Holy Spirit.
Consequently, we affirm each believer’s right to interpret the Bible and to live life by God’s standards. We honor individual freedom, not as individual anarchy, but as personal responsibility before God. That’s also why we honor the autonomy of each local church, because each church is a congregation of believers, who collectively have the same rights and responsibilities as the individual members.
Unfortunately, the extreme form of Calvinism now rampant among some Southern Baptists ultimately denies this right and responsibility. As such, it revokes the right to pursue truth and divine will. It assumes a self-appointed higher authority knows all truth and divine will. It imposes that version of truth and divine will on all others. And it is not Baptist.
3. Severed from the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer, an institution no longer remains Baptist.
The individual physical sign of being a Baptist is believer’s baptism by immersion. The corporate practice that sets a Baptist institution apart from other faith groups is how it honors the Baptist doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. When individuals within the institution no longer enjoy individual freedom and responsibility before God, the institution no longer is Baptist.
4. Southern Seminary no longer is Baptist.
Southern Seminary trustees severed the school from its historic roots with two blows last week. By prohibiting faculty and staff from publicly disagreeing with the president on any seminary issue, trustees denied them freedom and responsibility before God. Some may argue, “They can go elsewhere and interpret the Bible as they wish,” but that still denies any and all freedom within the institution. And by giving the president ultimate control over faculty selection, trustees ensured even more rigid control over the beliefs of future faculty and students. By forsaking the priesthood of the believer, Southern Seminary has committed denominational apostasy. The seminary paint crew ought to whiteout “Baptist” on the sign out front. Southern Seminary no longer is Baptist.
That leaves Kentucky Baptists facing dire consequences. Southern Seminary has been our “feeder school” for ministers since 1877. Most of our churches have accepted a Southern Seminary degree as a primary credential for faithful and effective service. But how can a non-Baptist seminary prepare fully-trained Baptist ministers? As we look to the future, we will need a theological school or seminary for preparing our ministers. Some will come from other free and faithful schools, but they will not produce enough. Will Kentucky Baptists step forward?
Who will lead, for such a time a this?
June/July 1995