In a day when some want to remove Baptist from our names and even distance ourselves from the name “Southern Baptist”, we have a college that is making strides to do otherwise. Truett-McConnell made great strides at their last trustee meeting to bring their faculty under accountability and strengthen their relationship with Southern Baptists. Thank God for the leadership of a Board of Trustees that is not afraid to step forward and boldly confess they believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God and that they are Baptists.
Enjoy the article from the Christian Index.
Tim,
Do you know the history of why these great men of God did not use the “Baptist” label in the naming of their college, yet the men were distinctly Baptist.
Blessings,
Chris
Pingback: Tweets that mention Biblically Centered, Distinctively Baptist :: SBC Today -- Topsy.com
Brother Chris,
Let’s see. Hmmm! Truett came from George W. Truett who along with his cousin Fernando C.McConnell established a Christian Acadamy in the Georgia mountains. It later fell on hard times and had to close. The Georgia Baptist Convention later reopened the school and began a 2 year degreed program. It was in 1953 that the GBC had a debate on whether to move the college from Cleveland to a more prime location from which to draw more students. On the convention floor that year they debated until right up to midnight before the vote was taken. The result as you know is that the college remained in Cleveland. Thus, the GBC remained in the life of TMC.
As to the men naming the school. I believe if you read the history it was not the men who named the school, but the GBC. Why the GBC name it what they did is very obvious. One does not need to possess a PhD in History to understand that. George W Truett was the first principal of the Hiawassee Acadamy which later folded and was reinvigorated by the GBC. His cousin Fernando C McConnell was a leader in the GBC. Truett died in 1944, GBC reopened the school in 1946. Do the years not coincide enough to figure out why the GBC named the college Truett-McConnell?
No, there is not “Baptist” in the name of TMC. But you cannot say Truett without “Baptist” being the second word out of your mouth.
But, Brother Chris, why would you believe they did not use Baptist in the name of the college?
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Chris,
TMC now has a missions minor. You can get that minor in any major you desire. So if one majors in education, they can have a minor in missions. That is an exciting product just by the addition of Dr. Ed Pruitt.
Blessings,
Tim
It is a great thing that Truett-McConnell College has affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible. I predict their best days are ahead. Baptists like the idea of sending students to a Bible believing college.
Praise God that our SBC seminaries and other agencies have taken a similar stand. It took a long hard battle to accomplish it.
Very few of our SBC colleges and universities have affirmed the inerrancy of the Bible. It seems they should do so for at least the Religion Department and Administration. How many other SBC colleges have done so? About all that come to mind would be Liberty, Cedarville, Criswell, College at Southwestern. Any others?
David R. Brumbelow
A couple thoughts:
What’s the value in requiring professors that teach Math, Spanish, and Computer-related courses to sign the BFM2000?
Will already tenured employees be forced to sign the BFM2000 or face termination? If so, will that raise accreditation issues with SACS? For the sake of those students who value a degree that actually holds a bit of value, I would hope that the new President in his search for doctrinal conformity does draw the attention of SACS.
Not like TMC has ever had a great academic reputation anyways – at least not when compared to other schools like Union. Not too long ago, TMC was regarded as the place for Athens residents to get easy A’s in order to transfer to UGA. I wonder how this decision will affect the hiring process as TMC attempts to improve its academic reputation with a more accomplished faculty. Going the “distinctly Baptist” route as it applies to other non-religion disciplines will surely shrink the applicant pool.
Brother David,
I am not sure about other states, but in NC I can assure you the only school here that has their faculty sign the BF&M2K is Southeastern College at SEBTS.
Brother BDW,
My anti-spam word was “goodness” and that is exactly what I thought when I read your comment. My goodness! :)
Seriously, to answer your first question. Let’s see, they are receiving their funds from Georgia Baptist. The GBC does affirm the BF&M2k. This also may strike at the last question you pose, but it seems relevant to me. Are you seriously trying to say that being Baptist is unique to be scholarly? Why would we not have Spanish, Math, and Computer related professors that are Baptist and would openly agree that the BF&M is something they affirm?
To answer your second set of questions, let me just say this. OOOOOOOOOOOOh the accreditation charge against us dumb ole conservatives. We loathe the accreditation status given by SACS. As a matter of argument we just cannot believe that we have to be held to standards established in some Ivory Towers that don’t amount to a hill of beans. Oh my, we are soooooooooooo scared of those mean ole accreditation agencies. :) Honestly, do you really believe that being conservative and accreditation are at polar ends of the spectrum? Why is it that moderates always fall back on the accreditation question? As for tenure, I believe you need to double check your sources. Tenure is not something, I believe the professors at TMC, have available to them.
As I conclude let me call attention to what you have pointed out. TMC was known as a place to get an easy “A”. Was this under the conservative leadership or the moderate leadership? Ah, I believe you are referencing the moderate leadership that was before this time. With that being the case, going “Distinctively Baptist” is an improvement. I can assure you that an easy “A” is not something you will find there now. As to the pool of applicants decreasing for scholarly professors. That is the same thing that Dr. Patterson was told back in 1992 when he came to SEBTS and began building that world class faculty.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
I was just curious,….most of what I know of Truett was from my days in Texas. The name “Baptist” these days yields a broad definition. I’m sure there are some reasons to include Baptist in name… but, I thought someone might know the inside scoop of why they did not choose to do so.
The BFM2000 is fairly general …..so, I wouldn’t think it would pose much of a problem for most everyone to agree with the general statements. I wish them the best as they try to provide education from a biblical worldview. Lord knows there are a lot of Baptist birthed colleges in Texas that could use a bit of reality in their academics.
Blessings,
Chris
Pretending to be a creedal conservative for a moment, I don’t see the value in forcing current faculty members or prospective faculty members to sign a distinctly Baptist creedal statement who teach in courses such as College Algebra, PreCal and Computer Information Systems. These people do not teach theology/religion/etc. A college can be distinctly Baptist without forcing its employees to sign a Baptist statement. What happens to the good conservative Methodists and Presbyterian who work at TMC? How can they, in good conscience, sign the BFM2000? Should non-Baptist faculty members be required to sign a Baptist statement?
It’s worth noting that TMC would be th first Baptist college to take this course of action. Other Presidents of conservative Southern Baptist colleges have not gone this route including Dockery’s Union.
If TMC does not offer tenure to faculty, that likely changes the situation. Other Georgia Baptist schools offer tenure. That’s um, rather common. It would be uncommon if TMC did not have a tenure-track system. Hard to lure quality professors to a school without a tenure-track option. Professors tend to value job security.
You can dismiss my accreditation comments all you want. I’ve been around Baptist Higher Education long enough to know that all Baptist Administrators – moderate, conservative and fundamentalist alike – take accreditation very seriously. How can you not? Being put on probation is a death blow for any institution. A degree that comes from an unaccredited institution is basically devoid of any meaningful value.
I was in Georgia for 14 years from 1989-2003. If TMC was ever under moderate control, I was not aware. TMC was always fourth on the totem poll of GBC schools. It’s not like Caner replaced a moderate. I don’t know who his predecessor was but it was no moderate.
TMC used to have an extension campus in Athens. While I was at UGA, TMC sold to, I believe, a state school – Gainesville College, I think. During the years of operation, TMC was a haven for kids who wanted to party in Athens but didn’t have the grades nor SAT scores coming out of high school to get in UGA. It’s much easier to transfer in to any good college than it is to get accepted as a Freshmen. All you need is 30 hours of college credit with a decent GPA. And TMC was one of several local options to get an easy A. Schools like TMC whose 25% percentile verbal score is in the 300s and 75% percentile is only 500 (as of 2007) can’t be too difficult, you know.
Who knows, maybe this move to make everyone affirm the BFM2000 will play well with many influential SBC dieharders who will in turn recommend TMC to their congregation. Other Georgia Baptist schools have struggled to survive, in part, because Georgia Baptists and other Southern Baptists outside of Georgia don’t view these schools high enough to recommend to their churches and members.
And Tim, you can’t compare Patterson’s SEBTS to Truett. Apples and Oranges.
SEBTS is in the business of hiring professors to teach in the field of religion; TMC hires professors from all disciplines.
Brother BDW,
First, let me respond to my tongue in cheek first response concerning accreditation. I was trying to sarcastically point out that moderates have consistently stated that conservatives could not maintain academic standards for accreditation. Many have posited that conservatives were just dumb country bumpkins that could not meet accreditation standards. They would point to schools such as Luther Rice with rather condescending remarks about their status. However, I would remind you I take accreditation very seriously. I was at SEBTS when the ATS placed her on probation. I remember how the liberal baptist schools in NC would accept very few hours from an undergraduate degree from SEBTS. So, please do not mistake my tongue in cheek statement about accreditation as one of none concern.
As for TMC and accreditation, I believe they maintain the same accreditation status that Baylor does. I believe both have a SACS accreditation. Of course if they expand into a University and add a Theological School, you can bet your sweet pickles that they will receive an ATS accreditation. Speaking of that. As I perused the ATS website I missed Truett Theological Seminary. Are they not accredited through ATS? Er, if they are not, you may want to re-think your statement above about accreditation.
Thanks for stopping by and have a Merry Christmas. I believe we will see great things come from TMC as a result of this move.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother BDW,
I am sorry, I missed it. I looked under member schools and could not find them in the aphabetical listing. However, when I went under denominational listing they are showing under the BGCT along with Logsdon.
Sorry for any confusion.
Blessings,
Tim
ACCREDITATION is a ‘red herring’. SACS and others are required to hold a school to its ‘documents and mission statement’. We did it at MBTS with no problem. You need somebody wise and who can navigate the mine-field that accreditors set up. After all, what’s your ‘trump card’? What God says or accreditation?
:)
Brother Casey,
You are right about the red herring. However, Accreditation is something that all of our schools have passed with no problems. Keep up the good work at MBTS. God is blessing that school in a mighty way. Dr. Roberts is being led by God, no doubt.
Blessings,
Tim
BDW, you said,
“What’s the value in requiring professors that teach Math, Spanish, and Computer-related courses to sign the BFM2000? . . . I don’t see the value in forcing current faculty members or prospective faculty members to sign a distinctly Baptist creedal statement who teach in courses such as College Algebra, PreCal and Computer Information Systems. . . . It’s worth noting that TMC would be th first Baptist college to take this course of action. Other Presidents of conservative Southern Baptist colleges have not gone this route including Dockery’s Union.”
From Union’s website:
“Examples of Integrative Questions by Discipline
Biology: To what extent, if any, should genetic engineering be used to enhance human well-being?
English: What are the similarities and differences in interpreting the Biblical text and interpreting other literature texts?
Sociology/Social Work: To what extent are social problems caused by inadequacies in societal structures or by individual or group irresponsibility?
Business: What social responsibility, if any, does a business enterprise have toward its employees and the geographical region in which the business is located?
Political Science: What is the role of forgiveness in international relations?
Criminal Justice: To what extent should the penal system be retributive or restorative, or both?
Fine Arts: What are the limits, if any, on the freedom for human creative expression?
History: How do alternative views on the “direction of history” (e.g., linear, cyclical, teleological) fit or not fit with the Christian narrative?
Computer Science: What are the ethical implications of the use of the internet?
Economics: What is the relationship between the quest for profitability and the Christian call for compassion and justice?
Education: What is the relationship between subject-centered and student-centered teaching pedagogies in light of a Christian perspective on personhood?
Physics: What are the similarities and differences between the use of models in scientific inquiry and the use of models in theological inquiry?
Sports Medicine: What are the limits, if any, on allowable means for enhancing athletic performance?
Communications: What is the potential for finding common ground through dialogue when the conversationalists are embedded in different traditions?”
Dr. Dockery is the editor and compiler of The Integration of Faith and Learning: A Basic Bibliography (1998).
Included with a decription of requirements for a full-time faculty position in physics is the following:
“Successful candidates must be professing Christians who are active members of a local church, enthusiastically support Union University’s Identity, Mission and Core Values, and articulate a Christian worldview in their work and life.”
On the faculty application is the following:
“Church Membership
Union University employs only individuals who have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. All employees are expected to be active members of a local Christian church.
Standards of Conduct
All Union University faculty are expected to live an exemplary Christian life both on and off campus. In regard to lifestyle, Union University expects that all faculty
1. will adhere to the university’s Identity, Mission, and Core Values Statements. . . .
2. will neither consume alcohol as a beverage nor engage personally in the production, sale, or
distribution of alcohol as a beverage.
3. will neither use illegal drugs nor engage in the production, sale, or distribution of illegal drugs.
4. will refrain from all sexual relationships outside of marriage including, but not limited to, homosexual relations.
Chapel and Religious Activities
All full-time faculty are expected to attend chapel on a regular basis and to participate in other religious emphases and activities sponsored by the university for personal enrichment and as an example and encouragement to their colleagues and to students.”
P.S.: Union does not require faculty members to sign the 2000 BF&M, but you can see that what they are required to sign is fairly stringent.
I’m quite familiar with Dockery’s views on the integration of faith and learning. We have a number of professors at my school who share Dockery’s views on that subject.
The requirement that University employees be active members of a church is not stringent for a school that actually prides itself in being a Christian institution.
The good lifestyle, no illegal drugs, sexual morality etc. is typical for a Christian school.
The alcohol requirement (regarding consumption) is a little strict. Although, my school has something similar in that an employee can not represent consume alcohol at a university function or in their capacity as an university employee.
Still, these “good morals” requirements are completely different from a sectarian creedal statement.
The BFM is a distinctly “Baptist” document in that members of *some* other Christian denominations can not, in good conscience, sign the document. Can we at least acknowledge that point? I bet Dockery has more than a few employees who are leaders in their non-Baptist churches who could not sign the BFM.
Again, I’m not sure the value of requiring profs in Math and Science fields sign a sectarian statement.
I am a little confused on one point here. According to the article, Dr. Caner refered to TMC as a \”Southern Baptist college\” and at least one, maybe two, in the comment stream have implied it (to my ears anyway). But is that correct? I thought the only Southern Baptist colleges were those established at the various seminaries as an alternative to liberal (so-called) state Baptist colleges (and I am not trying to start a fight over that, just mentioning it as an explanation). If TMC is a Southern Baptist college, it would have to receive funding from the Southern Baptist Convention, would it not? This would be very different from a college which receives funding from and was established by the Georgia Baptist convention, even if it draws many of its students from Southern Baptist churches. Just looking for clarity here.
John
Brother Mike,
As BDW has pointed out the statement of Union is not a distinctively Baptist understanding for her professors. The only place it could be stated it is distinctively Baptist is where the requirements call for a successful candidate to support Union University’s Identity. We all know it the school is a Baptist institution.
However TMC is a much stronger advocate of identifying herself with Georgia Baptist specifically and Southern Baptist in general. This, I believe answers Brother John Farriss’ question. Georgia Baptist has, I believe, publicly affirmed the BF&M2k. Thus, TMC is first in agreement with GBC and secondly affirming overall the SBC.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother BDW,
One other thing. I blieve if you will check Louisiana, their Baptist college has implemented the same standard.
Blessing,
Tim
Tim,
If I understand your reply correctly, all it takes, at least for a school, to be “Southern Baptist” is to affirm the BF&M, presumably the 2000 version. Is this correct? To be honest, I have a couple of issues with that.
At most, it seems to me, that is a step toward affirming “friendly cooperation,” which would then be manifested in some other, more tangible way, such as contributing financially to the work of the SBC. If a local association or state convention affirms the 2000 (possible other) BF&M, they are still the local association or state convention, and they still retain their own identity while being in friendly cooperation with the SBC. consequently, the logic of an affirmation of the FB&M fails to make the organization part of the SBC in any organic way.
But that brings up my bigger issue, which is that it reduces (in this case) the college’s identity to a franchise of the Southern Baptist Convention. That would suggest at least the possibility that any organization or institution which likewise affirms the 2000 BF&M becomes regarded as a creature of the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC then must be regarded as the central identity, possibly the central authority, for that organization or institution. While this may seem to be a small point–after all, it has no effect on financial issues or the governing documents of the organization/institution–it could represent a significant shift in the organizational understanding of the SBC. And if there is a shift in thinking, then a shift in governance surely will follow, sooner or later. Historically, the local church was the highest body, and that local church related simultaneously to three autonomyous bodies: the local association, the state convention, and the SBC, cooperating in order to achieve common goals. This however, if carried through to the church, could make the structure more hierarchial–if each becomes understood as a franchise of the SBC, answering to the SBC, it effectly puts the local church at the bottom of the pyramid, answering to three levels above it. It is a way of thinking that would eventually end the Southern Baptist Convention as it has existed since 1845. And while I do not generally like to make universal statements, it seems to be very consistent with “Baptist identity” and the fundamentalist/conservative leadership the Conention has has since 1979.
John,
Technically you are correct that only SBC seminaries, and now some seminary colleges, are “owned” by the national Southern Baptist Convention. The national SBC financially supports them and elects their trustees.
But since the state Baptist Conventions affiliate with the SBC, in that respect their colleges and universities are considered Southern Baptist. So I guess you can have a Southern Baptist institution based on it being a part of the national SBC, or based on it being a part of the state convention.
To make it more confusing, you then have institutions like Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary that are not supported by the national SBC or a state convention, yet they are Southern Baptist in that they have strong connections with SBC people, churches, and I think their trustees are SBC. They would consider themselves Southern Baptist. I guess you could call them an independent, conservative, Southern Baptist school.
David R. Brumbelow
I admit that I have a warm place in my heart for Union University. My older son graduated from Union, and my younger son is in his fourth year there. Both have received generous MK scholarships from Union.
At the very least, all faculty members of universities supported by state Baptist conventions should be mature Christians of good moral character (a redundant expression?). I also believe that all universities affiliated with state Baptist conventions should require that the majority of their faculty members be active members of churches belonging to their particular state conventions. In addition, I think that all universities affiliated with state Baptist conventions should require a comprehensive evangelism/apologetics course for all students. Such a course would accomplish two things: (1) It would expose non-Christian students to the plan of salvation multiple times, and (2) it would help Christian students develop the ability to proclaim the gospel to people with a variety of worldviews (modern, postmodern, etc.).
Brother John,
I am currently on vacation and am getting ready to go and see the chipmunks movie with my daughter. I do want to interact with you and will do so when I get a chance. I plan to return after supper and swim with Rebekah. After that we will walk on the beach. So it may be about 9 or 10 before I can fully respond. But I will respond.
I hope you understand my present situation.
Blessings,
Tim
The mandatory apologetics class for all students seems entirely unnecessary. Does Union require such a course for students in non-religion fields?
Assuming the school requires chapel attendance, students will on a regular basis be exposed to the gospel, plan of salvation, etc. Most Baptist schools require all students to take a mandatory Scriptures and History courses where they are exposed to both Christian theology and the history of Christianity, its teachings and various movements, etc.
Tim, I hope you enjoy the vacation. Above all else, share time with your children. Maybe I am wrong, but I believe that when we stand befor Christ, He will be more concerned with how we loved and treated especially those with whose lives we were entrusted than with how we argued or interacted or dialogued with other believers in formats such as this. By 9 or 10, I expect to be off-line, relaxing in front of a nice fire, watching TV and/or reading; and tomorrow will be soon enough to see who said what to whom on line.
John
BDW, I am a student at Union and chapel attendance (required) does not in my opinion assure that students will hear the gospel presented. Some students find loopholes to swipe their ID cards and yet not go to chapel. The most common case though is that students study and/or sleep during chapel. This makes it easy for people to not hear the gospel presented. Add to this that chapel is not always used for preaching anyway.
I agree that an apologetic/evangelism course would be a useful requirement for the university to have. The current required courses are Old and New Testament survey. These classes do cover a lot of important topics but don’t teach everything that a dedicated apologetic/evangelism course might.
Well, the apple didn’t fall far from the tree.
BDW, you may have misunderstood me. Union does not currently have a required evangelism/apologetics course. I was suggesting such for all universities affiliated with state conventions.
At Union, non-Christian students are becoming Christians. All of us agree that such conversions are wonderful. I believe, however, that a required evangelism/apologetics course would be a great addition to the degree programs at all of our affiliated universities. It would provide more accountability. Imagine that we told our students that they would have no tests, no attendance requirements, no grade reports, etc. I doubt they would learn as much in math, science, languages, etc. At Mid-America Baptist Seminary, students are required to witness to an average of one non-Christian per week. They receive no academic credit for the semester if they fail to meet that requirement. Report hour on Tuesdays during chapel is exciting when students share their witnessing experiences. They learn evangelism/apologetics in the classroom, but they also learn it from practical experience. I would suggest that SBC seminaries have a requirement of one witness per month and that universities affiliated with state conventions require a small number of witnessing attempts during the time that students take a required evangelism/apologetics course.
Obviously, all of us should witness on a regular basis. I must testify that I witness more frequently when I am accountable to a group or institution.
Best wishes for the New Year,
Paul’s Dad
David B.,
I was at SWBTS from 1980 to 1983. Weren’t you there at that time?
P.S.: To clarify, I would like to see our SBC seminaries go to a once-a-month witnessing requirement as a beginning point. I would like to eventually see them require an average of one witness per week as Mid-America does.
P.P.S.: One more point of clarification — The witnessing attempts at affiliated universities would not be a requirement for non-Christian students.
Baptist Theologue, what about non-Baptist students? (let’s suppose…)
Brother BT,
The things you are presenting may not hit the professional academic circles as something very palatable. But, I believe with you, that true men and women of God that understand the genesis of academia would welcome your suggestions. After all, studying to show yourself approved is a remarkable privilege and command for any believer. Even the unbeliever will benefit from a leader that understands the reality of the biblical worldview and the reality of the gospel in the history of the world. To push against the reality of God’s gifting and control of academia is to misunderstand His purposes in this world to bring Him Glory.
It is inopportune how far academia has slipped in America during the past 150 years. We would all do well to return to the reality of a biblical worldview for the sake of our families and our government. Why not start with some of these schools that claim some sort of Baptist affiliation.
Blessings,
Chris
BDW, you asked about non-Baptist students. I assume you were referring to non-Baptist, Christian students rather than non-Christian students. As I said, I believe that the majority of faculty members should be members of churches affiliated with the same state convention with which the university is affiliated. Even when a particular course is not theological in nature, the professor can still be quite a theological influence in the lives of students. Baptist students can also influence non-Baptist students. Parents of students recognize this situation. If Methodist parents are worried about their students becoming Baptists under the influence of Baptist professors and students, then they will probably not pay to send them to a university with a strong Baptist identity. Of course, some non-Baptist parents do not place much emphasis on denominational identity. I suppose that a strong Baptist identity could turn away some potential students and perhaps hurt enrollment. It doesn’t seem to be hurting Union. If you look at Union’s website (the tab “about” at the top of the page), you will notice the following statement: “History: Founded in 1823, Union is the oldest institution affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. . . . The progress that has been made during this time has been remarkable: fall enrollment increased from 1972 (in 1996) to 4050 (in 2009). During that time, Union also received 17 of the largest gifts in its history.” We tend to measure success by enrollment, but I don’t believe that enrollment should be the primary measure of success. Biblical faithfulness is more important. As good stewards, we should financially support institutions that educate students in the most theologically correct way, which is the Southern Baptist way. If parents are looking for an educational institution without a theological identity, then they will probably be looking at public institutions supported by tax dollars.
Chris, your words are well taken on this end.
Oops. . . . My answer in #34 should have been to Byroniac rather than to BDW. My bad.
Baptist Theologue,
The only real reason I asked was because I do not believe in compulsory evangelism, even for Baptists. However, I have the minority viewpoint on that I know. Were I a student, I would have no problem with such a compulsory evangelism class just being an elective but requiring witnessing as part of the course requirements, however. But I appreciate your comments. Food for thought. Thanks.
You’re welcome! Best wishes for a great New Year.
Brother Mike,
I am not sure I can agree that a required Evangelism class be implemented. The reason is that precludes a presumption that all students entering school are Christian. That is a huge leap in faith.
I do believe that there should be a required Baptist History class for all students in Baptist colleges. Regardless of their major they are in a school supported by the $$$ of Baptist. The reason we find ourselves in many of the issues today, is that many do not know Baptist history.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I certainly do not presume that all students are Christians in our Christian schools. I believe that non-Christians could take a required evangelism/apologetics class in our affiliated universities with few problems if the class is conducted correctly. Such a class should require all students to master the academic material, but only the Christian students should be required to do actual witnessing as part of the course work during the semester. Another dynamic to this is that some students who thought they were Christians might realize during the semester that they were not really converted. God might use the course material to reveal to such students that they had never surrendered their lives to Christ in repentance and faith. Perhaps they grew up in a Christian family and based their supposed Christian conversion on an emotional conviction without repentance/faith, on mere intellectual assent, on their Christian family heritage, etc. As you know, even in our seminaries, and sometimes in our pulpits, supposed Christians discover that they are not really Christians, and they later experience joyous conversion. Because of the large number of young children professing faith and being baptized in SBC churches, this phenomenon is not unexpected. I certainly do not believe that we should manipulate genuine Christians into thinking that they are not Christians. If a person who thinks he is a Christian is not really a Christian, however, then revealing the truth to him is obviously a good thing.
P.S.: It occurs to me that someone might object that an evangelism class is a type of discipleship and that discipleship should not precede conversion. Consider, however, that most of us who are pastors preach discipleship messages on Sundays to a mixed group of Christians and non-Christians. We often include the plan of salvation at the end of the message and hope that non-Christians will surrender their lives to Christ in repentance and faith. I believe, however, that a non-Christian can benefit from Bible teaching and preaching. That is why we have Sunday School classes for children that are not yet Christians. They learn biblical concepts before they become Christians, and such knowledge is beneficial. As they develop a biblical worldview, they are prepared for conversion. They are likely to hear the gospel presented several times in their Sunday School classes. My understanding is that the average Christian in America hears the gospel seven times before he surrenders his life to Christ. Again, this is one reason I am encouraging a required evangelism/apologetics class in our affiliated universities.
Brother BT,
Certainly the lab portion of the class would be impossible for the unsaved classmate. But, there is little doubt that the information would be beneficial to every student. Unless of course, we think the gospel is only for the students that confess Christ as Lord.
After all, we that have attended secular schools and universities have been required to learn “evolutionary” biology, even though the theories have no basis in reality when compared to how God created man. I sat through those courses and had no problem getting A’s at repeating back those theories to the instructor. I would hope that God’s Word,..reflecting the truth of evangelism, would be a bit more beneficial than the theory (Darwinian) that is directly opposed to the truth of God’s Word.
Why would a University that is established on the truth of God’s Word, not want to display the benefit of those truths.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, I agree. I went to a public university. I majored in microbiology and minored in chemistry. I can identify with what you said.
Brother Mike & Chris,
You may call me a liberal after this but….. :) Seriously, I am not sure I can agree with the evangelism course being a requirement. Why? It seems that requiring Evangelism would be a type of “bible beating over your head” evangelism. I can understand an “apologetics” class that one may desire to require, but not one based solely on evangelism.
Do I expect that all students professing to be Christians are? No, I do not. I have taught evangelism courses in my ministry and saw church members get saved. However, a university does not have the same mission a church does. Church are called by God to take the Great Commission to the world. A college does not have that mission. They may want it and some presidents may see their students as their congregation, but a college is not a church.
Now, if a college is presenting every discipline from a Biblical World View, that will accomplish what you two have stated is your concerns.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
You would be an unusual liberal my friend. :)
When I think of evangelism….it is simply a class on the gospel of God….His good news. I think that would be beneficial to anyone willing to attend a college that really believes the bible to be its foundation.
Teaching the gospel of God does not require any coersion or beating at all. Just the simple truth of the news is of great benefit.
Unfortunately, from the types of responses we see from college students coming out of “Christian” colleges and universities, the good news is not well understood, whether they confess Jesus Christ as their Lord or not. Church buildings today are filled with folks that do not know what the gospel is….a little education would not be such a bad thing…and nothing close to a beating. Students get beat with enough bad news, why not give them the good.
Blessings,
Chris
Tim, you said,
“It seems that requiring Evangelism would be a type of ‘Bible beating over your head’ evangelism.”
Why?
You also said,
“I have taught evangelism courses in my ministry and saw church members get saved. However, a university does not have the same mission a church does. Church are called by God to take the Great Commission to the world. A college does not have that mission. They may want it and some presidents may see their students as their congregation, but a college is not a church.”
Campus Crusade for Christ has the following purpose statement:
“Helping to fulfill the Great Commission in the power of the Holy Spirit by winning people to faith in Jesus Christ, building them in their faith and sending them to win and build others; and helping the Body of Christ do evangelism and discipleship.”
Do you believe that parachurch ministries such as Campus Crusade should not be teaching evangelism courses?
If you believe that Campus Crusade can teach evangelism courses on university campuses, do you really believe that Baptist professors at Baptist universities should not teach evangelism?
P.S.: Tim, I noticed on Truett-McConnell’s Facebook site the following prayer request:
“Please be in prayer for our students who are on a mission trip to Amsterdam. Follow their trip through pictures, videos and articles at http://www.truett.edu/missions.”
From the Truett-McConnell website:
“Earlier this year Truett-McConnell established a World Missions Center and named missiologist H. Edward Pruitt as founding director. Pruitt arrived on campus on August 1 and began working to expand Truett-McConnell’s missions program.”
From Union University’s website:
“Through Union University, you have the opportunity to join God where He is at work around the globe! Each year the Office of Campus Ministries sponsors short-term mission projects (Global Outreach Trips) throughout the world—literally! Whether its sharing the gospel with college students in Bangkok, demonstrating Christ’s love to orphans in Honduras, or ministering to inner-city children in Irving, Texas, GO Trips at Union University are impacting the world by making His Name known. Students are sent out each winter, spring, and summer break to engage the world with the gospel.”
You said that churches are “called by God to take the Great Commission to the world. A college does not have that mission.” Do you disagree with the missions activities of Truett-McConnell College and Union University?
Correct me if I am misunderstanding you. It sounds like you are saying that Baptist universities should not be doing missions and evangelism.
Well, I am not Tim Rogers, but he expressed exactly what I was thinking better than I could have said it, and I am interested in his answers to the questions posed in #46. Requiring compulsory evangelism on the part of students places them in a position where religious performance is expected and most likely not voluntary or sincere. So it is coercive towards the student, and in turn, the student can be coercive without intending to be, simply because “evangelism” becomes an assignment with an expectation of success, and not a calling and ordination of God. That’s how I see it anyway. I honestly believe if a student does not desire to evangelize, then unless there is some faulty theology at work, then it is probably not God’s desire either. He’s sovereign and He will arrange whatever evangelism and salvation He desires to occur. We should just be willing vessels, as much as is up to us, that is.
Byroniac, you said,
“Requiring compulsory evangelism on the part of students places them in a position where religious performance is expected and most likely not voluntary or sincere.”
If a person is a Christian, then religious performance (obedience to the Great Commission) should indeed be expected. Such performance (obedience) should be both voluntary and sincere. If a student chooses to attend a university that requires such an evangelism/apologetics class, then he is fulfilling the requirements of that class voluntarily.
You also said,
“So it is coercive towards the student, and in turn, the student can be coercive without intending to be, simply because ‘evangelism’ becomes an assignment with an expectation of success, and not a calling and ordination of God.”
Again, if a student chooses to attend a university that requires a witnessing class, then he or she is not being coerced. Some potential seminary students might not choose to attend Mid-America Seminary because of the witnessing requirement. The students who do choose to attend Mid-America are not coerced. They understand that group accountability is a good thing. Hopefully, all of us understand that evangelism is not a special calling for a small group of Christians such as pastors. Evangelism is simply obedience to the Great Commission directed to all Christians.
P.S.: You said,
“I honestly believe if a student does not desire to evangelize, then unless there is some faulty theology at work, then it is probably not God’s desire either. He’s sovereign and He will arrange whatever evangelism and salvation He desires to occur. We should just be willing vessels, as much as is up to us, that is.”
This statement seems contradictory to me. If we are willing vessels, then we will be willing to obey the Great Commission. We live in a target-rich environment in America. Many lost people are in our spheres of influence. Some are more receptive at the present time than are others. One section of an evangelism/apologetics course should be devoted to teaching students how to identify receptive non-Christians and effectively evangelize them. When you use the word “desire,” are you speaking of fleshly desire or spiritual desire? Surely our sovereign God will direct us to the non-Christians that He plans for us to evangelize in foreknown divine appointments. Our flesh may not be willing, but our spiritual desires will be influenced by the indwelling Holy Spirit, and we will be motivated to witness.
From the Union University website:
“The purchase, possession, use, or distribution of alcoholic beverages, drug paraphernalia, or any substance of abuse is prohibited on and off campus, except under the direction of a licensed physician. . . . Union students are expected to maintain a standard of dress which ensures neatness, cleanliness, and appropriateness of attire. In their dress, as in their behavior, students are expected to reflect the marks of educated and mature Christ-centered individuals.”
The alcohol and neatness policies could be viewed as coercive. Again, students choose to attend Union. They are not being forced to attend Union.
P.P.S.: The receptivity principle is clearly taught in the New Testament, but it is not often taught in our pulpits. Many Christians get turned off in their first attempts at evangelism because they try to evangelize hardened, non-receptive people. Thus, they decide that they are not called to evangelism. Baptist professors could help students understand key principles such as the receptivity principle. Students could learn to recognize non-Christians who are receptive to the gospel, and God could certainly use them to evangelize individuals that He has prepared for a divine appointment. Of course, God directs us to receptive non-Christians in other ways as well (sometimes in seeming accidents that really aren’t accidents–e.g., the person next to us on a plane). The receptivity principle can also be viewed simply as an application of Blackaby’s observation that we should join God where we see Him working in a special way.
Perhaps an example will help you see what I mean, hopefully. When I attended seminary, the degree required an evangelism class with a compulsory witnessing component. We were required to follow a certain evangelistic program that took at a minimum fifteen to twenty minutes to explain salvation and the Gospel to our evangelism targets. It is not a bad program in and of itself, actually, but our group never met anyone who seemed genuinely interested. Nonetheless, being a course requirement, we were compelled to evangelize, if not the willing, then the unwilling. That is partially what I mean by coercive.
But on the other hand, I never had a great desire to evangelize or witness while I was there. Now, whatever the reason, even if I was at fault, I could not possibly claim sincerity in any desire to witness or evangelize. I have walked with the Lord long enough to realize that He is able to both place the desire on your heart and the intended recipients in your path. Evangelism should just happen. I would agree that methods and techniques can be taught, but the Holy Spirit cannot be put on a schedule or exercised as part of a program (reminds me of Simon the Sorcerer in the Scriptures in a way). That does not mean we should not evangelize. It just means all our activity in the flesh is wasted unless God has already worked in the Spirit and grants our efforts to come to fruition. It seems better to me to rely on God’s Sovereignty to plan evangelism and witnessing instead of trying to make it happen or make something come out of our own efforts. We cannot always distinguish between fleshly desire and spiritual desire, so perhaps it is better to not even try, but let God handle it in the first place. That is all I am saying.
But you bring up a good point that I cannot argue against very well: a student who chooses to attend where such compulsory evangelism is required is indeed not being coerced (in the fullest sense, at any rate). I would simply not attend (or stop attending, which is what happened in my case, though there were personal reasons as well). My concern in light of your rather well-put point has to become not whether something is coercive or not (as I think you have answered that) but whether compulsory witnessing should be required. I cannot help but think that witnessing is not something we do but witnessing is part of who we are in Christ, and if God is involved, then sometimes we will not even be aware of it.
If our country suffered the persecution of Christianity that exists in other countries, I suppose this disagreement would become a moot point. I also suspect that those who truly belong to Christ will find ways to evangelize and witness, and they will not be following whatever the latest and greatest programs have to say on the subject, necessarily. Oh, and I do not understand the receptivity principle, so I have to ask, how can you recognize if someone is “receptive” to the Gospel or not? What does that even mean, in light of God’s regeneration and conversion of sinners, which is spiritual and unseen? I guess if someone is willing to hear, you share the Gospel and trust God with the results?
Brother BT,
I’m with you here my friend. How have we come to understand our command to follow Christ as coercive. More specifically, if we are called to lead our families and lead those under our “academic” care, then why should be believe what the world believes and separate. We have been “called out” to be salt and light. We were not called out to be wood, hay, and stubble (politically correct in other words).
A couple of our brothers didn’t shy away….
Act 4:13-21 Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus. (14) And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say in reply. (15) But when they had ordered them to leave the Council, they began to confer with one another, (16) saying, “What shall we do with these men? For the fact that a noteworthy miracle has taken place through them is apparent to all who live in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. (17) “But so that it will not spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no longer to any man in this name.” (18) And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. (19) But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; (20) for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.” (21) When they had threatened them further, they let them go (finding no basis on which to punish them) on account of the people, because they were all glorifying God for what had happened;”
Maybe the religious society in America is trying to mirror the one in Jesus day….and are somehow more political savvy than Peter or John. Yet they have left us with a good principle…”for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard”. If one is a historian of any sort,…it is crystal clear that the academic American culture is different than in our founding. Some Christians think it is better (the make believe historians)….. others just don’t want to talk about it (mute Christians living in fear).
Keep bringing the reality BT!
Blessings,
Chris
I can see some issues where all students are required to take an evangelism course, with a required “lab” in which they witness. These issues may can be overcome, and in fact, may already have been, but they occur to me anyway.
One: what is the “method” of evangelism to be used? Is it one of the ones where you memorize a rote (and sometimes lengthy, per Byroniac’s comment) introduction? Sometimes “unwilling” folks take this as an opportunity to argue with their “witnesses,” and some of them can be sharp. And such methods seem to have little value in today’s culture, because most people recognize its (potential) lack of sincerity. Others may feel they are being used as “lab rats” in an experiment. Is that what we want the unsaved world to feel from us? Or does it place the student’s own experience at the center? And if so, how are possibly immature Christians going to approach it?
Two: does such a requirement not presuppose, or come close to presupposing, that all Christians can be evangelists if they just are equipped properly (i.e., given a method) and perhaps pushed a little? The truth is, not everyone has that spiritual gift; and while all should know how to share, I just wonder if this, as a requirement, is not going to place a lot of undue pressure on those without the gift of evangelism, or discipleship. Every Christian has gifts, but some have gifts more geared toward support for their brothers and sisters, or helping, or cooking, or teaching, or something that does not involve witnessing.
John
Byroniac, you asked,
“How can you recognize if someone is ‘receptive’ to the Gospel or not?”
Various factors that affect receptivity can be identified. There are some seemingly non-spiritual factors that God can use to make some people receptive. In concert with the seemingly non-spiritual factors, the Holy Spirit places some people under conviction to make them receptive, and we can sense when non-Christians are under such special conviction. We are discussing individuals, but some groups of people are more receptive than other groups. Some quotes about receptivity might help.
Donald McGavran: “Myriads of factors affect responsiveness; I cannot attempt to list them all. A few, however, are so common and influential that they should be set forth. . . . New Settlements. . . . Immigrants and migrants have been so pounded by circumstances that they are receptive to all sorts of innovations, among which is the gospel. . . . African soldiers in World War II who had seen the world came back to resistant tribal areas of Africa and sparked movements to the Christian faith. . . . Nationalism . . . . Religious Change. . . . Confucianism is finished. Buddhism in China is greatly weakened, too. As China opens to freer interchange of thought, the church will face at least nine hundred million who live in a faith vacuum. . . . Control inhibits responsiveness to the Christian gospel. Relaxing of controls encourages it. . . . Evangelism can be and ought to be directed to responsive persons, groups, and segments of society.”
McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, Third Edition (originally published in 1970), 182-187.
Wade Akins: “One way to determine areas that will be more receptive is by observing where the major social changes are occurring. . . . Another way to discover receptive people is by finding those who feel a great need for the Lord due to a special crisis.”
Wade Akins, Pioneer Evangelism (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Convencao Batista Brasileira, 2003), 29-30.
Douglas Priest: “Church growth theoreticians are well aware of factors which heighten the responsiveness of a people. Realizing that politics often plays a role in receptivity, they keep one eye on the political situation.”
Douglas Priest, “Receptivity among the Galla in Ethiopia,” Church Growth Bulletin 12, no. 1 (November 1975): 497.
Bart Neyrinck and Dirk Hutsebaut: “This is a sense of basic trust: a sense of being all right, of trusting both oneself and others. . . . Basic trust can be seen as a prerequisite of receptive openness.”
Bart Neyrinck and Dirk Hutsebaut, “Religious Belief (Not Necessarily) Embedded in Basic Trust and Receptivity,” Journal of Empirical Theology 17, no. 1 (2004): 86.
James Engel: “Receptivity often varies inversely with economic development. There is strong evidence that satiation of survival needs and achievement of middle class status lead to perceived satisfaction with life as it is. This means that expectations and perceived reality essentially coincide, thus leading to little or no desire for change. As a result, receptivity is lowered, thus creating a potent barrier for evangelism.”
James F. Engel, “The Road to Conversion: the Latest Research Insights,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 26, no. 2 (April 1990): 190-1.
George Hunter: “Secular people experience receptive seasons in their lives, when they are dissatisfied with their lives, when the prevenient grace of God is moving in their souls, when they are open to ‘something else’ and when communication to them is more possible.”
George G. Hunter III, How to Reach Secular People (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992), 64.
Thom Rainer: “The most receptive time of a person’s life to be reached for the gospel is when he or she is a child or teenager.”
Thom Rainer, “The Great Commission to Reach a New Generation,” in Who Will Be Saved? Defending the Biblical Understanding of God, Salvation, and Evangelism, ed. Paul R. House and Gregory A. Thornbury (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 195.
Brother Mike,
I am responding to your comment #46.
“It seems that requiring Evangelism would be a type of ‘Bible beating over your head’ evangelism.”
Why?
Because it is required. Do I need to say more? However, I will. When I am in a required course and have to give the required answers then that is not evangelism. Evangelism is the good news of Jesus being freely presented and freely received.
Do you believe that parachurch ministries such as Campus Crusade should not be teaching evangelism courses?
The last I checked on C3 the students that joined this group did so voluntarily. You are advocating a required course and a required going out.
If you believe that Campus Crusade can teach evangelism courses on university campuses, do you really believe that Baptist professors at Baptist universities should not teach evangelism?
I do not believe I have advocated a ban on Baptist professors teaching evangelism at Baptist universities. I have advocated that a required evangelism course complete with mandatory witnessing assignments that entail an accountability practice is not something I believe to be wise for all students in a Baptist College setting.
Now, on to your P.S. comment #47
You said that churches are “called by God to take the Great Commission to the world. A college does not have that mission.” Do you disagree with the missions activities of Truett-McConnell College and Union University?
Correct me if I am misunderstanding you. It sounds like you are saying that Baptist universities should not be doing missions and evangelism.
First the correction. You are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that Baptist universities should not be doing missions and evangelism.
Second, the statements from Union and even the statement from TMC nowhere states they are planting churches in these countries. I believe these colleges go in support and assist the local churches of the areas. Huge difference.
It does seem that I find myself in a strange situation. I am not against evangelism and encourage more of these activities in our Baptist colleges and universities. However, I have not seen where there is a requirement for every student to take an evangelism course that mandates witnessing as part of their grade. That is not evangelism.
Now, if there is an evangelism course offered as an elective that mandates witnessing as part of the grade, then I have no problem with that. Why? Because that is a freely chosen course and it is not mandated on students that have no desire to be there.
Blessings,
Tim
John,
In a good evangelism/apologetics class, a variety of methods can be introduced. A method that works well with one group may not work well with another group. Certain essential elements must be included with any method.
You asked,
“Two: does such a requirement not presuppose, or come close to presupposing, that all Christians can be evangelists if they just are equipped properly (i.e., given a method) and perhaps pushed a little? The truth is, not everyone has that spiritual gift; and while all should know how to share, I just wonder if this, as a requirement, is not going to place a lot of undue pressure on those without the gift of evangelism, or discipleship. Every Christian has gifts, but some have gifts more geared toward support for their brothers and sisters, or helping, or cooking, or teaching, or something that does not involve witnessing.”
Hopefully we agree that the Great Commission is for every Christian. We probably also agree that every Christian will not be a professional evangelist who conducts revival meetings on a regular basis, etc. All Christians, however, are empowered to be witnesses (Acts 1:8), and in that sense they are to be evangelists in their spheres of influence.
Tim, thanks for the clarifications. Do you believe that Mid-America Baptist Seminary is in error for requiring students to witness an average of one time per week?
Brother Chris,
How have we come to understand our command to follow Christ as coercive.
You and Brother Mike cannot have it both ways. All students entering into a Baptist college/university are not Christians. While I agree with you that they should know up front we are Baptist in our beliefs and Christians because God through Christ Jesus changed our attitudes and actions. I disagree that we must require non-Christians to be in a course that presents the Gospel to other non-Christians. I have been on mission trips where the interpreter got saved. However, that is the exception not the rule. I always look for interpreters that know Christ. Students do not enter private colleges/universities for the same reasons. Some do enter because of the mission statement. Others enter because of the lesser academic requirements on entrance exams. We believe this to be okay because of our belief that all deserve a chance. Once there the quality of academics in our colleges/universities are excellent. But, if I missed this part in Baptist history then I will concede to you. I thought that our Baptist colleges were started for the simple reason to have an educated clergy. Not place nurses, physicians, school teachers etc. etc. in the secular world. It seems that changed around 1950 when it was realized we could do such.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
I, like you, are not against evangelism. In fact, the good news (the evangel) is really not good news when beat about the head. So, the solution is don’t present the good news in that manner. We have all seen self-righteous zealots teach and present the gospel….so surely the school can know if that is the case. This is really no different than calculus. I’ve had awful “teachers” on the subject of calculus as it was beat about my head. But, then on the other hand there are wonderful teachers of calculus, which was very beneficial.
I would tend to believe that “the evangel” is more important than “calculus”. If a school really believes that it is…then it will not have a problem defining a course that is edifying and accurate concerning the truth of God’s power, regardless of the students standing before God. I would make the lab optional (elective), but placing “the evangel” as a primary prerequisite is not only a good thing,… it would appear that it should be held up as the main thing.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Mike,
Your comment #58.
No, I do not. I took such a course at SEBTS under Dr. Alvin Reid. He required us to go out in teams once a week. It was refreshing to take a course that had a hands-on element to it. I remember hearing the reports through tears as teams would tell of their experience during the next class. I also remember speaking through tears asking the class to pray for a man that refused to accept the truth of the Gospel.
Remember something here. You have now compared M-ABTS to Union/TMC/all Baptist colleges/universities. Huge difference. M-ABTS is in the business of training pastors. I believe all pastors should be able to witness and freely share their faith. How will they fulfill Ephesians 4 if they are not equipped themselves? Colleges/universities are not in the business of training clergy. Now, if in the religion major there is a required Evangelism class, I would be in full support of that. Why? Only those called into ministry are taking that particular major.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
I also realize we are discussing two different subjects here as well. One is on the subject of teaching and the evangel. The other is on the practicing of what Christ has called us (believers) to do in this world.
For the record, I am treating those as two separate subjects. I believe that institutions founded on Baptist principles should require that its students be exposed to the evangel. That is consistent with the commission. I do not believe any student (Confessing or not Confessing)should be required to practice presenting the evangel. The Holy Spirit takes care of that maturing of the believer on His own….along with the edification and training of the church.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Chris,
I am not sure if I am hearing you correctly. You seem to advocate a course of academic study of the proof the Gospel is the good news. Such a course would seem to have for its basis the Bible, philosophy, logic, and other disciplines studied. That, to me, is not an Evangelism course, that is an apologetics course and I have no problem have apologetics as a required course in a Baptist college/university.
When I am speaking of an Evangelism course I am speaking of the only basic book being the Bible. There would be other required reading such as evangelism books written by evangelism professors. Then there would be a lab required by all students. You could not fairly require one lab for Christian students and another lab for non-Christian students. I would be the first in the Academic Dean’s office gripping about that. (If you could ask my former Academic Dean he would tell you that to the be truth.) This is the type of required course I am against.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, in answer to my question about why “requiring Evangelism would be a type of ‘Bible beating over your head’ evangelism” you said,
“Because it is required. Do I need to say more? However, I will. When I am in a required course and have to give the required answers then that is not evangelism. Evangelism is the good news of Jesus being freely presented and freely received.”
Wouldn’t your statement also hold true for a required course in a seminary such as MABTS?
You also said,
“MABTS is in the business of training pastors. I believe all pastors should be able to witness and freely share their faith. How will they fulfill Ephesians 4 if they are not equipped themselves? Colleges/universities are not in the business of training clergy.”
I agree that colleges/universities and seminaries are different in some ways. The question is, however, how should a university affiliated with a state Baptist convention be different from a non-affiliated university? Is it simply a matter of teaching Baptist history so that the students will have an appreciation of the Baptist affiliation? I believe that we should expect more than that. First, all non-Christian students should be presented with the gospel numerous times. None of them should graduate without understanding the essentials of the gospel. A required evangelism/apologetics class would be a guarantee that no non-Christian would slip through the cracks. A well-trained professor would make sure that all students in the class understand the essentials. Second, all Christian students should be prepared to share the gospel. None should slip through the cracks. Again, a required evangelism/apologetics class would provide a well-trained professor for such instruction. Not all churches do a good job in preparing members to share the gospel. Churches should be the primary equippers, but there is certainly a role for parachurch groups like Campus Crusade and Baptist universities. We are to be good stewards of our budgets in state Baptist conventions. The universities that receive our support should not only provide quality education in math and science; they should also provide quality Christian education to all their students, which would include a required evangelism/apologetics class.
I can even tell you that is true.
If I gave Tim a 98 on his Church Admin. papers, he came demanding a sit-down with the professor with a 79 page document in hand arguing that I am a bigot against him because he is a TAR HEEL and that due to me being of the SABANATION I cheated him out of his two points.
HAPPY NEW YEAR, TAR HEEL. I noticed y’all let the Yankee PITT beat you in a bowl game. Sad, but expected.
Why don’t you call up your old friend Brad Reynolds and you can cry along with him after the SABANATION leaves LONGHORN hide all over Pasadena and heads back south as KINGS of all FOOTBALL NATIONS?
ROLL TIDE
Brother Tim,
CB has brought up a very good example of why simple math and history are important factors in the life of the Baptist. For instance my beloved Longhorns have had the pleasure of hookin the Sabanites in seven victories while allowing one loss to the crimson which may in some way help justify their need for seeking quality quarterback talent.
Although that is not good news for the Sabanites…..it should be required reading since the Sabanites do have a reputation for good memory.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Mike,
How should a university affiliated with a state Baptist convention be different from a non-affiliated university? Is it simply a matter of teaching Baptist history so that the students will have an appreciation of the Baptist affiliation? I believe that we should expect more than that.
You and I are singing from the same sheet of music here. This is the heart of the matter. I agree it should be more than teaching Baptist History, but that is something that should be required for every student. The setting of the university should be one that advances the truths of Scripture over the academic theories. There should be a Christian World view presented in every discipline. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, should be taught without advancing the truths of scripture supporting the truth of the discipline. For example, some may not realize that at TMC they have a leading Young Earth professor. He has his degree from Harvard and does not teach ID, but young earth. Can you imagine sitting in that class? I wish I were closer to Cleveland, Georgia I would audit that course.
Again, evangelism as a required discipline for every student is not something I can get to. Requiring Baptist history is a discipline we should never back up on in a Baptist college/university. Requiring Bible courses is something we should never back up on. Requiring professors to sign a document that they will not teach contrary to a statement of faith the convention supports should be something we should never back up on.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother John,
I am not ignoring you, but I believe Brother Mike answered you question as I would. Of course he has done so with lots more clarity. :)
I recall that I was supposed to answer you about something else. Could you direct me to the comment that I was supposed to be getting back to you on?
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
Let me try this again…..
If I am a trustee of a college that is founded on Baptist (biblical) principles, then I would always argue that a course be required which taught, explained, and presented the reality set forth by the bible concerning the central historical fact of the book which is Jesus Christ and Him crucified and resurrected. This course would not be to set out to prove that the history is true. It is a course explaining the truth of the fact of the “good news” revealed in history at the right time. All students would be required to answer to the facts in order to pass the course. This in no way impugns, reinvents or sets out to coerce their intelligence with respect to history. It would be a required class illuminating the facts of history that is not foreign to the substance and evidence found in the faith once for all delivered to the Saints. It is not required that you be a Saint, to understand and be required to make a passing grade for handling the facts accurately. That is generally called good academic practice.
A lab would not be required.
Methodologies used to practice the historical facts of the “good news” realized from the required class would be optional or designed as another elective.
Blessings,
Chris
Tim,
I sense that both of us are set in concrete in our positions. We will just have to agree to disagree on the issue of a required evangelism/apologetics class.
Best wishes to all for a happy New Year!
Brother Mike,
You are correct. We will agree to disagree. You have more of a shot of becoming a president of a college/university than I so when you get to your position I will support you in your placement. But I will argue with you over implementing a required Evangelism class. :)
Blessings,
Tim
Tim, I’m flattered. Blessings to you.
Tim,
As I read the last 20 comments or so, I was like “Way to go Tim, I absolutely agree!”
I suspect that there is good reason why college administrators like Dockery have not made such an Evangelism class a required part of their curriculum. Tim has pointed to a few of these reasons. The differences between the mission of a seminary and the mission of a college (not a Bible college!) can not be overemphasized.
Since you bring up the subject of Creationism, I must ask: what’s up with all of these science guys bouncing around from one Southern Baptist school to the next? I thought Wise was at Southern and now apparently he’s at TMC. And Dembski was at Southern then Southwestern and I’m not sure where he is anymore. More odd is the fact that Southern went from having a leading ID proponent to a leading Young Earther on faculty and now what? Are Southern Baptists Creationists or Intelligent Designers these days? It’s confusing. Maybe you should add a point of clarification to the next BFM update.
It is always fun to discuss these academic games…. and who would of imagined…Tim and BDW are Together for the Evangelism (T4E)task of not having any such course required for colleges founded upon biblical principles.
I have always liked the motto and mission of what was a well founded institution, now fallen on more relevant times….Harvard.
“Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the maine end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17:3) and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisedome, Let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seeke it of him (Prov. 2:3).”
Not sure if Harvard can ever return to those well founded days….they too probably think it is a bit “coercive” to tell the truth of God as a requirement of academic life.
What’s even more bizzare though is we are having those same struggles at this time in our American history… simply talking, not even doing as Harvard did… about requiring students to know the facts concerning the gospel of God.
Here is where Harvard was back in 2007 according to the Daily Free Press….
“A preliminary report by the Task Force on General Education at Harvard proposed the school introduce a required religion course based in “Reason and Faith” last October, but by December, the faculty committee changed the category to “Culture and Belief” — which would not be religion-based — according to a Feb. 7 article in the Harvard Crimson.
Faculty members will further discuss the proposal at a meeting next Tuesday and will vote on it on a date not yet determined, said Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences spokesman Robert Mitchell.
BU religion department chairman Stephen Prothero, who recently completed the book Religious Literacy, in which he argues for teaching world religions to public middle school and high school students, criticized the university’s choice to exclude religion from its requirements.
“I think Harvard dropped the ball,” he said, calling it a “scandal” to allow students to graduate without taking religion courses.
“I don’t think colleges like BU and elsewhere should be certifying those students as well-educated if they don’t have the most rudimentary understanding of religion,” Prothero added. “
Maybe Baylor and TMC can grow up to be like Harvard someday…..
Blessings,
Chris
BT,
You said, “Hopefully we agree that the Great Commission is for every Christian.” Agreed. 100%
You also said, “We probably also agree that every Christian will not be a professional evangelist who conducts revival meetings on a regular basis, etc. All Christians, however, are empowered to be witnesses (Acts 1:8), and in that sense they are to be evangelists in their spheres of influence.” again, agreed, 100%. And therein lies the rub: for I do not see how a class like this, especially as a required subject, can possibly take into account the various “spheres of influence” operative in the lives of Christians gifted in different ways.
Tim,
I don’t remember either. It must have been awfully important.
John
John, you said,
“I just wonder if this, as a requirement, is not going to place a lot of undue pressure on those without the gift of evangelism, or discipleship. Every Christian has gifts, but some have gifts more geared toward support for their brothers and sisters, or helping, or cooking, or teaching, or something that does not involve witnessing. . . . I do not see how a class like this, especially as a required subject, can possibly take into account the various ‘spheres of influence’ operative in the lives of Christians gifted in different ways.”
You mentioned helping and cooking. Such activities can certainly be used to build relationships with lost folks so that they will be more receptive to the witness, but the witness still must share the plan of salvation with the lost folks. The word “evangelize” (used twice in Romans 10:15) comes from the Greek verb “??????????” which means to share good news (especially the gospel). We cannot do evangelism without sharing the gospel. We cannot obey the Great Commission without doing evangelism. Evangelism is an act of obedience for all Christians.
Brother BDW,
What a way to end 2009–an atta boy from my favorite Moderate. :)
You said it very well. The mission of a seminary and a Christian University are not the same missions.
As for the creationist and ID guys. Yes, TMC did get Wise from SBTS. I believe Dembski is still at SWBTS. As for what SB are? Dysfunctional! :)
We are a succinct group that believe the Scriptures contain the inerrant infallible word of God. Where it is literal, we believe it literally. Where it is allegorical we believe it allegorically. Defining the two is where we have differences and where we debate.
I pray you have a Happy New Year.
Brother Chris,
I told you that you were going to call me a liberal. BDW and I are in agreement. :)
I am about to lose my internet connection, so all of you have a Happy New Year.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
BDW seems like a nice young man….I don’t think this conversation has qualified anyone to wear the liberal hat. :)
Wish you the best for 2010!
-Chris
The “new liberalism” is raising its ‘head’ in our educational institutions. We used the word ‘inerrantist’ in the 80′s and 90′s…it was clear what it meant and what you stood for. There were some automatic assumptions on most of your beliefs. Now come the ‘young emergents’ who claim to be inerrantists and conservative…when they are neither. Unfortunately they have fooled many and re-defined the word to their liking…in fact, claiming a superior knowledge of what secondary and tertiary issues are. In fact, they are watering down the gospel and destructing the conservative resurgence…sadly many of our leaders are too busy and just watching this happen. If we don’t get a grip on it and get back to the basics the SBC will be lost in 8 short years and all the CR gains will be lost…the need for a SECOND CONSERVATIVE RESURGENCE shows its need more and more lately.
Comment number 79 is the “money statement” of this entire comment thread.
I don’t know who Casey is but his/her analysis is clear and a TEN RING at 1000 yards.
Brother CB,
I Amen your statement. Brother Casey has certainly shot the center out with that statement.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I trust you have had a blessed Christmas and are experiencing a wonderful New Year’s Day.
I noticed you did not respond to the factual comment I put up about you being a TAR HEEL and the Yankees beating you.
Casey’s comment is true. Many of these type folks post over at an OKlahoma blog site. Of course some of them are not very young. I took on an older lying liberal over there named Gene on a post entitled “CHRISTMAS 2009…”, It has 330 comments on it. It is interesting reading (especially the last 100 comments or so) if you get a chance while you are eating leftover turkey and ham and wishing you were part of the SABANATION.
Have you heard for Brad? I know he is shaking in his boots because he knows the TIDE is coming in. :-)
cb
Brother CB,
You seem to forget that there is more than one team in NC. While I live in the Tarheel state I pull for Wake Forest’s Deamon Deacons. No, we do not have power houses every year in Basketball and Football, but when we do it is sweet.
As for our Brother Brad, the last time I saw him he had his right hand swinging in a half circle fashion with his pinky hooked saying something like “hook’m horns” whatever that means. :)
Blessings,
Tim