Memo to Midwestern Seminary CEO Search Committee

Brethren,

I see where you have selected a candidate whom the entire trustee body will, presumably, confirm to be the new president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

[Baptist Press story: Jason Allen Nominated to Lead Midwestern]

No doubt all of the committee and trustees are aware that with two failed leaders in the recent past, Midwestern, occasionally described as the weakest of our six seminaries, is suffering more than necessary. If not for the North American Mission Board's spectacular leadership failures, MWBTS would easily be our most troubled institution. NAMB has fixed their problems. One hopes that you are on the road to fixing yours.

You are aware that some Southern Baptists are offering early, gentlemanly criticism of your candidate.

[Peter Lumpkins: Courting Disaster: The Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and No Questions Answered About Presidental Candidate Dr. Jason K. Allen Until After Trustees Vote
Tim Guthrie: Don't Ask, Trust Us! We are in trouble!]

Yes, these are bloggers, but I would speculate that as many Southern Baptists have read their articles as have read the news article of our denominational press.

The questions that are raised are surely things the search committee has spoken of: age, experience, academic background, churchmanship, church affiliation record, and probably most importantly calvinism.

I understand your chairman's desire to be tight-lipped about all of this until the trustee meeting on October 15th and no one questions that Southern Baptists have trusted this process to autonomous trustees, but it might be helpful for you to consider a few things between now and the trustee meeting.

First, Calvinism is the issue of our day. Perhaps you are aware that there are some prominent Southern Baptists individuals and churches who have pulled their funding from two other seminaries on this basis. Perhaps you know that there are Associational Missionaries and others who look askance, rightly or wrongly, at graduates from these two seminaries on the basis of their perceived Calvinistic bent. Do you really think it advantageous to your nominee for the committee not to respond to this? Surely not. If you say nothing, others will define your candidate. You know him best. You have discussed these things. Speak up, please.

Second, this is a different day than ten or twenty years ago. It is not that we do not trust the trustees (even though their past presidential selections have been demonstrably poor ones), we live in a time when Southern Baptists have more access far more quickly to information. You cannot afford to keep silent and let only those who have objections color your candidate for the next few weeks.

Third, I read where prominent SBC leaders (Paul Pressler, Al Mohler, Tom Olliff, and others) have praised your candidate. Good, but general praise from SBC luminaries is insufficient. No doubt the two failed leaders were highly praised as well. More is needed than this. In the absence of information, Southern Baptists in the past have looked to leaders for their signals on how to think on some issues. Such is not so much the case today. More is needed.

Finally, almost all SBCers want to see stability and ethical Christian leadership at our seminary, things that have been missing in the recent past. We pour a lot of Cooperative Program money into MWBTS and deserve more success there for what we are spending. I surmise that most of us make no presumptions about your candidate but legitimate questions have been raised. If you rely on the processes of the past and ignore them, you may harm his chances for success.

You have my prayers.

Another reason to thank God for the Conservative Resurgence…

…as if any were needed a quarter century after the battle was concluded. But, why not remind some of our younger, thirtysomething, goateed, spike-haired, shirttail brethren about the kind of Southern Baptist Convention they would have if not for Adrian Rogers, Paige Patterson, Paul Pressler, and the vast host of lesser brethren who showed up in the 1980s to vote. A reminder once a quarter would be enough, I think.

If there were no Conservative Resurgence, Robert Parham would probably be the leading denominational ethics schoolmarm. Read his piece, Uncut Tax Movement Is Morally Righteous

Parham, unsurprisingly, heartily endorses a British tax increase program commended below by a leader of a mirror movement in the US:

"The message is simple – before you sacrifice hard-working public sector employee's [sic] jobs and necessary public programs, why not first make the richest of the rich pay their fair share in taxes?" Gibson told The Guardian about the motives of US Uncut.

Parham adds, and don't fail to note the abundance of snarl and scare words, that:

…unless we – the people – insist on corporations paying for the right to live in and benefit from good societies, then good societies will be at risk for dirty water, unclean air, unregulated food, substandard public education, predatory financial institutions, health care only for the those who can afford it, collapsing infrastructures like roads and bridges, cutbacks in fire and police protection.

Were there to have been no CR, we would in the SBC be paying to receive a steady diet of the wonderful Christian doctrine of government control of private businesses for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

To be fair, tax policy and Christian ethics is a legitimate issue. The devil is in the details and in the degree of taxation and government regulation but when religious liberals start talking about a “fair share” of taxes, one would be wise to reach for their pocketbook – someone’s after their hard-earned money. When religious liberals think of helping the poor, saving jobs, and providing citizens with health care, their default position is to compel the government to use coercion to take, by force, the earnings of ordinary working citizens so that they can assuage their own consciences.

I recommend that Parham take what he has earned himself and give to those he feels needs it more than he does. I will do the same.

I’m just glad we aren’t paying to hear this stuff with our offering plate dollars.

Addendum: In contrast to Parham, I believe that Brent Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, makes a much better case for religious liberty than does what we SBCers do pay for. Sample of Walker's clear defense of religious liberty.