Yesterday, as the 2014 annual gathering of the Southern Baptist Convention approached its conclusion, Dr. Paige Patterson, President of my alma mater, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, gave his report. It was a much-anticipated report because of controversy that has been surrounding Dr. Patterson as a result of his decision to admit a Muslim student into the student body of Southwestern Seminary against stated admissions policies.
Earlier in the day my wife and I were discussing the situation and I told her what I thought was going to happen in the report. I predicted that Dr. Patterson would apologize for technically breaking policy then go on to appeal to his love for lost people and the higher bar of God’s justice and would receive a standing ovation from the messengers who by that time would be emotionally invested in the act as an act of evangelism.
That is exactly what happened.
Now, one does hesitate to appear coldly analytical in the face of apparently genuine feeling, but as I chewed on what happened yesterday, I am left with a number of questions and convictions about the situation. I will present them here in no certain order. I would very much like to have some answers to these questions as they are genuinely troubling me.
- Have we now established the principle that SBC entity heads may unilaterally violate SBC entity policy when they deem it is for the greater good or for the possible salvation of a person?
- Have we thought through the full implications of what that will mean for institutional management, policy integrity, and leadership precedence across all of our institutions?
- Are we really ready to live with that as an operating principle?
- For those favoring the establishment of this principle, what are the guardrails?
- For instance, on what basis would one oppose a seminary President admitting an openly homosexual couple to our seminaries under the banner of concern for their souls and the possibility of their evangelization and salvation?
- If the answer to the former question is that, in that scenario, the candidates for admission would have violated the conduct policy of the institution, are we now establishing the principle that the denial of Christ is less significant than sexual immorality?
- What are the guidelines for which policies our entity heads may now violate and which they may not?
- What exactly does Dr. Patterson’s apology for causing others pain mean? What would he have done differently? What will now change as a result of the apology?
- On the basis of Dr. Patterson’s appeal to the judgment seat of God, of his desire not to have “blood on his hands” regarding the souls of non-believers who wish to attend our seminaries, and of the subsequent applauding of these sentiments as related to seminary admissions policies, on what possible basis can Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary not embrace a policy of open enrollment regardless of whether or not the candidate for admissions is a believer?
- I repeat: if admissions is now an evangelistic tool (which is the only way I can interpret what happened yesterday), is Southwestern Seminary now practicing open enrollment? If not, why?
- If the admission of one non-believer is a matter of not wanting blood on our hands, then certainly the admission of as many non-believers as possible is the logical result of our evangelistic hearts. True?
Let me be perfectly clear: my questions are not about the salvation of souls. All Southern Baptists of good will are settled on that point. I daresay that Dr. Patterson does not want the young man to come to know Christ more than I do. I pray he does and will rejoice when he does! This is what was so very confusing about Dr. Danny Akin’s opening comment (in the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary President’s report that followed) that, “Paige Patterson does not owe me an apology for having a heart for lost people.” In the thunderous applause that followed, I thought, “What? Who on earth has asked for an apology for having a heart for lost people?” (As an aside, there are times in these large gatherings when one really does feel that he has entered a kind of Twilight Zone dynamic between the platform and the crowd, a kind of odd detached-from-reality group-think dynamic in which it is hard to process what is happening in anything closely related to rationality.)
My questions are rather about the management of institutions and how integrity in the management process reflects on our stewardship of these institutions before God.
My questions are about the ways in which violations of stated policies today establish precedence that, in the hands of a President down the road who does not share our core convictions, can be wielded against the better interests of the Convention tomorrow.
In short, my concern is this: that we have now applauded the establishment of a precedence that can prove utterly injurious to the cause of Southern Baptists around the world.
Great argument, Wyman.
Is it accurate to say that the precedent has been set so that students who have agreed to follow the conduct policy of the seminaries (primarily no tobacco and no alcohol) can now point to Patterson as an example of breaking policy for the greater cause of trying to reach someone for Christ in a cigar bar.
Thanks Kevin. I fear that proponents of this are looking at it in a vacuum and not in terms of long-term precedent.
Do you have an extra pair of lenses? It seems mine are out of focus because of the vacuum I live in and the inability to see the bigger picture.
In all seriousness… What do you really know as a fact about Dr. Patterson and his heart for the lost? Is it possible that these factors in his life played a large role in the decision he made to allow a Muslim to be enrolled?
By the way, I am selling some stoning stones on Ebay… if interested.
A Blurry Eyed Pastor… jle
Jon, that has to be the most hyperbolic response to a series of reasonable questions I’ve ever read. Would you care to respond to the substance of the questions or just insinuate that I’m indulging in ad hominems?
I am speaking to the subject of your post. You are making outright conjectures based upon how you thought the scene would play out at the convention. Even though you stated it would happen in a certain way and it did, means little to the heart of Dr. Patterson. Then you ask the questions you ask so that others who want opine to the situation (or that is the way it comes across) can do so without evidence or going to the man.
Doesn’t everyone, or even anyone, get tired of looking for things to spin into something it may not be.
Please excuse the rambling but if I may, let me ask one question and then I will step into silence and give you the final word.
What do you really know as a fact about Dr. Patterson and his heart for the lost and this passion being the reason he did make the decision he made?
Thank you for allowing me to post. Blessings – jle
Jon, you again completely miss the point. Paige Patterson’s heart is NOT the issue. I have no reason whatsoever to think it is anything but sincere. But, again, it is NOT the issue. Institutional management and precedence is the issue, as the substantive questions – questions with which you still have not interacted at all – make abundantly clear.
Two questions for you, then you can have the last word: do you defend the principle that entity heads should be able to unilaterally violate established entity policy when they feel they are doing so for the greater good? And are you willing to stand by that principle regardless of who is the president?
I plead with you to stick to the substance of the post.
My thanks in advance.
I happen to think the concerns for policy change are legitimate. If not the guidelines were never valid to start with. A vital concern is why the individual in question wants to attend the seminary to begin with. If he is seeking Christ, the need can be readily resolved without entrance into the program. The Muslim community has an agenda for attacking Christianity, or any organization supportive of Christianity, for example our federal government and our educational systems. They do so by infiltrating and influencing the operation. The leadership of any Christian organization has a responsibility to preserve the environment that is conducive to purpose for which it exist. Jon, you have built and led one of the greatest programs for developing young Christian lives. How would admitting practicing Muslims into your program affect your mission?
Thank you for the comment Randall. I appreciate it. While the motivations of the student in question appear valid (wanting training in archaeology), you raise valid points as a matter of principle and moving forward into the future.
And people did not want me to go to Southwestern because I had been divorced at age 21, and not married for 35 years. Repented, sinning no more and not wanted at Southwestern, and now this, wow. A concern I have is the braking of policies. As the churches are told to get your policies in order and stick to them strongly because of the upcoming battle about same-sex marriages, my question is this… What is the differences? We can love, reach, and witness to all, but if our schools are to training our leaders to teach the body to reach the lost… then should the policies still be for all? A church member ask me, could this guy be a deacon in the church, if he can’t why is he there? Good question to me.
We did not clap nor stand in support after the apology, not did many others. At first, it seemed genuine. But when there’s a “but”…is it really an apology? It was almost as if PP was saying “I’m sorry you are upset, but I did it for God.” The end doesn’t justify the means.
I even wonder if the two questions were planted. (Have seen it done before and halfway expected it.) The first question was just odd, but made for an easy launch into the second. The second question was way less detailed than many expected. And his response, while he seemed nervous and rattled, was masterfully crafted (from the article that was posted by Malcolm Yarnell on SBC Today?). Then no further questions, because time was up. Convenient. Nothing about his slap in the face to our “cousins” or about the very issues raised by this opening post.
It’s a sad day in the SBC. But what do I know, I am a woman. And I ain’t in the kitchen or sewin’ room.
May God help us all.
Mary C.
There was undoubtedly a degree of politics going on.
Very astute and thoughtful analysis. The questions logically flow and are in need of some answers. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Burleson.
I agree, we have opened the door to who-knows-what on down the road. While I am sure that Dr. Patterson’s motives were good, his judgement on this is a little suspect. Do we start admitting Mormons and Jehovah’s Wittnesses? (If we let a Muslim in, by all rights LDS and JWs should be able to as well.) Do we really want to go there? What influence will this have on our churches in the long run, if this becomes commonplace?
Thanks Chet. Good thoughts and questions.
The matter is now left in the hands of the duly elected trustees–where it should be. I expect they will issue some sort of mild censure and instruct him to not do it again–which they should do. This isn’t necessarily a case of precedent. It’s a case of our polity working like it should–hopefully. Dr. Patterson’s fate will be in the hands of local churchmen nominated and elected by local church messengers for that purpose. Our polity matters and instances like this are examples of why it is so important to be involved at every level–not just commenting from a distance.
Jim,
Thank you for the comments.
I think that would be a reasonable and right response from the Trustees.
God bless.
Wyman
I have to stand with Wyman on this one.
No doubt, Dr. Patterson loves The Lord and cares for lost people. I think we all can safely assume that. But that is not the issue here at all.
Woman’s point and concern are both valid: There are rules in place for a reason. Including rules in church and seminary. They must be followed, regardless of our motives, or greater problems will arise. Having good intentions in breaking from established policies can lead to unintended consequences that cause great damage.
As for the crowd’s reaction, it reminds me of the Disney boycott debate we had years ago at the SBC annual meeting. People were discussing it fairly calmly until a lady stood up and said, “I love Jesus more than I love Mickey Mouse.” Suddenly, the crowd erupted with cheers and tears as the masses rose to their feet in thunderous applause. I sat there shaking my head in amazement that thousands of people were swept away by an emotional, simplistic statement being used with a straw man argument. Oh well…
Yes, I am Wyman’s brother. And if I disagreed with his post, I’d respectfully and politely say so. But I have to say he is right on this. I agree with him 100% on this post.
Well done, Sir.
I really appreciate the comments Dave. Thank you. But if you call me “Woman” again, I will punch you in the face.
😀
Love,
Your Little Brother
Ha! Yeah, I guess I deserve a punch in the face for that. Sorry, Wym!
😉
Two questions that I ask regarding any SBC event/function/episode:
1. How will this impact our IMB ground personnel?
2. What will this mean to the barely churched/unchurched in my community?
Regarding 2., I passed around 2 articles written sometime before the 2014 SBC annual meeting to a group of men that I’m discipling (these men are recently formerly barely churched/unchurched). Then I had them watch the youtube video of Patterson’s explanation, tearful apology/non-apology, standing ovation, and Akin’s non-sequitur comment immediately following. I didn’t give them my opinion before they read and watched to avoid any bias.
The comments were nearly unanimous. No one believed that the apology was genuine. One individual referenced Jimmy’s Swaggart’s infamous “I have sinned!” from the 80s. Another man said that to justify sin (willfully violating organizational policy) by arguing a heart for evangelism ultimately damages any credibility the organization would have unless the trustees removed him from leadership in September. None of the men believed that anything meaningful will happen in September and most of the men believed that this event will only strengthen Patterson’s opinion that he answers to noone. Several men asked if this type of activity by Patterson was an isolated event or part of a pattern that characterizes his leadership. Two individuals said that Patterson sounded a lot like President Obama.
Note, none of these men had ever heard of Paige Patterson before this year. But each of them began to open up about events in their past where pastors have justified wrong behavior by pointing to their passion for the church, Christ, evangelism, or just flat out deflection.
My prediction(s): 1) the men in positions of influence and authority in SBC institutions are hoping that this episode is forgotten as quickly as possible. 2) the credibility of the SBC and her institutions will continue their slow loss of credibility among the SBC member church laity as well as the population at large.
Wyman’s questions need to be considered and publicly answered by SWBTS trustees and the members of the SBC ExCom. I don’t know of anyone who believes that this will happen.