I tried to lay out some arguments in my last post for the importance of emphasizing the political aspect of recent developments at WTS. Since the matter seems already to be beyond the point of argument, I thought it might be helpful to draw attention to an analogous case involving another denominational seminary.
I found a blog post reminiscent of the last few posts that I've made here. The post deals with a "theological" controversy involving a faculty member at SBTS (see http://www.abpnews.com/1646.article). A relevant excerpt from the blog (not the article) appears below. Do you think the situation mentioned in it is comparable to the one we've been discussing? Might it shed light on the current discussion?
"Sheri Klouda was given a tenure-track position to teach Hebrew in Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s school of theology when she received her doctor of philosophy at the Fort Worth, Texas, campus in 2002. In 2004, she was told that, because she was a female, she was no longer on the tenure track because, according to Van McClain, chairman of Southwestern’s board of trustees, the seminary had returned to its “traditional, confessional and biblical position” that a woman should not instruct men in theology courses or in biblical languages.
Granted, the seminary allowed her to continue to teach a full 2 years after she was told that she would never make tenure and they supported her financially after they made her quit teaching, but their decision was wrong, both morally and Biblically...
The Real Issue in the “Conservative” Takeover was Power, not TheologyOf course, the real issue was not theology, as the conservatives claimed, but pure raw power. Anyone who dared call them on their power grab was immediately labeled a liberal. At a convention meeting, the “conservatives” kept “moderates” out of a meeting by enlisting the aid of guards with guns. They took over the Baptist Standard, the weekly Baptist magazine, and fired everyone on the staff suspected of having sympathy for the “moderates.” When they took over the seminary, all of my professor friends had their careers trashed and were fired while my friends were encouraged to attend another seminary — all because they attended a “moderate” church. It was a bloodbath.
When they tried to take over my alma mater, Baylor University, they managed to fire several professors who were not deemed appropriate, including a Spanish professor I had who happened to be a Mormon. Fortunately, the “moderates” retained control over Baylor and they rehired the Spanish professor and ultimately made him chairman of the department. Never once did the professor try to proselytize us. If my faith were so weak that it could be damaged by having a Mormon Spanish professor, then how would my faith withstand the real world?" http://www.mcculloughsite.net/stingray/2007/01/25/female-professor-at-baptist-seminary-fired-for-being-female.php
Is this what is happening behind closed doors at WTS? Has there been a regime change? Is that part of what gave impetus to this? Is there a pattern that might be discerned in these conservative executive tendencies from which all parties involved might learn something useful?
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yes. It is the same thing. That explains all the militia and guns at WTS.
is this the seminary where Al Mohler is president? I was at John McArthur's 'Shepherds Conference' a few years ago where Mohler was boasting about how he had thrown out all of the liberals and saved the school. It was generally regarded by the audience as a heroic act.
Mr. Bovell: in your last post you concede you have a naive ideal about how theologial differences are to be handled. You seem to prefer academic freedom to power plays. I think most would agree with that sentiment.
The problem, however, is in seeing the power relationship only in one way regarding Enns. The administration and faculty who appointed him had power, and they may have been naive about the sorts of power relations that come when you begin to diversify the faculty. Pete himself has power, the power of his academic degree, the powers to teach in the seminary. Power affects the entire situation.
If that's true, then one needs to ask about the use and abuse of power, or the way to use delegate powers responsibly. I am not prepared to comment on the proceedings of the current administration and its use or abuse of its power. But isn't it conceivable that Pete abused his power in his teachings and writings by taking the power given him by WTS and then teaching things that at least enflamed if not opposed what his colleagues teach?
BTW, appealing to academic freedom for a confessional school is a sticky wicket. Most of the academy wouldn't regard WTS as a place where academic freedom is the norm.
Darryl Hart
Yes, I agree, the situation is ladened with power. I am emphasizing exertions of power on the part of WTS in order to help disabuse some of the opinion that the whole ordeal is about theology only.
Yes, Pete has power, too, but much less than those looking to give him the boot. Did he betray his colleagues and students? Could he have handled things a bit better? I guess he might have done things differently, but as I mentioned in a previous post, even Don Carson says, "Appearances to the contrary, [Pete's book] advances no new theory or grand hypothesis." Unfortunately, I'm not sure I've been able to appreciate what great damage that Pete has wrought. He seems to me to be merely recounting in one convenient place some well-known results of OT scholarship. Should he be taken to task if the current state of the discipline happens to incite some of his readers? That seems to me to be one of the main problems Pete was trying to expose. OT studies, even the evangelicals, has found such and such out about the Bible; yet people are still ignorant of this stuff: it's time we take these things into account when we theologize about the Bible.
I've found myself asking, what is WTS? Is it really part of "the academy"? Is it ultimately part of "the church"? It does not seem it can faithfully be part of both. When it tries to do both, the church side flexes its muscles and keeps the academy side of it on a tighter leash. Why does WTS exist? What is its chief goal? Why does it give out degrees? How do these degrees help WTS meet its chief goal?
Lastly, even if "the academy" does not consider WTS to be a place where academic freedom is the norm, I think there must still be a good measure of academic freedom there if it is going to hand out degrees that are worth anything.
Post a Comment