« The Blind Boys of Alabama: Precious Lord by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Postscript to Myth-Busting: A Tribute by Peter Lumpkins »

Oct 28, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Andrew

This is more of a clarification than a comment: Are you for or against increasing seminary allocation (under Myth #1)? I would agree with Akins' point at the B21 panel (that they should be examined and possibly changed to fulfill Axiom IX) but not his comments at the post (that they will oppose any changes that benefit the seminaries).

For more on my thoughts, please read my post at my blog....

peter lumpkins

Andrew,

Thanks. Actually, my point does not address whether seminaries ought to have more funds or even need more funds. Instead it concerns whether Dr. Akin overstates his point that there exists not a "shred of evidence" for asserting that, at least in part, there has been talk of more monies going to seminaries as a result of GCR restructuring.

As I noted, not only does such evidence exist, Dr. Akin's own words specifically advocate more money to seminaries!

Now, am I a priori opposed to more money going to seminaries? Not on your life. I am a SBC seminary graduate. I personally know the value of theological education and the tremendous benefit SBs grant to our minister students through the CP.

That's not to say, however, I would roll over and 'play dead' just because seminaries request more monies. Requesting more funds is expected from administrators. No surprise. Were I an administrator, more than likely, I'd request more money too. Visions for entities always exceed the cash to fund them or frankly the visions are simply not big enough!

Personally, before I would vote for more funds, I'd want to explore the data--full freedom to explore the data--my way.

With that, I am...
Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.