Mann, Merritt, and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

On my last post, I encouraged readers to trek over to SBC Today and read the latest post by John Mann entitled, "Save the Last Chair for Me."  In the essay, Mann coupled Jonathan Merritt, national spokesperson for the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative, with Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary's contribution to environmental concerns, citing Merritt as a "a national spokesman on behalf of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in regard to environmental issues."

Of interest to me was Jonathan Merritt's explicit denial of a liaison as both Mann and I assumed.  On the comment thread Merritt wrote:  "Peter, Peter, Peter...I do want to point out that the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative and SEBTS share no relation." 

In the original piece, I had assumed Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary's relationship with the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative.**  Consequently, I offered my apologies to Merritt, as did John Mann, for drawing an illegitimate inference.  I also knew I hadn't pulled a rabbit out of the hat and told Jonathan I would "attempt to find where I connected the dots and report back."

What I found was entirely confusing. On December 18, 2008, Southeastern Seminary released a public statement announcing a grant awarded to the school which would be used by the seminary's Center for Faith and Culture.  The grant would especially fund Jonathan Merritt, a "consultant for the center, enabling him to "travel, speak about Southeastern, make recommendations on various projects and materials to purchase and help arrange speakers and details."** 

Furthermore, the SEBTS news release stated, "In addition to funding Merritt as a consultant, the grant will also enable Southeastern to host a conference in November 2009 on good stewardship of the Earth, as well as a lecture series on environmental stewardship practices."

Merritt was excited about this new opportunity, for he wrote about it on his blog. In the news release, Merritt reportedly said, “I sincerely hope that the center will make use of me often and in ways they find to be helpful.”

Strangely, the links on Merritt's blog to SEBTS's news release are now broken.  And, the news release citing Merritt as an advocate for the Seminary's environmental issues is unplugged.  Is Merritt, national spokesperson for the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative, no longer serving as environmental consultant for the seminary?  That's hard to tell from the existing confusion.

Granted Merritt may have a point in one sense that "the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative and SEBTS share no relation." After all, Merritt perhaps authored the SBECI statement solo.  Nevertheless, in another sense, this is a little misleading apart from a broader perspective. 

First, Merritt not only is a national spokesperson for SBECI, apparently he is the only spokesperson for the SBECI--at least so far as we are told.  Second, the signatories for the SBECI is stacked a mile high with SEBTS faculty, beginning with the president as the first signatory! Understand:  I haven't the first reservation with profs signing whatever they feel they can support.  In addition, I am one who is very conscious of creation care.

Third, since Merritt's role as national spokesperson for the SBECI was cited by SEBTS as one of the main reasons for choosing Merritt as consultant, it hardly makes good sense to expect others, as does Merritt, to tacitly assume "the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative and SEBTS share no relation."  I hope this clarifies how the dots were connected between Merritt, SBECI, and SEBTS.

With that, I am...

Peter

**For the record, John Mann was entirely accurate in his description of Merritt as "a national spokesman on behalf of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in regard to environmental issues."  That is precisely how the SEBTS news release framed the relationship

 

Comments

[volfan007]

Peter,

As usual, interesting.

David

[wade burleson]

Peter,

As usual, irrelevant.

Wade

[Chris Gilliam]

Peter, I find it interesting that Wade finds this irrelevant, since he is the one who likes all in the open.

You post demostrates to me that the lack of integrity in some that I desire for myself.

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

Thanks. Hope you are well. As for Wade, not sure why, if the posts here are irrelevant as usual, he reads them or even takes the time to comment on them. Perhaps he's bored, having no 'heretics' to expose. The "Landmark Conspiracy" hoped for at SWBTS just didn't gain any traction.

I too desire integrity and long for integrity in my life.

Grace, Chris. With that, I am...
Peter

[joe white]

Peter,

I am with David, this is interesting.

I guess to be more relevant you could follow Wade's example. His last 4 "relevant" posts include: (1) a photoshopped fake image of a tornado, (2) a list of charity donations and CEO salaries, (3) a world demographic movie that snopes.com designates as having a "Mixture" of truth, and of course his old standby (4) "Landmarkism Is a Growing Problem in the SBC".

Relevant – (adjective) bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand; pertinent.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

As usual, ....[Ah!, I can't think of a word that starts with the letter "i"]

I'm not cool.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Let's all see how many words we can come up with that start with the letter "i".

If we combine the last post's comments with this one, we're already off to a good start.

Idiocy, interesting, irrelevant, integrity...

OK, how'bout identity, Ignatius?, ignoble, instant grits, IPOD, ingenuity, and all are "i"ncredible! [besides me].

Hey, I'm trying to promote peace in the Southern Baptist Convention.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Now, no one needs to get all hardcore on me and quote Jer. 6:14. Think Proverbs 17:22. :)

[Don Andrews]

Peter,
The " new evangelicals" or the "young evangelicals" are intertested in the real important issues the older generation wase not spiritual enough to be involved in. Is this what we get for giving the younger generation a seat at the table? I am not 100% sure about how Merrit got his seat at the table, but I assume he is the son of former SBC pres. James Merrit. If I am wrong, please correct me. Thanks for the artilce by John Mann.

[peter lumpkins]

Don,

Thanks. You are correct about young Merritt being the son of James Merritt, former president of the SBC. And, I'd like to think, contrary to most, he got his seat at the table via hard work, vigorous study habits (I'm confident SEBTS did not hand him his degree based upon his dad's accomplishments), the likeability factor, etc.

As for your assertion that the "young evangelicals" possess interest in issues the older generation was not "spiritual enough" to engage, I assume you are being facetious, Don.

And, you are very welcome: I'm glad Mann's post was meaningful. Grace, my brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

The "Landmark Conspiracy" hoped for at SWBTS just didn't gain any traction.

Oh I think it did. I think that the outing of a lot going on the SBC is what spurred the current movement taking place. No one was even aware until it was blogged about. Oh I think it did a lot of good.

[Don Andrews]

Peter,
Yes I was being facetious and also responding in the same tone as Mann's article. I am sure Merrit worked hard, but some of the claims of the good ole boy network in the SBC seem to ring true at times. I would hope that is not the case, but it makes one wonder. Unless we are refuting climate change, I do not know why we would spend many resources on it. It is a another rabbit-chase that, if we are not careful, diverts us from the gospel.
Thanks for the site and your efforts to keep relevant information on it.