Adam Harwood on the dilemma at young, restless, and reformed's "ground zero"

The book was Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists by Colin Hansen.  In it, the self-identifying "YRR" journalist dubbed Southern Seminary "Ground Zero" for training and equipping the new army of young neo-Calvinist pastors and church planters to spread the doctrines of grace across the Southern Baptist Convention    >>>

In a brief commentary on the chapter entitled, "Ground Zero: The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky" (pp.69-94), I wrote a few years back:

Finally, we move on to chapter four which stands as perhaps the most notable example of Hansen losing his objectivity as journalist and instead proposing an apology for the rising, restless young Calvinists with whom he gladly dwells.  “Ground Zero,” as Hansen has called it, is a chapter given exclusively to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) in Louisville, Kentucky.  SBTS is Southern Baptists’ oldest theological school and often referred to as their “flagship seminary”.  Hansen rightly observes that when the Conservative Resurgence was fully armed with enough trustees to take the school over, they wasted no time in replacing the old regime with a new one.  The pick of the trustees was a young, energetic theologian from Georgia who served as editor of The Christian Index, Georgia Baptists’ denominational state paper—R. Albert Mohler, Jr. (p.69). 

The trustees knew Mohler’s unflinching commitment to the keystone doctrine of the Conservative Resurgence, Biblical Inerrancy.  And, according to Hansen, the trustees were impressed with Mohler’s “vitality and plan to restore the seminary’s confessional identity” (p.72).  Hansen raises the question whether the trustees knew what Mohler meant by “confessional identity.”  That is, were they aware Mohler would not only insist upon their keystone doctrine of an inerrant Bible, but would further insist the seminary’s doctrinal position would embrace a rigid Reformed understanding of soteriology which included a robust five point Calvinism?  Apparently not, for Hansen writes:  “Some of Mohler’s inerrancy allies might have not fully foreseen one small twist.  Mohler’s fidelity to the Abstract of Principles has steered the seminary back toward Calvinism” (p.73).

The move toward embracing an exclusively covenantal theological framework at Southern seminary may now be starting to backfire. Young Southern Baptist scholars are questioning Southern's undeniable commitment to strict Calvinism. One such academic is Dr. Adam Harwood, Assistant Professor of  Christian Studies at Georgia Baptists' Truett-McConnell College. Only recently did Harwood drop a theological bombshell on the Southern Baptist Convention by raising the question about whether Southern Baptists' oldest seminary was embracing two confessions with at least one potential conflict. The occasion was Harwood's exchange with Southern seminary professor, Tom Schreiner, during a Q/A time after Dr. Schreiner delivered his paper.

Dr. Harwood has once again raised the question and considerably upped the ante.  In a piece entitled "SBTS and the BFM," he seems more convinced than ever that Southern seminary may very well be teaching in conflict with Southern Baptist's sole confession--The Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Basing his conclusion on Southern's own interpretation of the BF&M found on the seminary's webpage, Harwood concludes:

It seems necessary that SBTS clarify its position on Article 3 of the BFM. Why? If a denial of inherited guilt is unorthodox, then SBTS needs to be clear. If that is the case, then its interpretation of the BFM should remain and the BFM should be amended to reflect that view. If a denial of inherited guilt is orthodox, then clarity from SBTS is equally important.

Perhaps the faculty of Southern Seminary will consider revising its published interpretation of the BFM. If they regard a denial of inheriting Adam’s guilt to be fully orthodox, then amending their published interpretation would resolve this dilemma. Their view would no longer exclude certain Southern Baptists. If the faculty wereunwilling to amend their published interpretation of the BFM in order to more accurately reflect Article 3, then perhaps they will suggest an amenable resolution to this dilemma.

Adam Harwood writes one of the most significant pieces to date pertaining to the Calvinist Resurgence within the Southern Baptist Convention.  Please don't miss it.

Read Adam Harwood's "SBTS and the BFM"

Read Harwood's first piece entitled "The ETS, the AP, and the BFM"

 

Comments

[Kyle B. Gulledge]

Good post. Thank you and Dr. Harwood for continuing to shine the light on this issue.

[Lydia]

Wonder if the "unity" committee, which includes Mohler, ironically, is asking these questions or is he busy marginalizing people as he threatened would happen after the Trad statement.

[Louis]

This is an interesting post.

It is an interesting debate among theologians that should continue.

I like Dr. Harwood's writing and he has a good mind.

I do not agree with his prescription - that SBTS issue clarifications.

SBTS has had the AP since its founding. SBTS has been viewed to be in the Southern Baptist family with the SBC's adoption of the BFM starting in 1925 and coming forward.

So SBTS's embrace of the AP precedes the BFM. The Convention's adoption of the BFM and embrace of Southern simultaneously, AP and all, is chalked up to one of those moments in denominational history that folks are not happy about.

What to do about it now?

Nothing.

I am not going to do anything, and I do not know any Reformed persons who plan to do anything about it.

The Convention will not do anything about it because the only options available to it are to not send funds to Southern and to elect Southern's trustees. The former will not happen. The later will happen, but will not have much affect.

Until then, I am glad that this is being discussed.

[Adam Harwood]

Peter,

Thank you for highlighting my recent essays. My goal in raising this issue is to facilitate a peaceable discussion which might result in greater clarity among Southern Baptists on this theological difference.

Your post helps raise awareness among fellow Southern Baptists. I appreciate it. I regret that I may not be able to interact tonight with your readers. (I'll attend one of my children's school programs tonight and return to a stack of final exams which require grading before noon tomorrow.)

Louis,

Thanks for your kind remarks.

My Nov. 29 essay resulted from a SBTS professor's presentation on inherited guilt. In that earlier essay, I asked about the relationship between the AP and BFM.

Today's essay isn't about the AP. Rather, today's essay attempts to demonstrate that the SBTS faculty exposition of the BFM (a document on the SBTS web site) may be at odds with the BFM itself. If the SBTS published interpretation of the BFM conflicts with the BFM, then it seems that one of those documents will need to be revised.

The primary point of today's essay is revealed in its thesis: "Does Southern Seminary have an institutional commitment to a theological position which is not affirmed in the BFM and excludes many Southern Baptists?"

Blessings.

In Him,
Adam

[Ben Simpson]

Peter, you are really perfecting the meta-blog as of late. Keep up the work!

Dr.Harwood has certainly risen to the forefront as one of the leading "Traditionalist" theologians. This is a conversation worth having, but I'm not sure if Dr Schreiner and Dr Mohler will enter the debate. Perhaps they'll let Harwood tire of riding his hobby horse first.

[Adam Harwood]

Ben,

Thanks for your note. I've not suggested that anyone enter a debate. In what way would that be profitable? Rather, I've asked that a theological position published by one of our SBC institutions be clarified.

If by "hobby horse" you mean theological inquiry, then no. If the Lord wills, I'll ride it until this issue is resolved in the SBC.

Ben, we may differ on certain theological positions but we are brothers for whom Christ shed His precious blood. You, me, Mohler, Schreiner, Lumpkins... we're all brothers.

In Him,
Adam

[lydia]

"The Convention will not do anything about it because the only options available to it are to not send funds to Southern and to elect Southern's trustees. The former will not happen. The later will happen, but will not have much affect."

There has to be funds to send. We are already hearing the same tired worn out admonitions from Ezell speaking to pastors in Knoxville not to be "cranky" in affirming NAMB's new direction. This is the typical false dichotomy: If you disagree with me, you are cranky and therefore sinning by implication. It is the refuge of tyrannical thinking. It is all they have. I hope people in the SBC do not fall for it but I suspect too many in a certain age group have already been indoctrinated and are not trained as independent thinkers.

[Louis]

Adam:

Thanks for the clarification, which I should have perceived more clearly.

I do not know how faculty statements like this are generated or produced. Maybe a modification will be in the future.

Also, I do not agree with the statement that believing in the non-reformed view is unorthodox.

My own thinking on this is that there are NT verses indicating universal guilt by virture of Adam's act.

But I would add that I do not know how God treats infants and the mentally incapacitated. I am sure that He is just in all of this dealings, so I trust Him.

I cannot find sufficient warrant to say that all infants go to heaven and that all of the mentally disabled go there, too.

I can say that all such persons are received by God who is just, and that He deals with them in a just way. We just don't know how or what he does.

[Adam Harwood]

Louis,

Thanks for your comments. It's a pleasure to engage with you on this important and often sensitive topic.

In Him,
Adam