Having read Gerald Harris’ op-ed at Baptist Press, I have only one comment…why you all hating on the seminaries?
Dr. Harris lists Myth No. 1 about the GCRTF as “The goal of (particular members of) the Task Force to get more money to the nations is only a smoke screen to get more money to the seminaries.” Admittedly, I am a bit biased, being a seminary student, but what is the rationale for not wanting to provide for the best education for the most students of our Southern Baptist churches?
Point 1: We as SBC want to reach the world for Christ…but we don’t want to prepare new ministers to do that?
Harris also cites Axiom IX of the GCR Declaration, “We believe that North American church planting, pioneer missions around the globe, and theological education are three priorities around which most Southern Baptists will unite.” as the potential reason for this myth’s spread.
More irritating to me, however, is Daniel Akin’s own response to the myth: “The GCR is not and has never been about getting more money to the seminaries. It has always been about international missions and North American church planting. It is about getting the gospel to the unreached and under-served peoples of the nations and in our nation. ” How do we expect to have missionaries to send internationally and domestically, or even to our own churches to keep them mission-sending centers without theological education? Before we can tackle the bastions of Satan’s strongholds, we must have soldier-pastors who are more than adequately prepared!
Point 2: We want to fully fund our entities…as long as their names end in “Board”??
We already know that the seminaries are in trouble…the good news is that austerity measures in place at some of the six sisters have stemmed the tide of loss. Not to draw needed attention away, but why is that when mission boards run short in times of need, we offer to have special offerings for them, yet when seminaries run dry, we don’t? Perhaps it is the same reason why we prominently display missions during Christmas (Lottie Moon: international) and Easter (Annie Armstrong: domestic), but hide away SBC Seminaries Sunday and don’thave an offering for their support. Compounding this error is the requirement that missionaries have some seminary experience…”you need it, but we won’t fund it.”
Point 3: We as SBC started the Conservative Resurgence because of the drift of the seminaries…but now we just want to let them wither for lack of funds??
I have argued before about the need for a reworking of the funding formulae and to that end, I made two motions at this past Convention. I remain speechless at how many seminary students struggle to make ends meet and pay for their schooling (EVEN with the SBC subsidy!) and yet our leadership is adamant that we are as fully funded as we need to be. It seems strange to make those assertions when some seminaries have put off necessary improvements or remodeling until money comes available and some seminary boards of trustees must pay out of their own pockets to build necessary facilities! Need I say any more?….