Letter to the Editor of The Religious Herald

by Jon Walker                                                                                                     Vol. VI, No. 5, June 1993

[Jon Walker is pastor of Vaughan Baptist Church, Vaughan, NC. He wrote the following letter to Mike Clingenpeel, editor of The Religious Herald.]

Dear Mr. Clingenpeel:

Your editorial (April 29,1993) on the alleged chaos at Southern seminary caused by the presidency of Al Mohler was disappointing and quite unlike the responsible journalism you consistently practice. The changes that have occurred in the Southern Baptist Convention over the past fifteen years reflect complicated and emotional issues that require sober, intelligent dialogue. Rather than offering critical insight into the conflict at Southern, and the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole, your editorial attempted to fan into flames the hurt and bitterness of both sides. I do not expect an editorial to be devoid of opinion, I do expect it to be fair.

For one thing, Al Mohler has not even officially taken over as president of Southern. To lay the blame for the seminary's problems at his feet is acting no differently than the critics who blasted Bill Clinton for not solving the country's problems within days of his election. You and the “students, faculty and administrators" at Southern who have lost so much confidence in Dr. Mohler's leadership could at least let him move to Louisville before you begin your assessment of his abilities as the seminary president.

You wrote that the conservatives have "high expectations" that Mohler will "move Southern in a more conservative direction" and "he has not been a disappointment" for them. What has Mohler done except visit Southern's campus and answer questions asked of him with honesty and integrity? The Associated Baptist Press, the self-proclaimed independent Baptist news service, reported during Mohler's visit to Southern that, although students asked "sometimes bitter" questions and at times lectured the president-elect, he "maintained a calm demeanor throughout the session." Is Mohler really an immature and inept leader, as you wrote, or could it be that some "students, faculty and administrators" at Southern have such a prejudicial expectation of Mohler that they have judged his presidency even before he has been sworn in?

I am deeply disturbed by your statement that, "despite (Mohler's) obvious professional inexperience and doctrinaire conservatism," you were gentle with him in your editorial of April, l , 1993. Regardless of your opinion of his experience, are you saying that Dr. Mohler is not qualified to be president of a seminary because he is theologically conservative? Are you saying that his theological stance makes him a bad leader? Would Mohler "signal" that "he cares" by abandoning his theological beliefs in an effort to placate those who believe differently than himself? The bias expressed in your editorial is exactly what the conservatives were responding to when they began their so-called take-over of the Southern Baptist Convention; they were welcomed to join the journey, and to help pay for the trip, as long as they sat at the back of the bus.

Beyond Mohler, you wrote the major blame for Southern's chaos "rests with the trustees" because they have tried to steer the ship instead of the crew. You asked, "Who wants to ride a ship where the cruise line's board of directors, instead of the crew, steer the daily course?" Perhaps it would make a difference in how someone responded to that question if you added that, in Southern's case, the crew had begun to steer the ship away from the original point of destination: nobody wants to purchase a ticket for the Bahamas only to find only to find out they were transported to Antarctica. If we were discussing a real ship, that would be called hijacking, but that is an inflammatory statement similar to the use of "hostile takeover" and does nothing to encourage a dialogue between the parties in the conflict.

I sincerely admire your compassion for the "teaching careers and future ministers" who are being hurt by this transition. What I fail to understand is why no one never mentions the hurt felt by many Southern Baptists who have helplessly watched Southern move in a liberal direction over the years: I could tell you about Eric, a pastor I know in Florida, who considered leaving the ministry because his Southern education almost destroyed his faith in the Bible; I could tell you about Ted, a current student at Southern, who told me he was so concerned about liberalism at Southern that he walks by the seminary's sign each night just to make sure it is still a Southern Baptist seminary. These are not immature, reactionary men. They are men who answered a call from God to be Southern Baptist ministers, only to find out that the oldest Southern Baptist seminary did not take the Bible as seriously as they did and that training for "effective ministry" at Southern included such activities as watching a video of paraplegics having sex.

I could also mention my friend Toni, a woman who will enroll at Southern next year in spite of its liberal reputation. The closing comment of your editorial, that daughters need not apply to the seminary, made great editorial copy, but unfairly misrepresented Mohler's stated position on women in ministry. According to Baptist Press, Mohler told students at Southern he was personally opposed to women serving as pastors of churches, but he believed other ministry positions could be filled by women and he emphasized all the degree programs of the seminary will be open to female students. After that, and I do not mean this flippantly, Mr. Clingenpeel, it is up to the local church, not Dr. Mohler, to decide whom they will call as their pastor.

You say that Southern once "trusted that truth ... would ultimately prevail." If that is the case, then I urge you to give Al Mohler an opportunity to fail or succeed. As Gamaliel might have said, "If Al Mohler's presidency is of men, then it will fail. If it is of God, then you will not be able to overthrow it."