Mohler Dismisses Social Work Dean

by Art Toalston                                                                                                                        Vol. VIII, No. 4, April 1995

Summary: At the request of President R. Albert Mohler Jr., Diana R. Garland was removed March 20 as dean of the Carver School of Social Work at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. A seminary spokesman said March 21 Mohler requested Garland's resignation the morning of March 20 and Garland no longer is the social work school dean. The reason for the resignation request, according to Mohler, was Garland's unwillingness to resolve policy and personnel issues within the appropriate administrative structures of the seminary. As a result of Garland's actions, "the requisite trust level required between a president and a dean are no longer present," Mohler said. Garland, in a four-page public statement March 20, had taken issue with criteria Mohler holds for faculty selection that she charged are “absolutely restrictive."

Background: Garland joined Southern Seminary's faculty in 1983 and was appointed dean in 1993. Although she has been removed as dean, she remains Cheens Professor of Christian Family Ministry at the Louisville, Ky., school. Garland's husband, David, teaches New Testament at the seminary.

The firing was precipitated by Mohler's stated unwillingness to present to trustees a proposed candidate for the social work faculty, based on the candidate's views on women serving in the pastorate. Mohler indicated that since his 1993 election as president he has "consistently stated my intention not to nominate for election persons who hold such a position," a view he says is consistent with that of an over-whelming majority of seminary trustees.

The candidate at issue, according to Garland, was David Sherwood, director of the social work program at Gordon College, Wenham, Mass., and editor of the journal, Social Work and Christianity. Sherwood had been interviewed by the social work school's search committee and a student advisory committee prior to a March 8 interview with Mohler.

According to Garland, Mohler subsequently asked Sherwood for written answers to a set of questions concerning the seminary's doctrinal Abstract of Principles and contemporary social issues. Garland said Sherwood's answers, provided to Mohler March 13, prompted Mohler to inform her the next day he would not recommend Sherwood for the faculty.

During several days of conversation with Garland, Mohler proposed that she discuss the issue with the board of trustees at its April meeting. To discuss this and other issues relating to the Carver school, Mohler also proposed a study committee be formed to present a report next year. Instead, Garland prepared a four-page document outlining her views and calling on Mohler to present those views to the trustees.

The document was distributed in written form to students and news media representatives prior to Garland's Monday morning meeting with Mohler. Based on what he characterized as a preemption of official administrative structures including the release of "private and privileged information," Mohler asked for Garland's resignation.

In her statement, Garland expressed the view that "the future of the Carver School of Church Social Work is in serious jeopardy." She objected to the proposed study committee, since it would preclude hiring new faculty until August 1996, a situation that she believes "jeopardizes the accreditation of the MSW (master of social work) degree at Southern Seminary." Southern is the only seminary in the United States offering an accredited MSW degree. Garland also contended that criteria Mohler had established for evaluating prospective faculty were "absolutely restrictive" and "there were, in my estimation, no other candidates for the Carver School who can meet all his criteria..."

A news release from the seminary cited only Mohler's stance on women pastors, while Garland's statement did not amplify the criteria to which she objected.

Garland also contended that one's "private views" should not disqualify a person for selection to the faculty "so long as those private thoughts do not keep the candidate from teaching in accordance with and not contrary to the Abstract of Principles or from respecting and relating constructively to the Southern Baptist Convention."

At a meeting with social work students at midday, Mohler assured students he remained committed to providing a setting in which church social work education could be provided within the seminary, in so far as such a program fits with the seminary's commitments and mission. He confirmed his hope that there is adequate "common ground" between the social work profession and theological education to allow such an approach, although he pointed out that the lack of similar programs at other seminaries reflects that there is not "congruence at all points" between the two spheres.

At the same time, Mohler observed, "the institution will not compromise its theological commitments in response to any external pressure."

Meanwhile, David Sherwood, the nominee Mohler turned down, released answers he provided Mohler on the seminary's doctrinal Abstract of Principles and various social issues.

In his answers to Mohler, Sherwood wrote of women in ministry, "In my understanding of Scripture, God's Spirit blows where it wills and certain (but not all) women may he called to any role in the ministry of the church, just as certain (but not all) men may be. Evangelical scholars committed to the full authority of Scripture differ over this issue. I am sensitive to those differences, and I can respect and work with those whose understanding is different from my own, recognizing that I might be wrong. I would expect the same respect and recognition from them. In all these things we must seek to `preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace...’” he wrote, quoting Ephesians 4 in the New Testament.

The faculty selection process was among the concerns addressed by Mohler in his March 22 letter to students:

"The faculty selection process calls for search committees to seek candidates for recommendation to the faculty and then to the President for possible nomination to the Board of Trustees for election. At each stage of this process, issues and questions are raised in order to determine that the candidate meets all the appropriate requirements and expectations of service on this faculty. This is not a new process – it has served this institution for many years.

"When a candidate is presented to me for consideration, I take this responsibility with great seriousness. I must know that the candidate's convictions are commensurate with the Abstract of Principles (our Seminary confession of faith), with the (1991) Covenant Renewal document, and that the candidate's convictions on an entire range of issues fall within acceptable parameters. Should the President recommend a prospective faculty member for election, the Board of Trustees then has the responsibility to interview the candidate through the Committee on Academic Personnel. The trustees also bear the responsibility of ensuring that the candidate is fully suitable for election to this faculty.

"This is the rightful expectation of the churches and denomination we serve, and it is the rightful role of the President and trustees. The process guards the appropriate roles of faculty, administration, and trustees, each acting in their proper sphere."

Mohler also noted: "We would never coerce the conscience of any individual. Those who cannot eagerly and freely stand within the parameters set by the trustees and administration should not come to serve on this faculty. This is honest and fair – and it is fully Baptist in tradition. It reflects the statements made by the founders of this institution. This has been the expectation of this institution from the founding era to the present."

In a statement to Baptist Press, Mohler noted: "I fully intend to continue the search process, and it is my expectation that we will have a full roster of social work faculty for the fall semester.

"It has never been the intention of this administration to eliminate the Carver School. Indeed, we have sought to support the school and to see it serve its distinctive role within the seminary structure. I did not seek to bring about a crisis related to this school. That decision was made by others."

Concerning his stance against recommending prospective faculty members who embrace the concept of women pastors, Mohler said, "Based upon the New Testament, I believe there is a clear pattern of male leadership in the congregation, especially reflected in the office of senior pastor. The New Testament clearly reveals a complementary pattern of relationships between men and women. Spiritual gifts are not gender-specific, but some roles within the church were and are limited to men, just as other roles are more properly fitted for women. It is simply not acceptable to allow a secular egalitarianism to obscure the New Testament pattern.

"We must maintain trust with the churches we serve, and Southern Baptists have spoken loudly concerning their convictions on this issue. We are a Southern Baptist institution, and we will not apologize for maintaining loyalty to the denomination we serve," Mohler said. [BP]

[Editorial Comment: Those who watch the liberal press, such as The Religious Herald and Baptists Today, have been treated to another outburst a la Chicken Little, "The denomination is falling! The denomination is falling!" But such fulminations spread much more heat than light. So let's review the sequence of events and try calmly to extract the significant factors.

First, the candidate, Sherwood, was interviewed by the social work school's search committee and an advisory student committee. Presumably (this is not stated in the BP article above) Sherwood was recommended to seminary president Mohler by the search committee which apparently included Dr. Garland, even though President Mohler's decision is widely known not to approve faculty candidates who believe in female pastors.

Second, on 8 March President Mohler interviewed Sherwood and asked him a series of questions.

Third, on 13 March Mohler received Sherwood's written answers.

Fourth, on 14 March Mohler informed Dean Garland that he would not recommend Sherwood to the trustees for election to the faculty.

Fifth, Mohler held multiple conversations with Garland over "several days." During these talks he suggested that (1) she discuss the matter with the seminary's trustees who were scheduled to meet 17-19 April and (2) that a study committee be formed to present a report next year. Mohler and Garland were scheduled to meet again on Monday, 20 March. Apparently Mohler's recommendations were unsatisfactory to Garland because:

Sixth, Garland prepared a four page paper "outlining her views and calling on Mohler to present those views to the trustees." (Why she was unwilling to meet with the trustees is unexplained.)

Seventh, Garland distributed her paper in writing to students and the media before her Monday morning meeting with Mohler.

Eighth, Mohler asked for her resignation that same day.

Ninth, Sherwood at some point between 20 and 24 March made public his written answers to Mohler which confirm that he believes women maybe pastors.

Tenth, at some time not quite certain but presumably in the four page statement she made public, Garland said that one's "private views" should not disqualify a person for selection to the faculty "so long as those private thoughts do not keep the candidate from teaching in accordance with and not contrary to the Abstract of Principles or from respecting and relating constructively to the Southern Baptist Convention."

Now let's review and comment on a couple of these points. Through the fifth point events seem to have moved normally. The candidate was recommended. The seminary president interviewed him, presented some questions, and the candidate responded promptly in writing. Based upon these answers the president decided he could not recommend the candidate to the trustees for approval. Informed of this, the dean objected. So the president met with her and held conversation over several days. During these talks he offered two suggestions for handling the situation: she could meet with the trustees in April and/or a study committee could be formed to report next year.

To your editor it certainly appears that to this point Mohler was being as accommodating as possible. When his decision was questioned, he was not arbitrary but met with the dean not once but over several days. Neither did he stonewall her during those conversations. He made (at least) two suggestions as to how they might proceed amicably though still in disagreement as to the specific candidate.

But here note carefully Dean Garland's response. She was scheduled to meet again with President Mohler on Monday morning. Without even giving him the courtesy of seeing her paper first, much less asking his permission, she distributed it to students and the media. In my judgment she was by this action obviously trying to stir up trouble. She only left two courses open to Mohler: He could capitulate to her feelings and forever lose control of the seminary, or he could remove her as dean. He chose the latter.

Most Banner readers hold secular jobs. Ask yourself how your boss would react were you to do something comparable to what Garland did. How long would you remain in your position?

Finally, consider Garland's statement that a seminary professor's "private views" should not disqualify a person for selection to the faculty. I suggest that that is absolute nonsense. Of all "private views" one's theology is perhaps the most intimate, as well as the most significant. If one believes women are biblically acceptable as pastors, how CAN one honestly teach at a seminary of a denomination which has upon more than one occasion resolved that it believes the Bible clearly states only men may be pastors? When the issue comes up in class, the professor would have two choices: (1) frankly express his views, in which case he is propagating doctrine contrary to that of the denomination which selected him to foster its beliefs, or (2) lie by supporting the denominational position at the expense of his own firm conviction. In either case he demonstrates an absence of integrity and disqualifies himself from serving in such a position of trust.

Question: It seems farfetched to think Garland was unaware of Mohler's position regarding women in the pastorate. It also seems highly likely she knew Sherwood's views. Is it possible this was a put up job, an effort to create an issue and try to force Mohler to back down, knowing that if the ploy were successful his effectiveness as a strong seminary president would be destroyed?

Conclusion: Once again Al Mohler has steered a true course. We can be proud and cheered by his steadfast commitment to God's inerrant word, to the renaissance of Southern Seminary, to the job that Southern Baptists have committed unto his care. TCP]