Review: Servant Songs: Reflections on the History of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 195& 1988, edited by Thomas A. Bland, Jr., Macon: Smyth and Helwys, 1994. 294 pp, $13.95 paper.
Vol. VII, No. 6, August 1994
reviewed by: Dr. Danny Akin
Dean of Students, Southeastern Seminary
This book will not be read by every Southern Baptist, but I wish that it were. If it could be sold far and wide, Smyth and Helwys would be able to turn a profit, Southern Baptists would be further enlightened, and I would be thrilled. Comprised of 12 chapters (articles) and contributors, the book purports to chronicle the birth, growth, and development of the seminary up until the time the "fundamentalist takeover" or "conservative resurgence" brought about a transition in administration and faculty. One's theological/political perspective will tend to determine which of the above designations one considers more correct. All contributors are self-confessed moderates and, with the exception of one (Dr. Fred Grissom), no longer are connected with SEBTS. Chapters on Beginnings (TomBland, Sr.), Educational Vision (Morris Ashcraft), and various departments such as Bible (Don Cook), History (Fred Grissom), Theology (John Eddins), and Missions (Alan Neely) are a sampling of what the book is all about.
Now, an important question should be asked and answered. Why would an avowed inerrantist, evangelical, and advocate of the conservative resurgence in the SBC be so enthusiastic about such a book? The riddle is easily resolved when embarking upon a careful investigation of the contents of the book. The authors, to my mind, are quite candid and honest. Now, there is the normal misrepresentation of conservative views, and there is the propensity on the part of some (e.g., Lolley, Hester, and Graves) for the melodramatic and hyperbolic. Still the book is a remarkable testimony to both the pros and cons of SEBTS from 1950-1988. Further, and most importantly, it confirms just why a change was needed at SEBTS in particular and in the SBC in general.
Consider the following facts the authors provide in their reflection on the way things used to be:
1) Jewish rabbis and those sympathetic to the homosexual agenda were often invited to teach adjunctively (pp. 36, 105, 107).
2) There was a need for a student organization called the Conservative Evangelical Fellowship (CEF) because conservative evangelical views were not being represented at the school (p. 43f). Though they were perhaps guilty of not always exercising good judgment, the fact that such a group was needed at all is an incredible indictment for an SBC entity. Accusation of outside funding and support for the CEF (p. 44) goes undocumented and appears spurious.
3) That an Old Testament professor on the faculty believed that Satan in the book of Job was God's "loyal servant" (p. 44). His view is defended as not being atypical.
4) That the president of SEBTS from 19741988, Randall Lolley, interprets "not errant in any area of reality" as only meaning that the biblical authors did not deliberately write any error (p. 56). This is a strange twisting of word meaning that would make some neo-orthodox proud, but it is intellectually and ethically suspect at best.
5) That the faculty as a whole could not support even this weak position (#4 above) concerning the Bible's inspiration (p. 56).
6) That a substantial part of the faculty (a) advocated the ordination of women, (b) did not hold to a view of the inerrancy of Scripture, (c) supported the views of liberation theology, (d) did not believe in a substitutionary view of the atonement, and (e) were intolerant of views that differed from their own (p. 95). Though these are accusations Richard Hester says were made against the faculty, he nowhere denies them, and in fact implies his acceptance of them (see further p. 107).
7) The faculty believed that a belief in inerrancy and in historical critical approaches to Scripture are incompatible and that an inerrant view of the Bible is therefore untenable (p. 96).
8) That faculty saw the Bible "as a set of human documents in which persons bore witness to their experience of God. We believe that those biblical witnesses were always limited in their vision by finitude and sin ... that it was a challenging task and an act of faith to bring the ancient text to life in the present context" (p. 107).
9) That some faculty members viewed homosexual orientation as God given and present from the earliest stages of human development (p. 107).
10) That Bultmannian scholars had been invited to join the SEBTS faculty and that their dismissal (by resignation) was divisive and unsettling because evidently some, amazingly, felt they should have been allowed to stay (pp. 25-27, 126, 202). This reviewer believes that Southern Baptists would be scandalized that those who deny the supernatural and believe Jesus of Nazareth never rose from the dead could even be on one of our seminary faculties, much less that their dismissal would be anything but applauded.
11) That until 1994, missions and evangelism were not a part of the required core curriculum (p. 133ff). It should be noted that early in Southeastern's history missions was required, but later it was dropped from the core.
12) That not one evangelical inerrantist scholar was asked to serve on the faculty until 1989, and then, over the opposition of the Theology area (p. 160). Hence the school's claim to be inclusivistic was bogus and in some sense dishonest.
13) That "neo-orthodox theology was almost a mark of the school's identity" (p. 208).
14) That "Southeastern appeared to those on the left as never quite intellectually respectable or correct ...[and] to those on the right ... unwilling to admit that anything new had occurred in conservative theology" (p. 209).
15) That SEBTS "was a school that was often in more tension with its environment than its faculty and administration supposed" (p. 213).
Most of these admissions would provide sufficient warrant for mainstream Southern Baptists to express concern about Southeastern's theological orientation and direction. Further, they would justify efforts by the churches of the Convention to get involved in turning SEBTS and the SBC as a whole back in the direction of its founders.
One can certainly sympathize with the contributors to Servant Songs and feel their pain. The essays reflect both the frustration and sorrow experienced by men and women who loved Southeastern as it was and were devastated by the changes brought about by the conservative resurgence. That this hurt and sorrow was present and even continues into the present is a regrettable feature of many major changes which occur in life for all of us. No conservative/evangelical worthy of the name rejoices in that pain, even if he is unalterably convinced of the necessity for the reformation to have occurred.
However, the book does have a serious shortcoming. One searches in vain for the slightest hint of sympathy and concern for the heartache and suffering inflicted by many of the SEBTS faculty on conservative students across the years. Their pain is not addressed, and the difficulties they experienced from those whom they thought would most thoroughly affirm the trustworthiness and truthfulness of the Bible, but in actuality raised questions about it, goes without mention. This glaring omission reflects either (1) an unscholarly ignorance of the extent of such heartaches visited upon many, or (2) an unhealthy preoccupation with one's own struggle to such a degree as to be without appropriate sympathy for the devastating sorrows of others – especially with those with whom one disagrees. In such an instance for which do we hope – ignorance or insensitivity? That conservative evangelical views were ignored at best, and ridiculed at worst, goes without question. The book is sterling testimony to this. It is one thing to acquaint students with the views of Barth, Brunner, and Bultmann. It is something else to advocate these views and lift these men up as heroes and stalwarts of historic orthodox Christianity.
A further observation is also in order. Nowhere in the book is it noted that the Southern Baptist Convention, which supports SEBTS, has the right to determine the direction of that institution. It would seem that concepts such as freedom, autonomy, priesthood of the believers, etc. apply in the minds of some only for moderates.
Again the sources and causes of the conflict in the SBC have been uncovered, and not by the conservatives (or fundamentalists as we are most often designated in the book) but by moderates. The nature of the battle, though fraught with political overtones was at its very heart theological, centering squarely upon the nature of the Bible, its inspiration and authority, and the ramifications of those commitments.
Southern Baptists should support the healthy distribution of this book. It will bring to light many things that have been and are good about our denomination and schools. It will also reveal many things that were wrong and desperately needed correcting. If Southern Baptists liked "The Way We Were" at SEBTS in the 70's and 80's, Truett Seminary, Baptist Seminary at Richmond, the CBF, and the Alliance provide an avenue of service for them. If, however, they want a school that advocates the complete truthfulness and trustworthiness of the Bible, and affirms a strong commitment to evangelical scholarship, expository preaching, biblical missions, evangelism, discipleship, and radical social activism in fighting evils such as abortion and racism, then the "new Southeastern" may be the answer to their prayers.