Southwestern Follow-Up

by T. C. Pinckney                                                                                                Vol. VII, No. 4, May 1994

[The factual content in this story is drawn from many sources, primarily Baptist Press releases, reports in several state Baptist papers, and the letter from trustees to SBC pastors. Opinions, of course, are my own. ]

The April issue of The Baptist Banner carried an account of the firing of Russell Dilday as president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth on 9 March by the seminary trustees. Subsequently, more information has become available, and therefore this supplement.

The firing came as a shock to many Southern Baptists in large part because neither Dr. Dilday nor the trustees had commented publicly in the past upon the growing stalemate between the president and trustees. From the trustees' standpoint it is clear they had hoped for at least ten years (see chronology in the previous Banner) to arrive at a satisfactory working relationship with the president. To have publicized disagreements and difficulties would have worsened tensions and probably have destroyed any hope for an amicable solution. Thus, though the trustee decision sprang from valid motives, it meant that – when the final decision had to be made – very few Southern Baptists knew of the growing problems between Southwestern's president and trustees.

One possible issue can be eliminated at the outset: As Dr. Dilday has acknowledged, it is the responsibility of the trustees to hire and fire the school's president and to establish policies for the seminary administration to follow. Their action was unquestionably within their legal rights. On the other hand, just because an action is legally permissible does not mean it is necessarily correct. Why did the trustees come to this decision?

CBF Tilt: Texas trustee Laura Lee Cogswell believes the decision was to be expected when a board and an administration are headed in different directions. She cited several reasons for the impasse, including repeated recommendations by Dilday of faculty and staff from "patently CBF churches." "We were going evermore in the CBF direction. That may be fine with some people," Cogswell said, "but we are owned by the Southern Baptist Convention and responsible to them." She views the hiring of CBF sympathizers as undermining an institution that is dependent upon the Cooperative Program with which the CBF competes for funds.

Retirement Disagreement: She further indicated that Dilday (now 63) had at one time expressed a desire to continue past retirement age to 68, then later said not to hold him to that limitation, suggesting 70 might be a better age for the transition. If trustees had waited him out as many hindsight observers have since advised, Cogswell believes, "Things would have been set in place that would have way outlived him and our vote – deanships, vice presidencies, and professors." She saw the unsuccessful attempt by Dilday to reorganize the administration as one such ploy. "We were going down the wrong path and had to pull back."

Opposition to Conservative Resurgence: The New York Times of 11 March noted, "...over the years Dr. Dilday had spoken harshly on occasion of the tactics and outlook of the conservatives. In his [June] 1984 [convention] sermon, he ascribed to their movement "an incipient Orwellian mentality" and the use of "innuendos, guilt by association, and the rest of that demonic family of forced uniformity." The moderate-liberal news agency, Associated Baptist Press, in a recent story notes that "one month later [July 1984] Dilday wrote in the seminary's alumni newsletter about a ‘fundamentalist political machine' working to take over the SBC. Concerns about liberalism within the SBC's agencies and schools are a ‘mask for other interests,' he wrote in the July 1984 issue of Southwestern News."

Associated Baptist Press, in a 9 March 1994 release stated, "Dilday repeatedly has come in conflict with trustees in recent years over the rise to power of fundamental-conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention and his criticism of their tactics." ABP also noted that as a result of Dilday speaking to a symposium of the moderate "Baptists Committed" group, "Trustees came to the brink of firing Dilday in !989 but backed away. The officers held a closed-door meeting with the president to discuss his alleged political involvement with SBC moderates, after which chairman Ken Lilly of Dallas issued an 85-page memo detailing Dilday's alleged political offenses. A five-hour private session between trustees and Dilday followed, which resulted in an agreement that both the president and trustees would avoid denominational politics." The "no political activity" agreement was reached at the trustees' October 1989 meeting with the president.

Only four months later In February 1990 Dilday confronted then SBC president Jerry Vines in the lobby of the Baptist Building in Nashville before several witnesses, saying "Everywhere I go I'm campaigning for Dan Vestal [who was running against Vines for the SBC presidency in the election to be held in June 1990]. I'm going public. I'm doing it right now. I'm going to promote him... I publicly endorse Daniel Vestal. I'm with him." Vines, "You are?" Dilday, "Yes, I'm working with him every way I can. I'll surprise you how much I'm working for him.... The trustees you sent me are objectionable, incompetent, and they couldn't even read a financial statement."

One month later in March 1990 ABP reports, "The controversy erupted again a year later [actually five months after the October 1989 concord], however, after Dilday told a reporter that ‘crass, secular political methodology used in the takeover of the convention these last 12 years has satanic and evil policies to which I am desperately opposed.' Calls for trustees to fire or censure him at their next meeting were smoothed over by then-chairman Jimmy Draper."

Please note that with the single exception of the Baptist Building lobby confrontation every other item in this "Opposition to the Conserva tive Resurgence" section is based on quotes from either the New York Times or Associated Baptist Press. Neither of these sources can in any way be accused of favoring conservatives. It is clear that Dilday has long and consistently opposed the conservative resurgence within the SBC.

Stalemate with Trustees: With the attitude about his trustees as quoted in the third preceding paragraph, it is not surprising that gridlock developed between president and trustees. Lee Weaver, Fort Worth petroleum engineer and vice chairman of the trustee board, has said, "Disobedience of rightful and lawful authority is unacceptable. Dilday's style of management with those in authority and to anyone taking a different position on issues was one of arrogance, isolationism, and disdain for authority." Weaver said that Dilday discouraged dissent and debate on current issues important to students, faculty, trustees, and American society in general. Those issues, Weaver said, included biblical reliability, abortion, ordination of women, and the right of the SBC to revise its overall direction. Weaver, "The president repeatedly criticized the convention, and its elected officials and leaders. He is on record constantly damaging the reputation of members of the board, who are leading business, professional, and religious leaders. Dilday led by intimidation and confrontation."

Damon Shook, pastor of Champion Forest Baptist Church, Houston, and immediate past chairman of the board, described his tenure leading the board as frustrating. Shook said the relationship between Dilday and the board members was "difficult to deal with. He was confrontational and critical and the conflict seemed to accelerate in recent years with frequent attacks on trustees for lack of cooperation."

In an 11 March release trustees said "reluctance to move in concert with policies established by the board brought constant concern to the trustees and often led to gridlock within the administration and to his stonewalling the board. Also, Dr. Dilday has continued to speak out on political issues fostered by others, in contradiction to his earlier agreement not to do so.

In the 31 March letter sent to all 38,000 SBC pastors, trustees stated, "The trustees tried to work cooperatively with (Dilday) but efforts led to frustration and lack of confidence and trust." The trustee officers then listed four areas where Dilday was unwilling to cooperate with the board: (1) repeated criticism of denominational leaders, members of the board, and others; (2) failing to adhere to directives of the board that he not be involved in the SBC controversy; trustees feel he is "strongly sympathetic" to the CBF agenda; (3) "Dilday demonstrates a commitment to the principles of higher criticism, which spawned theological liberalism (modernism), neo-orthodoxy, the death of God, situational ethics, etc. From a decidedly biased position, Dr. Dilday is dedicated to berate, misrepresent, and assail those who hold the Bible to be God's inerrant, infallible, and authoritative Word.."; and (4) The relationship became one of constant confrontation, both individually and collectively.

Trustee Paul Balducci, pastor of West Mobile Baptist Church, AL, noted there were many philosophical differences between Dilday and the board. As one example, he cited the seminary's relationship with the CBF. "The issue of whether Southwestern would put up exhibits at CBF meetings had come up through the years," Balducci said. "Several board members tried to say that we didn't want Cooperative Program money sponsoring a group that collects funds in opposition to the Cooperative Program. Basically, Dr. Dilday tried to argue against taking such a strong stand, and it was left an open issue. Also, we have told him that we have a problem with the hiring of CBF-related people on the faculty. We see it as a potential for internal conflict and as a conflict of interest."

Personally, I accept the judgment of the trustees as to the situation they faced with Dr. Dilday. However, even if an omniscient observer would come to a different conclusion, if the trustees believed they had arrived at this type of stalemated relationship, it is clear that for the good of the school there had to be a change of president.

Decline of the School: From 1985 to 1993 annual enrollment of students dropped from

5,070 to 4,022 ... a decline of 20.67%. During the same period the school's administrative staff increased from 96 to 116 ... a growth of 20.83%. Viewed in another way, in 1985 there was one administrator per each 52.81 students; in 1993 one administrator for each 34.67 students. Not the decrease in students, nor the increase in administrators, nor the worsening ratio of staff to students indicates efficient, effective management.

The Last Meeting: Trustees held their regular spring meeting 7-9 March and during that session rejected or placed on hold all but routine proposals from the president. One of these was a reorganization plan which Dilday touted as a cost saving effort. What he did not mention was that he had wanted to hire a new music dean currently at the well-known liberal church, Broadway Baptist in Fort Worth. Trustees had balked at this individual. Part of the reorganization plan would have removed trustees from faculty hiring and placed the final decision in the hands of the president.

News reports that Dilday had received a favorable annual performance report the night before being fired were labeled "rumor" by the officers, "...simply a misstatement of fact or it is his own interpretation of what happened." Officers said Dilday was challenged that night in his actions and attitudes as "has been the case for the previous two years." One trustee present at that meeting reported that he had marked the president unsatisfactory in five of the ten areas of evaluation.

In his presidential report to trustees Dilday spoke of upcoming events on campus and indicated the May commencement would feature an address by R. Keith Parks, missions coordinator for the moderate-liberal Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Dilday said that Parks had been invited in May 1991 when he was still president of the Foreign Mission Board. When trustees questioned the continued use of Parks as a commencement speaker in view of his CBF affiliation, Dilday responded, "As far as I am concerned," the invitation still holds. "He has a long record of commitment to Baptist missions. He is still a Southern Baptist in the sense of his membership." Trustee Miles Seaborn noted, "This man is openly, actively recruiting personnel and money in opposition to the Cooperative Program." Trustee Charles E. Lawson of Linthicum, MD, moved the invitation be withdrawn, and the motion was approved with only one negative vote.

Trustees offered Dilday an opportunity to retire which he refused even to consider. That being his attitude, the trustees concluded they had no alternative but to dismiss Dilday and seek a replacement.

Trustees' Apology: In a prepared statement of 31 March the trustee executive committee acknowledged that "several things in the action of the (trustees) should have been done differently or left undone." "We see now that limiting access to the president's office suite by changing the door locks was an overabundance of caution. In retrospect this was unnecessary and should not have been done." To place that trustee decision in context, there were two to three hundred upset students crowded around the entrance to the room where the trustees were meeting. The trustees' concern was not, as I understand it, directed at Dr. Dilday, but rather to the possibility that some emotional students might enter the president's office in search of souvenirs or in order to vent their emotion.

Referencing the limited public response made by trustees immediately after the firing, the executive committee said it agrees that "more explanation from the beginning would have been helpful and desirable. The original intent was to avoid dragging charges through the media. However, the seminary's constituents had a need to know the basic reasons for the dismissal. Again, we apologize for any misconceptions and reactions that arose from earlier statement or lack of statements."

The Future: A presidential search committee has been formed and has begun to function. An early rumor said that Jimmy Draper, former Southwestern Trustee Board chairman and current president of the Sunday School Board, would replace Dilday. However, Draper told Sunday School Board employees at a chapel service on 5 April he "will not allow my name to be considered." "At a time when I am challenging employees of the Baptist Sunday School Board to our greatest days of ministry to churches and individuals, I want to state my firm conviction that God led me here to serve as your president. I believe it is His will for me to remain at this position as we pursue the challenge that He has given to us."

On 29, March at a press conference called by trustees, William B. Tolar, vice president for academic affairs and provost at Southwestern was named the school's acting president. Trustee chairman Ralph W. Pulley, Jr., a Dallas attorney, called Tolar, 65, "a man of impeccable character and unusual qualifications to fill this interim position. He is respected by the faculty, students, and the Baptist constituency all over the world. We are indeed fortunate to be able to secure his services. He gives a sense of security and his stability and expertise will move the seminary in the right direction." Robert E. Naylor, president emeritus of Southwestern, praised Tolar for his "biblical faithfulness. He is accepted in Southern Baptist churches as a great preacher. This is an indication for all of us that the trustees mean to carry on in the same conservative position that makes Southwestern great."