Beeson Divinity School

elnwood · #1 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 02:22 PM

Does anyone here know or have heard anything about this seminary? I hear good things about Dean Timothy George and others on the faculty.

Pilgrim · #2 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 03:48 PM

I'm sure you could do much worse, but if I were a Baptist it would not be at the top of the list unless it was due to geographic limitations. (Technically it is interdenominational although it is on the campus of Samford University, a Baptist school.) George is solid on many things, but was also one of the big cheerleaders for Evangelicals and Catholics Together. They also seem to be regarded by some as being soft on the gender issue and do not take a formal position on it. A look at their website will reveal a number of female faculty who are listed as "professors of divinity". What their role is, I don't know.

DMcFadden · #3 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I'm sure you could do much worse, but if I were a Baptist it would not be at the top of the list unless it was due to geographic limitations. (Technically it is interdenominational although it is on the campus of Samford University, a Baptist school.) George is solid on many things, but was also one of the big cheerleaders for Evangelicals and Catholics Together. They also seem to be regarded by some as being soft on the gender issue and do not take a formal position on it. A look at their website will reveal a number of female faculty who are listed as "professors of divinity". What their role is, I don't know.

Two of the women profs are in NT, one is in pastoral care/counseling.

As to where Dr. George comes from, cf. the following observations . . .

Quote:

A recent book, however, has suggested that a Reformed theology of grace requires an alternative acrostic, not because the Canons of Dort were wrong, but because the five points of Calvinism are open to misinterpretation. The book, Amazing Grace, has been written by a leading Reformation scholar, Dr. Timothy George. His Theology of the Reformers is an extremely helpful volume. Dr. George, who is Dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, has produced his latest work as the 2001 Doctrine Study for the Southern Baptist Convention. He is concerned to bring the mainstream Baptist churches to a deeper appreciation of sovereign grace, but is also concerned to note that we are no longer in the seventeenth century, and therefore that the conclusions of Dort require reformulation. He suggests different flowers, and wants us to pick roses instead of tulips.

Dr. George has renamed each of the five points; his acrostic also requires a different order to the five points, which may or may not be significant. He has a concern to emphasize sovereign grace; he has an evangelistic concern; he has a desire to avoid legalism and antinomianism; he wishes to make the theology of the Reformation relevant for today. But are his roses an improvement on our tulips?

TULIPs or ROSES

Pilgrim · #4 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 04:07 PM

From the conclusion of the article Dennis linked:

Quote:

But I am not prepared to abandon my tulips for Dr. George's roses. Perhaps, like the chocolate version, these roses will "grow on you." But I suspect that the reformulation suggested in this work will mean that churches will become broadly evangelical and less distinctly Reformed in their emphasis. And I am just a little bit afraid that while I may find the fragrance of Christ and his evangel in the scent of the roses as much as in the tulips, the hidden thorns on the rose stems may hinder my appreciation of God's sovereign and gracious work in the salvation of sinners.

Since George is an executive editor at Christianity Today, that his teaching would tend toward broad evangelicalism should be no surprise.

DMcFadden · #5 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Since George is an executive editor at Christianity Today, that his teaching would tend toward broad evangelicalism should be no surprise.

George is an interesting fellow. With his doctorate from Harvard he is comfortable with the likes of American Baptist Harvey Cox. Yet, his volume on the theology of the Reformers has been hailed as a standard text. He also serves on the board of the SBC Founders Journal, made up of professing Calvinists. His role with ECT is well known as is his work with Christianity Today. I agree with Chris that he seems intent on being "broadly evangelical."

Pilgrim · #6 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Since George is an executive editor at Christianity Today, that his teaching would tend toward broad evangelicalism should be no surprise.

George is an interesting fellow. With his doctorate from Harvard he is comfortable with the likes of American Baptist Harvey Cox. Yet, his volume on the theology of the Reformers has been hailed as a standard text. He also serves on the board of the SBC Founders Journal, made up of professing Calvinists. His role with ECT is well known as is his work with Christianity Today. I agree with Chris that he seems intent on being "broadly evangelical."

I think that's true of a great many of those in the SBC. Whatever broad evangelicalisms faults, of course it's still a vast improvement over liberalism. But the kinds of concerns expressed here on the PB and elsewhere over worship, the RPW, etc. are completely foreign to many who would identify themselves as Calvinists. Of course the same could be said of many in the PCA, unfortunately, and there are even those in the OPC who will write in to the denominational magazine and advocate for pictures of Christ in response to an article setting forth the confessional position. And the gender issue is one that needs more emphasis as well. For example, the headline in Baptist Press proclaimed that Mike Huckabee defended the Baptist Faith and Message's complementarianism in one of the debates when he in fact contradicted it. But since he didn't come right out and say "I disagree with it", it was apparently thought that he defended it.