Biblical Seminary 2003, A Very Sad Day!

"three days of trash talking conservative evangelical Christianity" 

A former BTS student shares his experience. First some more excerpts: 

“What I didn't realize is that they had bought into [Postmodernism] hook, line, and sinker”

“Franke openly touted himself as the ‘postmodern Martin Luther’”

“They appeared so impressed that they were getting to go to some roundtable with some 'noted liberal scholors'”

“Apparently these guys (back then) had already gained a reputation for being ‘controversial’ and seemed to delight in that reputation”

“When you have to ask a professor if he considers himself an evangelical, you already have a problem”

“these guys were CLEARLY OUTSIDE anything I would consider evangelical” 

"Shame, shame, shame on them for what they have done to the school and the legacy of those whom they have ruined."

My name is Andrew Straubel, a pastor and life-long student. Feel free to share this story. It is short but is my story while attending my third and final course at Biblical Seminary in Hatfield.

A long time friend in ministry emailed me your website and I read it with mixed emotions.

read more:

I am not a graduate of Biblical Seminary. I started attending there to hopefully complete a DMin I started in 1991 from Dallas. I had friends who were graduates of Biblical who spoke highly of the school and seemed like solid guys.

I was encouraged by someone in the administration to take a class co-taught by Franke and Magnum, Oct 20–24, 2003 called Contemporary Issues in Theology (TH 901).  This course was the third course I had taken in the seminary, the other two: The Ministry Leader and Difficult Issues in Pastoral Care (Phil Monroe).  Both courses were basically OK and I completed them with credit.  NO serious warning flags yet.

In the opening moments of the first class I knew something was terribly wrong, the tone, the content, the responses I heard in the class.  The opening volley by Franke was the statement that "there is no such thing as absolute truth."  They didn't repeat the comment and were quick to backtrack on the "no such thing as" statement, probably due to the reaction by the class. They attempted to "cover" by stating that "no one can claim to have or to possess absolute truth" to which I would agree. To me however the cat was out of the bag. It led to open questioning of the profs’ (both Franke’s and Mangum’s) position on inerrancy--not just by me but by other students in the class. So, other students made the connection and this sparked the debate.

The reason I remember the comment about absolute truth was that it was contrary to the very first comment that I heard when I first entered Bible college, the class was Doctrine 101 - Bibliology. The prof. made the point over and over again, the Bible is the only source of Absolute Truth. So to hear it challenged in much the same tone but to the contrary was memorable. I also knew from subsequent coursework and reading through the years, that the Absolute Truth of God's Word, is a crux issue, as in Battle for the Bible, Fuller seminary and all that. In the 1940-50's it is what got the ball rolling. So to hear that was a shock. I sensed they said it in kind of a "shock jockey" kind of way, that is to get a rise, make a statement, set the tone for the kind of class we were all in.

At the start of the class, guys went around introducing themselves and where they were from. Most were pastors. What I did remember is that several were from theologically liberal denominations and churches. When asked why they were taking the class, several said they were happy about the "new" direction the seminary was heading in and the "openness" that they were experiencing. At this point I knew nothing about what they were talking about but soon realized. In the first three days, I cannot remember one of those guys voicing a word of concern. I vividly remember looking around the room as I heard these students go on and on about social justice, righting all wrongs, corrective theology, and no one challenging anything, too scared I guess or didn't want it to reflect on their grade.

Now at the time of that class, I was not well versed in Postmodernism, I knew it was out there, that is one of the reasons I thought of taking the class. What I didn't realize is that they had bought into it hook, line, and sinker. After the course I hit the books, I soon realized what I had stepped into. I have to hand it to them, these guys were smart and very convincing. No notes were handed out in class and no taping was permitted so they couldn't be held accountable for what was said. But make no mistake about it, they were there with an agenda and it soon became over -the -top obvious.

Things went quickly from bad to worse. As a graduate of Bible college and two seminaries I have never felt the need to confront a teacher in class, but I was compelled. These guys had an answer for everything. Apparently they have done it to a host of guys before me.

By Wednesday of the week I was fit to be tied. It appears from all I have read on your site that my experience was the norm of those who voiced any opposition. Franke openly touted himself as the "postmodern Martin Luther."

That Wednesday, at the mid-morning break we got "into it" both in class and out in the hall. I asked myself how these guys were getting away with this. At that moment Dr. Dunbar was walking down the hall, and I confronted him in front of Franke with what he was teaching–issues regarding truth, inerrancy, (ECT) Evangelicals and Catholics Together, the Catholic church, etc.

I was given the apparent talking points, "you must have misunderstood him . . . blah, blah, blah! The board has questioned him regarding inerrancy and feel he’s OK."  I was stunned. Apparently I HAD THE PROBLEM.

At the time I filled out a class evaluation form and made a few comments under "weaknesses of the class and/or professors." They said, "try to be specific." Here they are:

(1) I didn't expect the prof's and school to TOTALLY buy into the postmodern agenda–deconstruction, subjectivity, relativism, embracing all the socially dis-enfranchised, and liberal theology.

(2) It appears that the "trajectory" is set [terms taken from class lecture indicating the direction to which they, the school and profs were heading.] -- further comment under 2. It troubles me that the apparent starting point or philosophical basis upon which much of this rests is NOT God or the scriptures, or even theology, but man!

(3) Seminary is NOT the place to float untested theory, however "right" it appears.  (This goes to the idea mentioned in class that evangelicals or "foundationalist’s" claim to hold special rights to truth and there is just as much validity in the claims in Asian theology or African theology, or South American theology).

I also did a reflections page in my course notes to summarize what I was thinking at the time: I listed 11 things that bothered me, including: (1) deconstruction, (2) accommodation to culture, (3) relativism of truth, (4) ecumenism, (5) Judges 21:25 these guys doing "that which is right in their own eyes;" (6) seems like a sociological experiment; (7) they seem "sucked into" a subjective vortex of liberalism; (8) they’re scripturally "askew"; (9) they use rhetorical manipulation (the systematic redefinition of terms to get a desired outcome).

I jotted down these notes as well: "At the end of the day, if I followed your line of thinking, what would I have as a pastor of the local church?"

      (1) a diminished view of the Scriptures (not inerrant and certainly not authoritative);

      (2) a message without demands;

      (3) a church without an identity;

      (4) a clergy without convictions.

I had never withdrawn from a class or school in my life. But I left that day and haven't been back. My only regret is I paid the bill. I am sad to say I am NO friend of Biblical Seminary. I have had to tell men interested in ministry NOT to go there, and, it grieves my heart.

On Friday, May 28, 2004 some months after the class I was still in "recovery" from the class. I sent an email to Dr. Dunbar to follow up an original email indicating my concerns. I mentioned again to him all of what I have mentioned above. I took notes because I was having a real problem. I talked at length about the issue of Truth (epistemology) as the foundation of theological education. I asked him point blank, what view of inerrancy holds to a subjective view of truth. I could go on but you get the idea. I mentioned at the end of this one page email that I sensed a slippery slope. I ended with this, "Biblical touts itself as a leading evangelical seminary. That which makes one evangelical is the commitment to the scriptures, i.e. inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency, especially coming from the reformed perspective. It should NOT take a professor [Franke] 20 minutes to answer the question, "Do you believe in inerrancy?" You either do, or you don't!

It takes a lot to get me to go off on someone, usually a truth or justice issue. On a purely subjective note, I thought at the time that Franke got off on what he was doing. He seemed to enjoy pressing those buttons. It seemed to give him a platform or stage upon which to enter. Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is smart, too smart for his own good. Convincing and dangerous are the terms that came to me at the time.

The friends I know who did go there are heartbroken and, for good reason. As alumni of that institution I want to encourage you, as hard as it is, to take action. Although my stint was short with these individuals, it has left a lasting impact.

I took my complaint right to the President of the seminary and will stand by my words til this day. I was and am angry that my complaint was not taken seriously at the time, and that it was summarily dismissed in the hallway by Dr. Dunbar, and in subsequent conversations of similar matters was ignored by Ron Keller and Rick Houseknecht. Further, I'm angry because these professors were so quick NOT to take responsibility for what they were saying and, in a shameless way, and without conscience turned the issues around to make me out to be the bad guy for questioning it all. It was NOT just one comment, it was three days of trash talking conservative evangelical Christianity. You would have thought that evangelicals had nothing to contribute. I remember saying to them, "Ok, you guys hate conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, so what are you offering?" We had to read Beyond Foundationalism as a text, and frankly (no pun intended) where does the "beyond" take you? I said NOWHERE!  In fact, I said, you guys just seem like another dissatisfied evangelical who doesn't get to play in the liberal sandbox.  (They appeared so impressed that they were getting to go to some roundtable with some "noted liberal scholors" -- it seemed to impress them. It was an "I call you Dr. , you call me brother" kind of thing).

I hate to go on, but I haven't thought about all of this for some time. I said in class, "Ok, you're unhappy, but what are you offering." “If it is not based on the Word of God, what good is it?” Point blank, "Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God, the only rule for faith and practice?" That is what I have been taught and have based now 25+ years of ministry upon. Their non-answer was answer enough. Apparently these guys (back then) had already gained a reputation for being "controversial" and seemed to delight in that reputation. Again, I was not impressed. Eventually, and what led to my open confrontation, is their reluctance to define themselves. When you have to ask a professor if he considers himself an evangelical, you already have a problem. I figured, hey, he attends (at that time by his own words) a Presbyterian USA church and didn't see a problem with the liberal Methodist guy or the others, I guess he is a liberal. And, while backgrounds or churches don't necessarily define us, words and actions do.

What bothered me most, at the time, is how they managed discussion of the definitive issues of inerrancy, authority, & sufficiency of Scripture. They use tactics to deflect, skirt, ignore, and deny. They carefully craft responses so as to NOT define their positions or they make them in such a way as to be coy. In other words they get "political." Once faced with "tough" questions, they know they have be careful because what they say CAN and WILL be held against them.

Hey, I don't care what a guy believes as long as he is not ashamed to say so. We can disagree. In fact I disagree with a lot of my friends. I was never looking for uniformity. And, I recognize that evangelicalism is "deep and wide" in it's scope. But these guys were CLEARLY OUTSIDE anything I would consider evangelical.

The only good thing that it has done for me is to put me in touch with my old nature. I just feel bad for those who unknowingly fall under their influence.

As God is my witness what I have said here is the truth. Shame, shame, shame on them for what they have done to the school and the legacy of those whom they have ruined.

Sadly submitted,

Andrew Straubel, pastor

Postscript: In the e-mail accompanying his testimony, Andrew added the following: