Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859-2009: Interview with Dr. Gregory A. Wills (Part 1)

The following is part one of an interview with Dr. Gregory A. Wills, Professor of Church History at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.  At Southern Seminary, Dr. Wills is Associate Dean (Theology and Tradition) in the School of Theology and Director of the Center for the Study of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Dr. Wills is the author of numerous books and articles, including the recently released Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859-2009 (Oxford, 2009).

Joseph Gould (JG): Would you characterize your book as a “prescriptive” or “descriptive” approach of telling the history of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary?

Dr. Gregory A. Wills (GW): Definitely descriptive.  I seek to tell the story [of Southern] by understanding and explaining the story on its own terms.  As I see it, that’s the first job of doing history.

Description involves both analysis and synthesis. You figure out what are the most important and most compelling aspects of that history and then you let that come together as the main storyline, or storylines, which drive the history.  History has meaning, and what I’m trying to do is describe it in such a way that its meaning becomes apparent.

JG: In a nutshell, what is the thesis, or central argument, of your book?

GW: I don’t think it has one thesis that can carry the whole thing through, but there are two themes that recur through most of it and carry most of the story.

The first theme is the importance, or centrality, of Boyce’s vision of a seminary committed to sustaining orthodoxy, to sustaining a true and faithful teaching of the word of God.  In God’s providence, the Lord raised up a man with such a vision that as Boyce led the seminary his vision became the vision not only of the seminary, but also of the entire Southern Baptist Convention.  As such, Boyce succeeded, with God’s blessing, in tying the seminary and the Convention to traditional Christian orthodoxy and understanding of the scriptures.  An important part of that was the adoption of the Abstract of Principles, which secured the orthodoxy of the professors.  They had to agree to teach in accordance with the Abstract and not contrary to it.  Also, the fundamental documents adopted for the seminary stated that any departure from those Principles would constitute grounds for dismissal.

Boyce led the seminary to dismiss Crawford Toy when Toy departed from an orthodox view of inspiration, specifically the plenary verbal theory of inspiration with its conclusion of inerrancy.  Though not something explicitly delineated from the Abstract of Principles, it is clearly implied in the first article [on Scripture].  Then Boyce led the controversy over inspiration which followed Toy’s dismissal from about 1880-1885, when the denomination experienced significant controversy over inspiration.   In many ways, Boyce and the faculty led the orthodox side during the controversy.

I would say also that one of the things that gave [Boyce’s] vision of orthodoxy credibility was the way that Boyce and his colleagues suffered for the seminary.  Their personal sufferings and sacrifices in establishing the seminary amid remarkably difficult times made them heroes in the eyes of Southern Baptists of that day and subsequent generations. This gave them credibility in their stand for orthodoxy that they wouldn’t quite have had otherwise.  That commitment to orthodoxy carries through to the faculty; no matter how liberal they might have become, they could stray only so far because of the Abstract applying certain constraints and because the constituency expected Southern Seminary to be orthodox due to Boyce and the founding faculty. This put constraints on the seminary; while the seminary was able to develop in some liberal directions, there were limits on that.  They could only go so far and maintain their viability in the Southern Baptist Convention.

The second recurring theme in the book is the relationship which developed between a progressive faculty and a conservative denomination, what I call a realistic denominational diplomacy.  The seminary faculty had to develop a realistic approach to its relationship with the denomination in which they could realistically expose their more progressive views only in limited ways and to mostly trusted audiences. This tension between the more progressive views of the faculty and the more traditional views of Southern Baptists dominated the experience of the seminary throughout much of the 20^th century until the 1990s, when the seminary thoroughly reorganized on a more conservative basis.

JG: What structure do you take in telling the story of the seminary?

GW: The story is told largely by administration, though each administration has experiences, controversies, challenges, and developments that mark them.  The founding of the seminary required a little more attention; there are basically four chapters for the founding generation and they bring the story of the seminary up to the death of Broadus.

There is a chapter on William Whitsitt; although his administration was brief.  The controversy that he precipitated, or as some would say his Landmark opponents precipitated, influenced the seminary, faculty, and its future in such a way that his administration merits an entire chapter.

There are two chapters for E. Y. Mullins, two for Duke McCall, and two for Roy Honeycutt.  Although Honeycutt’s administration was shorter than either Mullins’s or McCall’s, it was, like Whittsitt’s administration, one in which there was intense controversy.  Furthermore, and even more than in Whitsitt’s day, there was profound change that came about because of that controversy.

JG: Which presidential administration do you believe is the most significant to the Seminary’s history, and why?

GW: Boyce’s administration, in founding the seminary, is without doubt the most important.  Beyond Boyce’s, this is a tough question because each one of them contributed in very significant ways.  Certainly the administration of Mullins was very important in negotiating the new environment of having the rise of this progressive religion among educated Southern Baptists, largely at the seminaries and colleges, and the conservative denomination.  So Mullins is important in establishing how that relationship is going to work.

McCall is terribly important in negotiating that very same relationship, but after World War II in a very different environment.  The faculty is growing more progressive, but the denomination, for the most part, is not growing more progressive.

Honeycutt led at a critical time of denominational conflict, over primarily the seminaries. And, of course, Dr. Mohler led the seminary to a renewed embrace of the mission of the seminary’s founders.

JG: After conducting your research, did you find that one administration was more significant than you had previously thought?

GW: Yes, Ellis Fuller’s administration. The presidency of Ellis Fuller was important for a lot of reasons. It was much richer and more complex than I expected.

JG: What figure in the history of the Seminary do you find the most interesting?

GW: I have to say James P. Boyce.  The more I’ve read and researched and written, the more I appreciate Boyce.  I feel he is the one person I would like to know personally above all the others.

There are others who contributed much and who were interesting and godly people.  I would love to have met Ellis Fuller.  He was deeply gifted in ways that were terribly important for the seminary’s success, or at least that were different than most of the other presidents.

It’s hard because I feel like I have a love and appreciation for each one of the presidents and find them all attractive in their own ways, with only two exceptions.  While I have differing assessments of how effective they were in widening the seminary’s mission, they were all gifted men in various ways.

JG: Do you believe that Southern Seminary has been able to successfully fulfill Boyce’s vision for Baptist theological education?

GW: I would say, mostly, yes. In certain periods profoundly so, at other periods less profoundly so, but even when the faculty was the most progressive there were still a significant number, such as many of the students, who were committed to Boyce’s vision.  So Boyce always cast a long shadow, even when many on faculty had either abandoned or profoundly changed his vision.