Paige Patterson out as Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President
- 137 views
[Jim]Joeb wrote:
Also they [BJU] still don’t have a licensed Counselor on Staff. .Jim Berg “is a Level3 certified biblical counselor with the Association of Biblical Counselors.”
Isn’t one of the issues: what is a licensed Counselor?
As a rule, certification is done by the private sector, licensing is a function of the state. So Berg’s certification doesn’t equate to licensing, really. One can quibble over whether one really wants licensing in the state model—I can think of a number of reasons why one would hesitate—and I would argue that this is a place where Berg and others at BJU ought to sit down with first the GRACE report, and then with people at GRACE, to see what their objections to BJU’s methods are and see if that can be reconciled without compromising Scripture.
That noted, if Peter Breggin, who is famous for rejecting a lot of drugs for mental health, can get certification in New York, it might not be impossible for Jim Berg to get it in South Carolina. The field has, at least for now, considerable room for difference of opinion.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[GregH]While a bit redundant, this conversation is nothing if not entertaining.
On one side, Tyler has established (in his own mind) that there is no value to any conversation on a theoretical level and now measures any other conversation against his new standard of results-oriented practicality. I disagree with him on that but based on his youth and limited experience outside the military where that kind of thinking is probably dominant, he can be forgiven for believing it. He is a smart guy and probably won’t still believe that in a decade or two anyway.
Bert on the other hand neatly falls into the trap of letting Tyler move the goalpost and define what meaningful conversation is. You might watch yourself on that Bert. No, your list is in no way what Tyler is looking for but on the flip side, who says Tyler gets to determine how you are going to write? You don’t have to defend the fact that you are not giving him what he has decided is beneficial.
Maybe Tyler can elaborate more on what ought to be done as a plan, but my suspicion is that he’s thinking of something more elaborate. It’s along the lines of Naaman in 2 Kings 5, where Naaman wouldn’t believe the answer was really that simple. And I don’t think he’s “trapping” me as much as he’s thinking that the solutions ought to look far different. But there are some cases, and this is one, where a great deal of good can be done simply by a basic act of repentance.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Anyone remember the D.O. / M.D. debate. Prior to 1969 D.O.’s could not be member of the AMA
Same with chiropracty: “In 1966 a policy passed by the AMA House of Delegates stating: “It is the position of the medical profession that chiropractic is an unscientific cult whose practitioners lack the necessary training and background to diagnose and treat human disease. Chiropractic constitutes a hazard to rational health care in the United States because of its substandard and unscientific education of its practitioners and their rigid adherence to an irrational, unscientific approach to disease causation.”
More on the chiropracty / AMA issue: (this is from the AMA!):
The AMA’s plan to undermine chiropractic became even more organized with the establishment of the Committee on Quackery in 1963. This AMA committee adopted a plan that was devised in 1962 by the Iowa Medical Society under the leadership of Robert B. Throckmorton. The so-called “Iowa Plan” outlined the “containment of the chiropractic profession” that “will result in the decline of chiropractic.” [15, 18] Action steps outlined in this plan included “encourage ethical complaints against doctors of chiropractic,” “encourage chiropractic disunity,” “oppose chiropractic inroads in health insurance,” and “oppose chiropractic inroads into hospitals,” among others [15, 18]. Joseph Sabatier, chairman of the Committee on Quackery, said that “rabid dogs and chiropractors fit into about the same category…. Chiropractors were nice but they killed people” [20].
The massive scope and methodical nature of this plan were exposed in hundreds of thousands of pages of AMA documents that were brought to light in the 1976 trial Chester C. A. Wilk et al. v. AMA et al, which started one year after the Committee on Quackery was disbanded [21]. AMA writers ghostwrote television and movie scripts, as well as Ann Landers’ widely read newspaper column and any other media outlet that could be used to tarnish the reputation of chiropractic in the public eye. The AMA even encouraged the distribution of antichiropractic materials to high school guidance counselors so they would dissuade interested students from pursuing careers in it [15, 18]. During the 11-year court battle that ensued, the AMA settled three lawsuits by relaxing its position on the referral of patients to chiropractors by medical doctors. In 1980, the AMA revised its Principles of Medical Ethics to reflect this new position, allowing medical doctors to be free to choose the patients they served, the environment they served in, and the other types of practitioners they associated with [22].
In 1987, United States District Judge Susan Getzendanner found the AMA and its codefendants guilty of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. In her decision, Getzendanner asserted that “the AMA decided to contain and eliminate chiropractic as a profession” and that it was the AMA’s intent “to destroy a competitor” [22].
While it took some years for old habits to fade away, in the current era medical doctors and chiropractors openly refer to each other for diagnostic services, treatment, and co-management of cases, and chiropractors serve alongside medical practitioners in clinics and hospitals all over the country.
My sense is that there is tension / hostility between the “Biblical counseling” and “secular counseling” communities. We need to recognize this fact when criticizing Christian institutions for not having licensed counselors.
Bert, I believe Jim has received his doctorate in counseling from Southeastern Seminary. BJU has sponsored Counseling seminars bringing in outsiders who are widely respected. BJU operates on a basic nouthetic model which is different from the model that Grace advocates. When Grace was terminated and then re-hired, it was to solve some problems on Grace’s part which were in violation of their agreement with BJU. Those problems were quickly solved. It was not on account of public pressure via the internet. BJU has implemented their new polices.
Pastor Mike Harding
[Mike Harding]Bert, I believe Jim has received his doctorate in counseling from Southeastern Seminary.
His highest education on his faculty page has: “MA, Theology, Bob Jones University”
[Mike Harding] Those problems were quickly solved. It was not on account of public pressure via the internet. BJU has implemented their new polices.
Response: Maybe so but largely a subjective view.
[Mike Harding]Bert, I believe Jim has received his doctorate in counseling from Southeastern Seminary.
His highest education on his faculty page has: “MA, Theology, Bob Jones University”
[Mike Harding] Those problems were quickly solved. It was not on account of public pressure via the internet. BJU has implemented their new polices.
Response: Maybe so but largely a subjective view.
Jim,
I know that Jim Berg has been pursuing his Doctorate in Counseling at Southeastern for several years. He may be at the dissertation stage right now. That’s why I qualified my statement. My info about the disagreement between Grace and BJU came directly from the BJU attorneys and the Chairman of the Board.
Pastor Mike Harding
If just an MS, there is probably an upper bound on what level of licensure Berg can obtain. Jim’s right that there is some “turf-guarding” on the part of the AMA regarding osteopaths and chiropractors as well. Probably a touch of actual concern for the patient, too.
Regarding the termination of GRACE, here’s an interesting article from the Washington Post on the subject. For both ABWE and BJU, the termination was just as the report was about to be filed—arguably ABWE paid twice for the work. But GRACE’s response is somewhat contrary to Mike’s interpretation of BJU’s, as they note they’d had no previous indications of problems.
And public outcry had nothing to do with that? Sorry, Mike, I’m not buying that. In both the ABWE and BJU cases, the public outcry preceded the hiring of GRACE.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Mike - why hasn’t BJU beefed up it’s counseling services?
Including licensure?
Bethel, with about 6,000 students, has a full service counseling department
Regarding including BJU in the list, it’s worth noting that the chief complaint GRACE levels about BJU’s counseling is that Berg and Fremont tended to blame the victim—poking around for sin issues where very often it was simply sexual assault. One victim notes that she was drugged and raped, but still got the full line of questioning trying to figure out whether she had something to blame in the matter.
Now if you take a close look at the letters of Megan Lively that were released by Patterson’s friend, you will see the very kind of thing that the GRACE report is talking about. She had been interacting with a young gentleman, presumably against regulations, in her apartment when she was sexually assaulted. If she received counsel along the lines of what GRACE reports about BJU, the response makes perfect sense. She had been, at least temporarily and under pain of being expelled, “convinced” that her pain was the result of her sin.
Fast forward 15 years, and she’s no longer convinced of that, since she can no longer be expelled, which is why she’s spoken up. You see the same thing in the PII report on ABWE; victims forced to confess sin and expelled from the mission while the perpetrator stayed. This is precisely why I’m arguing that these cases in prominent fundagelical institutions reflect a broader cultural habit that we ought to address.
And that’s why it matters SO MUCH whether Berg’s books have been updated per the weaknesses detailed in the GRACE report, pulled from sale (they’re still out there), or whatever. The policies only work inasmuch as the corporate culture is addressed.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I’m closing this train-wreck of a discussion.
There never was any chance of value coming out of attempts to judge a matter that most here have no involvement in whatsoever, and very little direct access to facts, in addition to having no responsibility or authority. There are a couple of folks here that have some actual connection to events at SWBTS and to Patterson. But this is not the best place for them to air their views on the matter either — given that everyone else involved is a Monday morning quarterback, at best.
I do believe there can be value in having conversations about alleged and actual leadership failures. But the value lies in an attitude that says “How can these events alert me to problems and dangers in my own areas of responsibility? How can I myself, thinking I stand, “take heed, lest I fall” (1 Cor. 10:12)? And “How can I best see to the needs of vulnerable people in my sphere of ministry?” This is quite the opposite of the attitude that says “How can I stir up others to join me in passing judgment from afar on what I see as others’ failures?” Or “How can I link a mix of alleged an actual failures at a variety locations by a variety of different people so as to broadly castigate and condemn huge swaths of people?” Since “with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you” (Matt 7:2), I am doing you a favor by limiting your opportunities to cast more stones.
But if you absolutely must cast them, there’s always room for more righteous indignation on Facebook and Twitter.
(As for BJU and GRACE, I encourage reading this: https://sharperiron.org/article/points-of-failure-another-look-at-bju-g…)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion