Breaking ranks: a seminary librarian is fired

Christian Century, Feb 4, 1998 by Paul D. Simmons

Further evidence that the politics of power and coercion have triumphed in the Southern Baptist Convention came with the sudden firing of Paul Debusman, who served in the library at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for 35 years. He was terminated for a letter he wrote to Tom Eliff, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, which called attention to inaccuracies in an address made by Eliff on September 16 in the seminary chapel.

In the address, Eliff had charged that he would never have been able to speak in Southern's chapel under previous seminary administrations. He implied that prior to the current administration, no conservative voices were invited to the campus or given a platform for sharing their theological perspectives. Debusman had served under three seminary administrations since 1954.

In his letter to Eliff, Dubusman pointed out that the seminary had traditionally invited SBC presidents to speak in chapel and on campus. Presidents W. A. Criswell, Bailey Smith and Eddie Young had spoken in chapel, as well as other ranking fundamentalist leaders of the convention. As Debusman said, "There was a deliberate strategy to bring in different points of view."

Unfortunately, the policy of openness and dialogue among the various constituencies of the SBC has changed. Under the administration of President Albert Mohler Jr. there is a closed-door policy toward any who do not embrace or espouse the fundamentalist agenda. "Now," wrote Debusman, "some people will not be invited, such as my pastor."

Debusman's pastor is Ron Sisk, a graduate of the seminary who serves at Crescent Hill Baptist Church, long thought of as "the seminary church" since many faculty members, staff and seminary students worshiped there. Generations of students looked forward to the regular appearance of the Crescent Hill pastor in the pulpit of Alumni Chapel.

But the special relationship between church and seminary has changed profoundly. Faculty and staff members who remain with the church remember the older, closer ties. Because they have not enthusiastically embraced nor cooperated with the takeover movement, they and the church as a whole are held in suspicion by seminary and SBC leaders.

Crescent Hill is one of several churches in the Louisville area that have been targeted by seminary administrators and directors of academic programs. Their pastors are no longer invited to teach at the seminary as adjunct professors or act as supervisors in ministry for students. They can have no formal relationship with the seminary because they are too openly identified with the moderates in the convention, are active in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and are thus perceived as hostile toward what has transpired at the seminary and in the SBC. In short, the seminary is isolated and alienated from the churches nearest its campus.

Debusman tried to bridge the gap between seminary and local church. He survived as long as he did because his job was not targeted for theological scrutiny and his style was not openly combative. He was a noncontroversial figure who was able to transcend the acrimony and hostility by believing there were issues that could overcome the otherwise profound divisions among Southern Baptists.

Debusman said his letter was intended to be conciliatory. He wrote that his "heart had been broken since 1979 by the way we had sniped at each other, and I would to God that we could unite around the larger mission of sharing the gospel, discipling and equipping believers." "United in mission" has been the call of those who hoped to maintain a unity in spite of severe theological and ethical differences among Southern Baptists. Repeating that mantra was hardly a way to make friends among SBC leaders.

Eliff apparently sent a copy of the letter to Mohler. Soon school vice-president Danny Akin confronted Debusman in the head librarian's office, demanded his office and campus keys and walked out, leaving the seminary treasurer to explain to Debusman that he would receive one month's severance pay--which the seminary described as "generous." When Debusman returned to his office it was locked, and he had to secure administrative supervision while cleaning out his files and personal belongings.

The explanation given Debusman was that his action had been "harmful to the seminary" and thus came under an administrative rule "on constructive relationships" recently approved by seminary trustees. The original wording of that rule was that "faculty members and staff of this institution are not to act in ways that are injurious, detrimental to the seminary's relationship with the denomination, donors or other constituencies within and without the seminary community." In April 1997, the policy was amended to state that faculty and staff "should seek to relate constructively to the denomination, donors and other constituencies."

Debusman was shocked that his letter was construed as bringing harm to the seminary in any way. The debate about "harm" could be protracted, with fair- and open-minded persons likely supporting Debusman's perspective. But anyone who thinks the atmosphere is sufficiently clear of prejudice and acrimony to allow such open discussion has not been observing happenings among Southern Baptists for the past decade. The fundamentalists who engineered the takeover of the convention have closed ranks on the question of tolerating dissent.