Ethos in Ministry: A Cornerstone of Mid-America Seminary

Z. Scott Colter, PhD

Dr. Scott Colter serves on the faculty as an assistant professor and as director of strategic initiatives at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary. He served previously in the administration of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary as chief of staff to the president. In 2020, Scott joined together with several pastors and individuals to launch the Conservative Baptist Network. He currently serves concurrently as the network’s executive director. Scott is married to Sharayah, a journalist, media professional, and principal of Colter & Co., a communications and advocacy firm. Sharayah and he are rearing two children—a son and a daughter.

The history of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination to exist, clearly documents the historical shift toward embracing the moderate doctrines of theological liberalism. This tendency is not unique to Southern Baptists and has been similarly evidenced among Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, and many smaller sects; however, Southern Baptists are unique in that this collective of churches recognized theological shift and intentionally returned to the positions from which they had departed. This return to biblical fidelity, known as the Conservative Resurgence, was marked for its emphasis upon the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture. The struggle to restore the Southern Baptist Convention began formally in 1979, but doctrinal concerns began to surface throughout the preceding decades. Various controversies arose calling into question the veracity of the Bible, and severe tensions ensued.1

The leaders of the Conservative Resurgence, including Paige Patterson, Paul Pressler, Adrian Rogers, Jerry Vines, and W.A. Criswell, understood that lying immediately beneath the derision of orthodoxy was the abandonment of orthopraxy. According to these men, to depart from a biblical position regarding the Scripture was also to depart from the effective practice of Christian evangelism. A departure from the veracity of the message functionally led to a fracturing of the very necessity to share that message. As the seminaries of the Southern Baptist Convention increasingly embraced theological liberalism, evangelism unsurprisingly was relegated to the historical heap of outdated practices.

Against this backdrop in the Southern Baptist Convention, B. Gray Allison, vocational evangelist and professor of evangelism at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, determined that the then current course of theological education in the Southern Baptist Convention was untenable. He undertook the task of founding a new seminary, one which would focus intentionally on the Bible, missions, and evangelism.2 Founded out of a desire to see the orthopraxy of ministry match the orthodoxy of doctrine, Allison instilled high standards of integrity and moral character into the fabric of Mid-America that remain a central tenet of its educational philosophy. With this vision, four faculty members, and twenty-eight students, MidAmerica Baptist Theological Seminary began on the plains of Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1972.3

As Mid-America now celebrates her fiftieth year of existence, individuals across the evangelical waterfront are once again raising concerns of theological orthodoxy within the Southern Baptist Convention. The leftward drift which characterized the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s has again reared its head, this time taking the form of unbiblical ideologies such as Critical Theory and Intersectionality, the downgrade of biblical qualifications for ministry, the embrace of worldly definitions of gender and sexuality, and a departure from practices informed by the sufficiency of Scripture. These occurrences are indelibly marked in history by a twenty-year decline in the annual number of baptisms, which represents the number of people reached for Christ through Southern Baptist efforts in the United States.4 Pastors and theologians are again challenging and questioning what is being taught in Southern Baptist seminaries, and once again, Mid-America Seminary’s focus on the central tenets of Scripture, missions, and evangelism has risen to a point of utmost necessity. The principles on which Mid-America was founded are not new—they take residence across the counsel of Scripture and are echoed throughout the pages of the philosophical history of humanity.

More than two thousand years ago, the Greek philosopher Aristotle, while not a religious individual, understood the significance of ethics in the communication act in order for the presented message to be received effectively. As the work of Southern Baptists becomes increasingly ineffective due to a multiplicity of reasons, perhaps a return to the ethics outlined in Scripture, emphasized by Aristotle, and championed by Baptists across the centuries, is in order.

Aristotle’s Understanding of Ethos in Rhetoric

In the realm of Greek reason, Aristotle provided one of the foundations and formative works through his discourse On Rhetoric. He describes and defines the three principal components of early rhetoric: ethos, pathos, and logos. The philosopher references logos as the truthfulness of the claim proposed. In this aspect, the persuasiveness and veracity of the argument is contained in the content of the argument itself. One simply is more likely to be persuaded by what is true. Aristotle of Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary stated, “Persuasion occurs through the arguments [logoi] when we show the truth or the apparent truth from whatever is persuasive in each case.”5 Therefore, if what is presented is factually accurate, it is more persuasive and more likely to be followed and believed. Aristotle’s chroniclers attribute this occurrence to the term logos.

Aristotle further explains the significance of Greek reason through a rhetorical perspective in his assessment of the pathos of an argument. Looking at this component, Aristotle emphasizes the importance and value of the emotional appeal of an argument. If a case is presented passionately with appeal to one’s emotion and innate sensibility, it is also more likely to be accepted and followed.6 Aristotle makes the case that for a strong and convincing argument, both logos and pathos should be present to produce a robust and persuasive endeavor.

The final component of Aristotle’s triad is ethos. Within this realm, the character of the speaker is examined, and to this point Southern Baptists ought to again direct their attention. While logos and pathos relate to the message being shared, ethos portrays the speaker who is sharing and proclaiming the message. Aristotle argues that if one is working to craft a communication that is persuasive and worthy of acceptation, not only must it be true and appeal to one’s emotion, but it must also be delivered by one who is considered by the audience to be reliable, trustworthy, and of impeccable character.7 Therefore, a person who has a reputation of deceiving, lying, misrepresenting, or plagiarizing others’ ideas to stand before a gathered body and deliver a truthful message would be ill-received. In such instances the speaker’s actions and lifestyle voice far more than the specific words he or she shares. Those who adhered to a Greek standard of reason did so with a clear understanding of the importance of character, ethical reputation, and morality.8 While the outcome is similar to that of religion, the methodology by which one reaches this moral standing is varied along the way. Worth noting is the specific importance the Greek culture placed on virtue and character, which are established by one’s ethical practices. In the Greek perspective, one constructed character and virtue through exemplifying a morally credible lifestyle.

Shared Commonality between Reason and Religion

William Tillman, as the editor of Understanding Christian Ethics further elucidates this situation beyond that of the early philosophers in explaining how the morality of the Bible is based on the character of a good God who is the creator of all. Tillman espouses that both non-believers and believers are capable—and even inclined—to make ethical decisions based in Christian reasoning. Christian ethics, therefore, is not limited strictly to Christians and expands into all vocational areas.9 Practiced ethics are existential evidence of an ethical God as the primary source of all humanity. God is consequently the righteous standard of morality, for he is himself the very definition of what is good, moral, and ethical. With this understanding established, God then becomes the determination of what is good based on his character, which is revealed in Scripture. Readers and adherents to religion are not then left to determine a standard of morality on their own, but instead are simply called to follow the standard that has already been set forth. Scholars of Greek reason struggle to explain, according to Glenn Saul, why it is the case that humans innately understand differences between right and wrong apart from a Christian perspective of general and special revelation.10

If mankind is to utilize reason and logic to reach the pinnacle of existence, one must wonder why it is the case that a young child, who has undoubtedly spent very little time working on rational realizations of reality, understands that it is wrong to hurt others, wrong to steal, and wrong to lie. This moral standard seems to be more innate than it is learned. Further, those adhering to the significance of rational thought struggle to explain how it is the case that separate cultures across divided barriers all possess very similar standards of morality and ethical standing. Again, Tillman’s volume presents this foundational reality from the similarity of a creative God bringing about all groups and tribes regardless of their recognition of his existence because of humanity being created in the imago dei. 11

Thinking along these lines would seem to advocate that truth would be relative to what is understood by one group and what is true to that group in that situation. However, it would not necessarily apply to a different group experiencing a different set of circumstances in a different way without outside influence from others. History establishes that when new civilizations were discovered and new tribes were met, the new groups evaluated all held a very similar moral standard with recognition of a near universal definition of what is true and what is right and wrong.

While certain aspects of these perspectives are indeed in tension, there is also some significant similarity between common Judeo-Christian religion and that of Greek reason. These similar characteristics pose much of the foundation of Western Civilization, and some individuals even adjacent to the Christian tradition consider them foundational for bringing greater intellectual and moral order to Western thought.12 The early Greeks most certainly valued and recognized the significance of clear moral and ethical components in their society. This is echoed in religious cultures through a clear teaching and standard of morality and ethics presented by a divine and moral God.

Judeo-Christians and Greeks both agreed that their society functioned best when being a moral person was established as the end goal. Further, the JudeoChristian teachings do not contradict reason and thought, but instead encourage them. Religion, in these cases, is not a blind faith but is to be evaluated, tested, examined, and understood as the truth from Scripture effected in culture and community. Advocates of the Judeo-Christian worldview were not concerned that it would collapse under reason and logical consideration, they knew it would endure and thrive under such testing. If the principles and practices of Judeo-Christianity were to be juxtaposed against Greek reason in a Venn Diagram, there would be noticeable difference on the outer edges; however, both would share in the common middle those aspects of morality, ethical standards, and a desire for rationed, reasoned, and persuasive consideration of the message being shared. In summary, the ethos would encapsulate the middle area of the demonstration. This common area provides a biblical and cultural understanding of the Christian preacher and minister.

The minister is to be a man of moral and ethical character who reasons the faith and then persuasively presents it to members of a culture or civilization. These principles prevail even into recent history. The late John Bisagno, long-time pastor of Houston’s First Baptist Church, stated that there is no more important but also no more difficult aspiration than that of a pastor. He summarized, “At no time in history has the world so closely examined the integrity of ministers.”13 Because of the unique calling and role of the preacher, as well as the cultural setting of Western Civilization based on the confluence of Greek reason and Judeo-Christian values, the Christian communicator is unique and invaluable for effecting change in individuals as well as an entire society—both spiritually and culturally.

From the beginning of time, humanity has been inherently questioning the realm of existence. Where did man come from? What is his purpose? Is there a greater good and reason for all that is? How then should one live? These questions seem to be planted deeply within the very nature of humanity. Generation after generation has attempted to attain an adequate response. The Bible records historical narrative of individuals asking just these questions and looking for the greater purpose and significance in their lives. The Old Testament tells of the life of Solomon, who acquired unimaginable wealth and then realized it was all worthless vanity (Ecclesiastes 1:14). At the same time as the accounts of many Old Testament authors, Greek philosophers were asking similar innate questions and seeking to reach and espouse an adequate and sufficient response to the reason and purpose of their existence. The biblical preacher knows the true answer to these inquiries, and with character he must stand and speak the words of God to a searching audience.

A Biblical Perspective on Character and Virtue

The Bible in its entirety is a book that deals with the character and way of life of individuals who adhere to its system of religious establishment. While this article will not have opportunity to look in depth at a survey study of the Old Testament, it should be noted that the Law was given in the Old Testament to provide a moral standard of righteousness and ethical living. While theologically it is the case that due to man’s inherent sinful nature, this Law cannot be upheld, it is concurrently the case that a righteous standard of morality does exist for followers of God. Further, it is the case that divine prophets of the Old Testament were specifically set apart for their ministry of delivering the message of the Lord. Often, signs and wonders accompanied their message, which could only be facilitated by the very hand of God. Not only were the words they proclaimed true, but their character was well-known, and specific evidences set them apart as divine messengers for the Lord. When the Old Testament prophets spoke, it was clearly recognized as the Word of the Lord even by those who chose not to heed the messages and the warnings as they were delivered.14

Looking to the New Testament and specifically to Christianity, the case is such that the biblical authors were recognized in a way that points to them as credible, and their message was received as such. The process of canonization of the New and Old Testaments includes heavy emphasis on the writings that were taken seriously and followed as authoritative in the times of the Bible’s original writing. This credibility does not extend only to the words on the page, but also to the authors as individuals. The writings of Paul in the New Testament are authoritative for the church, and the early church recognized the work of God through Paul extending the very authority of the Lord himself upon what Paul proclaimed and the topics unto which he argued and persuaded believers to accept. As Paul continues his writing related to address the way in which believers are to live, a great deal of time and attention is spent related to what is involved in becoming a minister of the gospel message as was Paul. In his pastoral epistles, Paul admonishes Timothy–and by extension all those who follow his example by serving in Christian ministry–to guard and heed the importance of one’s own character and morality. Regarding the pastoral qualifications, John MacArthur of Grace Community Church writes, “‘Above reproach’ is the overarching quality of the pastor. The remainder of the list is a detailed examination of each component of that characteristic, developing what it means to be ‘above reproach.’”15

Paul issues in these cases certain and specific qualifications for those going into ministry to serve as pastors and preachers communicating the message and truths of Scripture. Of important note is the fact that the qualifications deal far more with the character and nature of the person as evidenced over time than the specific details of his day-to-day work. Certainly, the Bible makes pronouncements about a minister’s daily tasks, but it seems to make the case that if a person of strong character is developed and ordained into the ministry, the daily tasks will be done correctly because the actor is a man of virtue and character. Paul encapsulates these requirements and qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:1–7:

It is a trustworthy statement: if any many aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity, but if a man does now know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God? And not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

While daily and specific tasks certainly fall into the fulfillment of these qualifications, Paul is making the argument that the character of the person desiring the office of pastor is of utmost importance and necessity. Each of the attributes listed above speaks to the long-term characteristics of a person in his being qualified for ministry.

In certain cases, a one-time event could disqualify a person from ministry based on these stipulations above, but even in those instances, the event would be one that has lasting impact and indefinite effect on his character into the future.16 Paul’s chief concern is that those who are formally tasked with proclaiming, teaching, and explaining the message of God are those who are trustworthy and above reproach in their reputation both inside and outside of the local church. The qualifications presented in 1 Timothy 3 provide most often the foundation for ordination and entrance into formal ministry. While Scripture affirms these qualifications in other language throughout the Bible, Paul here issues a clear and concise list as a measure against which a proposed candidate for ministry is to be considered. The author does not assume that the candidate is without sin as Scripture makes clear that no man is without sin apart from Jesus Christ.17 A proper inference would be that individual and specific instances of sin do not necessarily disqualify a man from this standard. Instead, a willful and stubborn pattern of disobedience, which speaks not to a specific instance but the overall pattern of character in a person, would be the disqualifying mark. Paul places strong importance on the character of the one delivering the message of the Lord. He presents this argument because the message will be received and trusted more when it is delivered from a recognized person of character and trust.

This principle must be held in tension with the premise that the power of the message is contained in the very Word of God, not the one who is speaking. Paul also writes the following in Philippians 1:15–18:

Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, wherever in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice.

According to this passage, the most important aspect is the communication of the gospel, because the very message of God has the power to save no matter the way in which it is delivered. The baseline understanding therefore must be that the foundation is simply the presentation of the gospel message. For no matter how it is shared, it has the ability to accomplish its purpose.

Following that understanding, though, the discussion turns to consideration of what makes this message more or less likely to be received and believed. Certainly, someone who is trustworthy and carries a lifetime of proven character would be considered by an audience as a more credible and reliable source than someone with a history of lies, deceit, and deception. In this instance, the character of the messenger matters a great deal. While Paul is rejoicing that the message of Christ is preached in any circumstance, he is at the same time offering a careful and high standard for those who are to serve as ministers and messengers on behalf of the Lord. There are many instances of Christian service in which a person can serve the Lord, but the calling of pastor and preacher is reserved for men characterized in the pastoral epistles as men of remarkable character and ethos.

Conclusion

While mostly unknown today, Western Civilization is based centrally upon premises established in a Judeo-Christian worldview as well as foundational thoughts in the realm of Greek philosophy and reason. While much of what comprises these worldviews remains in tension (not the least of which are the competing views of the innate goodness against the innate sinfulness of humanity), there are notable similarities observed. One of the most-clear similarities is the prominence that both perspectives attribute to the ethos of a person devoted to communication. In Greek culture, that person advocated the betterment of society and culture through various means of philosophy. In Christianity and the Judeo-Christian worldview, that person communicates and advocates the betterment of society and individuals through a relationship with God and obedience to his instructive commands. In both instances, the ethos of the individual carries significant weight. Both worldviews establish with primary significance the process of carefully determining who is to be a representative communicator to share the most important message. Further, both worldviews suppose and establish the primacy of persuasiveness in the presentation of the message. In 2 Corinthians 5, Paul admonishes his readers and upcoming men in the faith to persuade those to accept Christ and to live in a way that causes others to desire the faith that is presented. Aristotle also recognized the importance of persuasive reasoning, and he advocated that persuasion through speech was the greatest avenue of influence to effect certain outcomes.18 In attempting to synthesize these two perspectives together into one culture, it becomes worth considering which premise existed before the other. Aspects of the Judeo-Christian faith existed in some ways from the very beginning of creation as

Adam and Eve walked and related to God in both positive and negative ways. Later, the specific passages related to the pastoral epistles were written by Paul in the first century, very closely following the period of Christ’s life and ministry. In between these reference points, Aristotle raised his philosophical explanation and advocated for the eminence of Greek thought related to persuasive reasoning and rhetoric. Of necessary consideration is which group may have had an influence or direction on the other. Was Paul aware of Aristotle’s ideas, lifting them through incorporation into his biblical epistles under the leadership of the Holy Spirit? Or did Aristotle, aware of the standard of the Lord regarding morality and ethics, propose what he understood to be an ethical standard into his teachings, lectures, and writings within the scope of philosophy, reason, logic, and rhetoric?

At this point in time, many Christian apologists recognize that “all truth is God’s truth.” Established in his volume that carries the same title, Arthur Holmes’ statement has received criticism that is warranted in Christian circles by seeming to propose that secular truth is the same “type” of truth as what is contained in Holy Scripture.19 While his position is not one of strength, this view does recognize that if God is the creator of all that is the world and all that is in the world, what is good and true and noble can all be traced back to the ultimate good, truth, and nobility of God and his holy character. The case is such that both Paul and Aristotle were correct in that they appealed to the way in which the world and humanity operate having been made in the very image of God and consequently recognizing what is good and virtuous because of a shared good and virtuous source.20 Western Civilization is unique in that it is firmly based upon these common streams of influence. Because of these foundational pillars, the Christian communicator, minister, preacher, and teacher fills a vacuum in both perspectives, which is, in reality, representative of a vacuum that simply exists among humanity and culture in general. That vacuum is the need for a man of character, virtue, and morality–a man of great ethos–to proclaim a message that brings life, betterment, happiness, and true fulfillment. In both spheres of influence, that need is fulfilled through the Christian communicator sharing the timeless truths of Scripture with an audience in need of hope, life, and truth.

Whether it arises from a foundation of general revelation of the created order or special revelation from the inerrant Scripture, the importance of one’s integrity and character is unmistakable. For fifty years, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary has been a champion of integrity in ministry. A ministry philosophy driven by character and conviction is often not popular, especially when its very existence emphasizes the waning of those characteristics in parallel settings. In a tribute to Mid-America’s founder Gray Allison, current President Michael Spradlin wrote, “As a leader of a conservative, Bible-believing seminary, Dr. Gray [Allison] experienced the distancing of friends who wanted no part of controversy and the rejection by many in the leadership of the denomination he so loved.”21 On this anniversary year, the seminary founded upon convictions of theological orthodoxy continues unwaveringly down the path first charted by Gray Allison. As allegations of ministerial misconduct have become ever-present among contemporary church leaders—including rampant evidence of sermon plagiarism, double standards, slander, gossip, and the embrace of secular ideologies and practices with the divine—the biblical message of Southern Baptists is becoming increasingly ignored. The Apostle Paul and the philosopher Aristotle hearkened the need for men of character to stand and speak. As evangelicalism and the Southern Baptist Convention are facing a reckoning of integrity and moral character while searching for significance in the twenty-first century through lucrative aspects of pragmatism and progressivism, Mid-America stands apart in faithfully championing in doctrine and in practice the Bible, missions, and evangelism without compromise. In a generation seeking answers to life’s challenges, the biblical solution is not distant nor hard to discern. It is prepared and recorded, simply awaiting God’s herald, a man of ethos to take up the book and proclaim, “thus says the Lord.” May it be so that through the next fifty years the fiber of Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary stands the test of time, true and unfading, preparing ministers to be of the highest character fit for their calling.

Notes

1. For further examination of the Conservative Resurgence of the Southern Baptist Convention and associated theological concerns, the author recommends Jerry Sutton, The Baptist Reformation (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000).

2. Michael Spradlin, “Tribute to Dr. B. Gray Allison: How He Belongs to the Ages,” MidAmerica Messenger, Spring 2019, 2–3.

3. “History,” Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, accessed January 23, 2022, http://web.archive.org/web/20100923193606/http://mabts.edu/templates/System/details. asp?id=23267&PID=69046.

4. Brandon Elrod, “‘It’s On Me,’ SBC Leaders and Pastors Say of Baptism Decline,” Kentucky Today, June 19, 2020.

5. Aristotle, On Rhetoric, trans. George A. Kennedy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 39.

6. A. W. Price, Virtue and Reason in Plato and Aristotle, 1st edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 113–15.

7. Aristotle, Rhetoric, trans. C.D.C. Reeve (Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2018), 6.

8. Price, Virtue and Reason in Plato and Aristotle, 141–42.

9. William Tillman, ed., Understanding Christian Ethics (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1988), 14–15.

10. Ibid., 79–81.

11. Ibid., 282.

12. Richard E. Rubenstein, Aristotle’s Children: How Christians, Muslims, and Jews

Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Middle Ages (Orlando: Harcourt, 2003), xii.

13. John Bisagno, Letters to Timothy (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 43.

14. C. Hassell Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophetic Books (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 20.

15. John MacArthur, Pastoral Ministry: How to Shepherd Biblically (Grand Rapids: Thomas Nelson, 2017), 68.

16. Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 248–49.

17. Ibid., 247.

18. Aristotle, Rhetoric, 4–5.

19. Arthur F. Holmes, All Truth Is God’s Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).

20. Ibid, 33.

21. Spradlin, "Tribut to Dr. B. Gray Allison," 3.