Baylor University Fires School President

By Angela K. Brown|Associated Press Writer

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

Baylor University regents on Thursday fired the school president, the second in three years to leave amid clashes with the faculty at the world's largest Baptist university.

Board Chairman Howard K. Batson repeatedly declined to elaborate on why John M. Lilley was fired, referring only to the board's lack of "confidence in John's ability to unite various Baylor constituencies."

"We need a new president who will listen to all the divergent voices in the Baylor family," Batson said.

Lilley was hired in November 2005 after regents' unanimous vote, five months after embattled President Robert Sloan stepped down and became the school's chancellor in a deal worked out with regents.

Sloan, who had been president since 1995, had been blamed for rising tuition costs and rifts among professors who had been calling for his ouster for months.

In a statement Thursday, Lilley said he accepted the Baylor post aiming to help "heal the wounded hearts left in the wake of the conflict that preceded us," but it became clear immediately that regents reflected "some of the deepest divisions in the Baylor family."

He said he was proud of the work he had done as president to bring the university together and help it achieve its goals.

"I deeply regret the action of the board, and I do not believe that it reflects the best interests of Baylor University," Lilley, a Baylor alumnus, said in the statement.

The firing comes despite what Batson acknowledged was a string of successes for the school under Lilley. The school's endowment is its largest ever and the school has risen in the ranks of at least one influential college ranking.

Batson said Lilley's faith was not a factor in his firing. Although Lilley is the son of a Baptist preacher and an ordained Baptist minister, he was a ruling elder in the Presbyterian church before he came to Baylor.

But Batson said the new president will be a Baptist.

Regent Harold Cunningham will be acting president until an interim is found.

Next Story : Evangelical Leaders Meet U.N. Chief

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

believer »

Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:13 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

lewr, unfortunately it appears they already have gone very liberal with the start of the Truett Seminary. It appears the CBF has a stranglehold on this "cemetery" and will produce men and women who will probagate ideas such as salvation does not come in and through Christ alone.
oldstudent »

Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:52 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

There is no meat in this article at all (outside of the actual firing), just speculation.

Grace and Peace,
Jim
hlerwin »

Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:26 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Baylor is a major university now. It will do as Mercer and other CBF schools have done and take an enlightened approach to theology. Baylor won't go backwards towards old folkways, old prejudices and even old Baptist superstitions from this point.
lewr2 »

Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:11 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Let's hope Baylor goes the the way it should and not the liberal theological way.
hlerwin »

Sun Jul 27, 2008 4:59 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

True, believer.
believer »

Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:32 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

hlerwin, and what plain truth is that? Plus wasn't it Nazi Germany who supported the Palestinians in helping them in their attempt to eradicate the Jewish presence in the Holy Land during World War II? Outside infuence in support of both sides has been a part of the problem in the Holy Land for centuries.
Daniel Paul »

Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:39 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

"16 million southern baptist = 16 million different opinions"

Being in a Southern Baptist Church I can honestly say this is NOT true. Some people have more than one opinion....
hlerwin »

Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:54 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

A very small presence, believer. That land, without Europe's intervention, would still belong to the Palestinians. It's the same mistake King James made in Northern Ireland. Just because people have not weapons to resist does not give us the right to take land and give it someone else. Of course, Abraham's group took it from local people, too - so I don't know that the land issue has a solution (except to you people who have your heads stuck so far into the Bible that you can't see the plain truth around you). As far as a workable state, thought, I think the only solution is for Palestinians to be full citizens with full rights in the modern state of Israel. At this point, the Jews treat to Palestinians like sub-humans, the way my people treated the Indians on this continent.
believer »

Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:59 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

hlerwin, I'm not sure of the percentages, but my point was that there has always been a Jewish presence in the Holy Land.
hlerwin »

Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:56 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Was it you, believer, that I wrote to about the percentages of Jews and Jewish property in Palestine in 1948? I think the place was 2% Jewish, and the Jews owned 7% of the land. Does that sound right?
hlerwin »

Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:54 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I did not read that denomination was an issue, believer. (It might be, though, knowing how some Baptists can be.) I only meant to say that the article reminded me of the funny (to me, anyway) remark my great aunt made. Her husband used to say that a Presbyterian was just a Baptist with an education. (I don't think these two old people knew much, really, about denominations.)
believer »

Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:06 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

hlerwin, where did you read where denomination was an issue in this matter, plus they called him knowing he was an elder in a Presbyterian church?
hlerwin »

Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:20 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

The university regents shouldn't jump on the president for changing denominations. This reminds me of a remark my Episcopalian aunt made years ago at her friend's funeral. After the third preacher began, my aunt asked, "What church did Ella go to?" Another lady whispered, "She was a Baptist." My aunt was struck! "A Baptist?" she not-so-quietly exclaimed, causing heads to turn. "Why, I thought she was, at least, a Presbyterian."
believer »

Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:28 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

jhs, a majority of the Southern Baptists who don't like the 2000 version of the Baptist Faith and Message really only have a problem with one or two points in it, but will agree with the remainder. They don't like the teaching on family and headship or the one with regards to the views of Scripture. And I would not be surprised to find out that many who you hear that from are supporters of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
JHS »

Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:10 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

believer

Where I live in Oklahoma, its baptist country, and most of them are of the ardent republican type, but when you get a round alot them, say at a social, I have never so many different opinions in my life. I do hear alot about the baptist faith and message of 2000 or the newer one, that alot of them don't like.
believer »

Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:45 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

jhs, when it comes to some issues you may have a point, but when it comes to the basic doctrines of the Christian faith as presented in the Word of God as well as the Bible in it's original autographs being the God-breathed, inerrant, and plenary Word of God you're wrong. A large majority of Southern Baptists adhere to the Baptist Faith and Message which contains each one of those truths I mentioned.
JHS »

Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:37 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

16 million southern baptist = 16 million different opinions
believer »

Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:03 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Baylor is indeed liberal and very supportive of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Many of the liberal and moderate professors from the other SBC seminaries are now teaching at Truett Seminary which is a part of Baylor. Some of these professors brought with them some very liberal if not anti-Christian teaching and theology. As a result I sense Baylor is in a financial and theological quandry and it will be a while before they will find someone capapble of fixing the mess they've gotten themselves into. Part of the problem is there are many who lined up with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship for political and not theological reasons and now that they are seeing some of the theology being presented they don't like it because it is so unbiblically sound and Baylor University has become a battlefield for their differences.
igh »

Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:29 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

no real info here, unless one reads between the lines. things that make you go hmmmmmm
Daniel Paul »

Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:13 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

"We need a new president who will listen to all the divergent voices in the Baylor family,"

Having been raised in the Bible college world...it does seem to translate 'we need someone who will just shut up and do what we tell them to and let's anyone believe or teach what they want with no anchor to Biblical principal.

I hope I'm wrong but when students can't make it through a 4 year program without being effected by a change... twice... one must raise a concern. After all, it looks like the board doesn't really know who they are putting in the position.
wbmoore »

Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:57 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

IF I recall, Baylor is liberal for baptists in the south. I think they went with the Cooperative Baptists. I know they do not require techers to sign a statement of faith. I wonder if the discontent in the ranks is due to that.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story