August 29, 2006


Mercer’s Pres. Bill Underwood: Christian College President!!!

Filed under: Academia, Christianity
By Hunter Baker (Email) @ 10:21 am

Mama’s don’t let your babies grow up to go to Mercer University. William Underwood became the interim president at Baylor University after Robert Sloan was forced to resign. The first thing he did was fire David Jeffrey (the Christianity Today/First Things favorite whom I once asked for his favorite novel and he replied, “In what language?”) as Provost, which was heady stuff for an interim executive.

After it became clear he wouldn’t get the Baylor gig on a permanent basis, Underwood accepted the top job at Mercer University in Macon. I missed his inaugural, but an unkind person emailed me his fall convocation address and frankly, it caused me to lose sleep, not because it disturbed my own embrace of the Christian faith, but because there were young people there to hear it.

Without my J.D. and Ph.D. work, I would have bought a lot of the bullhockey for sale in the speech.

Underwood opens with the usual story of the warfare between science and religion in which religion receives its comeuppance. Afterwards, good religionists can only hold their beliefs lightly. See, because that whole Galileo thing has shown up the ignorance of the church for all time.

I checked Underwood’s footnotes to the speech in which he credits a 2006 book that relies on A.D. White’s famous polemic against science from the late 19th century. Of course, let’s not trouble ourselves with the fact that reputable historians of science say the presentation of the relationship between science and religion as warfare is a dishonest one made for political advantage (See Ronald Numbers and David Lindberg on this score).

But Underwood isn’t a scholar, he’s a lawyer (sorry guys) and he’s presenting his client’s case, not the whole truth. How else do you make sense of his statement that the Galileo affair wasn’t resolved until 300 years later, when man walked on the moon? Good heavens, man, Copernicus preceded Galileo!

I look forward to a Christmas speech or a spring talk in which Underwood offers up the insights he’s gained from several evenings with The Da Vinci Code on the nightstand. Should be illuminating.

One more thing. Want to know who Jesus was according to Underwood? A “freethinker.” “Hmmmm. What’s the right expression here? Let me think. Son of God, Savior, I Am, freethinker. Definitely freethinker!”


Trackback/Pingbacks:

The trackback URL for this post: http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/1614/trackback

  1. Joe Knippenberg

    2. Faith and learning at Mercer... My friend Hunter Baker doesn't want a job at Mercer University, given the choice things he has to say about the new President's views....

24 Rebel Yells to “Mercer’s Pres. Bill Underwood: Christian College President!!!”

  1. Nate Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 10:53 am

    hunter, excellent post. Thanks for the info.

  2. Hunter Baker Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 10:59 am

    Southern Appeal HQ is in Macon, right? This is a story that deserves a little attention from the SA crowd.

  3. ScurvyOaks Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 11:02 am

    Bill Underwood and I began our law practices together at the same Dallas firm in 1987. He was a bright guy, very hard-working and serious. He also struck me as one of the most humorless people I’ve ever run across, in the joyless-moralist category.

    I am sorry to read this report and obviously hope that he comes to truer (and more joyful) understanding of who Christ is.

  4. Arator Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 11:14 am

    Well, following on the heals of Mercer President Kirby Godsey (author of “When We Talk About God, Let’s Be Honest”), this is all really no surpise. S’pose this also puts the nail in the coffin of the Georgia Baptist Convention dropping it’s support of Mercer.

  5. Jay C. Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 11:20 am

    Excellent post, Hunter. After reading Underwood’s speech, it is clear that he is apologizing for Christianity and argues that the only “good” to come from it was “freethinkers”–not the kind that shackled by orthodoxy, theology, the Trinity(?)

    First, I’m always amused when people refer to Jesus in temporal, academic terms (e.g., “freethinker,” “feminist,” etc.). To me, doing so casts Jesus first as an enlightened person who somehow ascended to become Godlike (like Buddha and Gandhi) rather than the opposite. So, Underwood gives us an insight where he plans on taking Mercer.

    Second, I was amused when Underwood invokes the hallowed saint of Baptists among academia, Roger Williams of Rhode Island. Yes, he was a great Baptist for, what, a few months? Afterwards, of course, Williams became a “seeker” for the remainder of his life. Not quite the great Baptist leader that immediately comes to one’s mind. Still, that doesn’t stop people like Underwood from using Williams as a prop for whatever “freethinking” mantra of the day they wish to assert. Perhaps if Underwood truly strove so earnestly in the tradition of “freethinkers” like Roger Williams, he and Mercer would no longer be Baptist at all–you know, like U of Chicago, Wake Forrest, etc. A sign of things to come?

    One can only assume from Underwood’s speech that he does not believe in all those silly, irrational “miracles” in the Bible. Freethinkers certainly do not. (See T. Jefferson’s edition of the New Testament).

    It is truly sad to see what was once a great university devolve into what appears to be at best of a lukewarm faith stewarded by those of a similar faith. Laodicea University?

  6. Hunter Baker Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    I think Roger Williams gets misused a lot. He wasn’t really comfortable in any denomination, but he’s not anybody’s religious liberal. He was in favor of separation of church and state, but as far as I can tell, was pretty orthodox.

  7. cordelia Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    guess catholics aren’t the only ones losing universities to the heretics

  8. Neil Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 4:16 pm

    re Roger Williams, if you review Southern Baptist Convention literature from the 1970s and 80s (which i do on a daily basis), you’ll find that the SBC was constantly touting Williams as a great Baptist leader.

  9. BurdenToBear Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 5:42 pm

    This is what happens when a university hires as its president a trade school teacher and not someone accustomed to engaging real scholarship. Baylor Law School–the place of Underwood’s employ for 16 years–is renouned for its churning out of courtroom sharks and cold-blodded litigators. It is not a place at which the virtues of scholarship can be honed and nurtured. It is a school that named its building after the North Texas emperor of ambulance chasing, Walter Humphrey. (http://www.provostumphrey.com/). Straight from the web site: “Personal injury trial lawyer Walter Umphrey was the lead attorney representing the State of Texas in a lawsuit against the tobacco industry. The combined efforts of the state’s legal team resulted in the largest single settlement in history - $17.6 billion on behalf of the citizens of the state of Texas.” A Christian university naming its law schoool after a master exthortionist. Who would Jesus sue?

  10. QD Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 7:03 pm

    Nice post, Hunter. In the best traditions of ol’ J.M. Dawson, I’d say.

    The problem here isn’t that there aren’t conflicts b/w religion and science or that the Church has always acted properly in matters of science or intellectual liberty. The problem here is, as you ID, a clunky, dare I say it unthinking reflex that makes “dogma” the enemy of “truth.”

    It’s an irony that a confirmedly former Baptist school - Wake Forest - has an orthodox evangelical as its president, while Mercer has this. But what does Hatch know?

  11. Mark Wyzalek Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 8:15 pm

    Underwood makes a rather shallow stereotypical argument about Galileo and the relationship of the Church with science. Rather odd Underwood didn’t mention Luther’s and Lord Bacon’s opposition to Galileo’s teachings.
    For a fairly good article on Galileo see:
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

    As others have noted Roger Williams was only a Baptist for a few months (though he stayed on friendly terms with them): “About March 1639, Williams was baptized by Holliman and immediately proceeded to baptize Holliman and eleven others. Thus was constituted the first Baptist church in America, which still survives. Williams remained with the little church only a few months. He became convinced that the ordinances having been lost in the apostasy could not be validly restored without a special divine commission, making the following statement upon his departure from the sect: “There is no regularly constituted church of Christ on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking. (Picturesque America, p. 502.)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_(theologian)

  12. Hunter Baker Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 8:45 pm

    QD, I’ll tell you what we both know. Our compadre Prof. Hatch actually knows more about history than what he reads in the latest offering from Prometheus Press.

  13. BurdentoBear Says:
    August 30th, 2006 at 9:44 am

    Mark, thanks for the link to the Galileo controversy. The most accomplished scholar of Galileo in the U.S. is Maurice Finnochiaro, an agnostic. In his book on the trial of Galileo he makes the exact arguments in the article to which you linked.

    Underwood is an academic embarrassment. Lord have Mercer!

  14. lucas Says:
    August 30th, 2006 at 10:44 am

    BurdenToBear

    thats what i call picking it up and laying it down. you have given me another reason to hate a texas college…go sooners and cowboys.

  15. BurdentoBear Says:
    August 30th, 2006 at 7:17 pm

    The BFers are after you, Hunter. It seems that it is okay for them to trash everyone who disagrees with them, but if you utter a critical comment on a publicly accessible speech that is poorly crafted and poorly reasoned, you should shut up because the speech-giver is their friends. What losers.

    None of the law school graduate Underwood bootlicking sychophants on BF could even bring themselves to single out and correct Underwood’s stupid comment that the First Amendment was intened to protect religious liberty in the United States. If they had learned anything of ConLaw at BLS (where ConLaw is no help to ambulance chasing and extorting from corporations), the would have known that the First Amendment applied to the federal government and not the states. This is why the Connecticut–home of the Danbury Baptists–could have an established church without violating the First Amendment. It was only decades after the passage of the 14th amendment that the First Amendment was applied to the states, and it was only in 1947 that the establishment clause was applied to the states. Again, this is pointless knowledege for folks interested in mining America’s permissive tort law in order to redistribute money to fellow attorneys and guests of the Jerry Springer show.

  16. Charles Martel Says:
    August 31st, 2006 at 10:01 am

    Burden to Bear–
    That makes no sense. The First Amendment contains the Establishment Clause, which protected freedom of religion by barring a state-mandated church, a remarkable and unique freedom at that time. England and most of the other world powers all had state religions. So, of course “The First Amendment was intended to protect freedom of religion in the United States.” Why does such a facially true statement need correction?

    It’s kind of sad that you guys (AND your apparent opponents) have such a hard line on Baylor politics that you are this angry about things such as an inaugural speech in which a college president talks about issues of faith. Perhaps you have doctrinal differences with him, but the fact is that the more Christians stress the importance of their faith in their public lives, the better. I disagree with Catholics on many doctrinal issues, but still am moved by the professions of believe and the integration of faith and vocation I find among those who choose Catholicism. How hard do you think someone who hates our faith, like Osama Bin Laden, would laugh at a dispute like this among Christian Protestants?

  17. Charles Martel Says:
    August 31st, 2006 at 10:23 am

    I just read my post above and realized it did not say clearly what I meant, and was subject to the criticism that I didn’t get Burden’s point. I do understand Burden– he’s saying that the Establishment Clause did not prevent the states from mandating a state church until the 14th Amendment was passed. Got it (though I was confusing in using “state” to indicate the federal government). My point is that the First Amendment did prevent the FEDERAL government from establishing a faith in the way the national governments of other countries had and (most perniciously) tying it to state power.

    Thus, yes, the Establishment Clause granted a right that restricted the primary dangerous actor (the feds) but not lesser ones (the states). But that simply does not mean that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause wasn’t “intended to protect freedom of religion in the United States.” It was intended to do so, it just did so in a less than absolute way. By Burden’s logic, the Bill of Rights in whole was not intended to protect freedom, since the whole thing at the time of ratification only applied to the federal government.

    I’m no ConLaw scholar, either (and apparently get words like “believe” and “belief” mixed up) but I sure think the Bill of Rights did protect freedoms, even before passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868.

    But, in the end, both Burden and Bill Underwood look to Christ for answers, and that is a greater commonality than either seems willing to acknowledge.

  18. lucas Says:
    August 31st, 2006 at 11:44 am

    does the bible not tell us that we have freedom of religion anyway? i think it says something about living under a government and doing as it says but keeping your faith in your own home?….has it got anything to do with give onto ceaser what is ceaser’s?

  19. Charles Martel Says:
    August 31st, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    Lucas–

    The rulers of China will take great comfort in your point of view. They are way into the “do what we say and keep religion secret” model.

  20. NOT a Baylor Lawyer Says:
    August 31st, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    BurdentoBear:

    Thanks for your posts, which only affirm my decision several years ago to forego a near-free-ride to Baylor Law School (after 4 years as a Baylor undergraduate) for a REAL legal education.

  21. BurdenToBear Says:
    August 31st, 2006 at 7:42 pm

    Charles:

    “Congress shall make no law….” does not ensure religious freedom in the United States if the city council or the state assembly can require your dog to be baptized in grape juice on Wednesday. The First Amendment was a limitation on the power of Congress in relation to its citizens; it does not address the rights of citizens in relataion to their local governments, which were and are parts of the United States.

    Please don’t misunderstand me; I would rather live in a country with Underwood’s First Amendment than the Founders’version if I had to choose between the two.

    As for Baylor politics, you make it sound as if it were a benign card game in some back room at a Waco truck stop. It is and was hard ball. People were slimed; lives twisted; families scarred. And the drumbeat of the local savages continues unabated.

    Underwood compared the former provost at Baylor to Mao, Stalin, and Hitler at a public debate on academic freedom. A guy who has to demagogue like this is not a serious academic. It’s almost axiomitic that he doesn’t even know the Galileo story. I’m surprised that he hasn’t claimed that Galileo was really a paleo-Baptist.

  22. Hamilton Says:
    September 6th, 2006 at 5:58 pm

    Why is Underwood still followed? Why does he matter?

    Certainly, reading of his speech will lead us to believe that Underwood comes from a liberal camp of Christianity.

    Hunter says that Underwood said Christ was a “Son of God, Savior, I Am, freethinker.” However, Underwood does not speak to Christ’s deity. There’s no reason to lie about Underwood. His words speak for themselves. One can be a “freethinker,” in Underwood’s context, and Son of God. Underwood does not claim that Jesus was not really the Son of God or the Savior. Don’t claim that he did.

    Underwood, although very inartfully, tried to say that Jesus Christ brought new ideas to his age that were questioned by the church authorities. This is what he meant by “freethinker.” Whether you’re liberal or conservative – that contention is not very radical. Although Underwood’s wording of “freethinker” was poor – I think his general premise was correct. Jesus brought new ideas to the world that challenged the authority of church leaders.

    As to the Galileo affair, Underwood claimed that the Catholic Church did not recognize Galileo’s opinion until 300 years later. This is fact. Underwood did not generally claim that the Galileo affair “was not resolved until 300 years later” as Hunter claims. Underwood specifically mentioned the Catholic Church’s treatment of Galileo’s theory. There’s no reason to lie about Underwood. His own words should be used to hang him.

    Whatever disagreements you may have against Underwood, there is no reason to lie about his words in order to advance your cause – however noble.

  23. Hamilton Says:
    September 6th, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    Just one correction, my cross out function did not work on Hunter’s quote regarding “Son of God, Savior, I am.” In Hunter’s piece those words were crossed out, telling the reader that Underwood claimed Christ was not the Son of God, Savior or “I am.”

  24. Hamilton Says:
    September 6th, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    BurdentoBear,

    There is no reason to sling mud at Baylor Law School. The purported sins of one donor do not apply to all professors and alumni of the university. The identity of a donor at Underwood’s previous employer have no relevance to the truth of Underwood’s statements regarding Christ while President of Mercer. If you cannot identify that logical fallacy, you have no place criticizing another’s education.

    Walter Umphrey gave a lot of money to Baylor Law. That’s why they named a building after him. That’s how it works at every school. By your standard, any school that has a building named after a trial lawyer cannot have any alumni, professors or students who can speak about the First Amendment. This rule would prohibit alumni and professors from the University of Texas, Stanford and Yale from commenting on constitutional issues. That premise is hogwash and you know it.

    Next, your premise that the First Amendment did not bring religious freedom to the United States is ridiculously wrong. Of course it did. In a 9-0 decision by the United States Supreme Court, Justice Black said just that. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961). Disagree all you want, Underwood’s point is completely unquestioned United States Supreme Court precedent. Again, if you do not realize that, you have no place criticizing another’s education.

Powered by WordPress