From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: SBC Orthodoxy from the Conservative Side
Date: 30 Sep 92 05:48:41 GMT
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey

There were some articles about battles going on in the SBC, and I wrote a
short account of how I saw the goings-on.  I have an obvious if divided bias,
and it was not my intent to push one or the other side.

However, as always, somebody on one side of the dispute challenged me to
justify the other side -- and as always, I obliged.  Sigh.  The result has
been a few articles arguing for the `moderate' wing of SBC.  Now that that
exchange has died down, I'll add a bit of balance by discussing the merit
I see in the `conservative' wing.  (One faction in the dispute is called
`conservative' and the other variously called `moderate' or `liberal'.  This
is a bit silly, because a `liberal' Southern Baptist is one who thinks it's
okay to play cards, provided you're surrounded by a bunch of other Baptists
to keep you from falling into idolatry, and you only play games like "King
in the Corner".  Better names would be `less conservative' and `more
conservative', but that's a lot of typing.)


Basically, the SBC was drifting in a moderate direction, and some very
conservative members did not want it to go that way.  I think this was based
in part on a "slippery slope" argument, that once you start the slide toward
liberalism you'll eventually end up as a neo-Pagan.  I'm not much impressed
with this argument, but I see where others were rightly concerned about going
too far toward liberalism.  The conservatives set about putting the SBC back
on track.  I've discussed why I think their approach was bad (basically,
requiring creeds amounts to declaring some issues above discussion and also
breaks with the same Baptist traditions we're trying to hold on to); now I'll
talk a bit about why I think their motivation wasn't so bad.


Most Southern Baptists are conservative by US religious standards.  Many take
a very literal view of Scripture and (for example) consider the traditional NT
attributions important.  Through their donations, they fund the operation of
numerous seminaries.  They do not want to fund seminaries which teach ideas
they consider false (or worse).  This is all perfectly reasonable, or seems so
to me.

When the denomination started becoming more liberal, the seminaries (as is
often the case) led the way.  The conservatives wanted to stem this change by
keeping the seminaries from teaching how to explain away important doctrines,
instead of teaching that those doctrines are true.

There are some liberal-conservative issues in this, but casting it in those
terms is too simplistic.  There is also a question of academic freedom: how
much do you allow in the classroom?  Should a professor, acting on his own
authority, tell a class full of students that <pet theory> is The Truth?  If
you allow total academic freedom, then there's no way to know for sure what is
getting taught in classes besides attending all of them.  Surely the trustees
of a seminary have the right -- the duty -- to make certain that nobody is
engaging in theological innovation when training pastors.

These issues are important ones, and I think the conservative wing of the SBC
had some real points in their favor when they started to complain.  Responding
in the kind of antagonistic discussion I found myself in these last few weeks
has caused me to argue only one side of the debate for a while.  But this is
not a one-sided matter, and I do not belittle the concerns of the conservative
SBs (indeed, I share many of those same concerns).

My only real complaints are:

    a) the extent to which academic freedom has been curtailed
 and
    b) the methods used to accomplish this.


I believe that the more conservative SBs could have answered their concerns
about the seminaries, and even changed the direction of the SBC, without using
the methods they did.  I think that the conservative concerns could have been
met without requiring statements of faith or creeds.  A little more care and
patience would have gone a long way in this situation, both to keep everybody
working together happily and to keep the SBC from making the error of
mandating creeds.  But at the same time, their concerns were worth addressing
and should not be dismissed by anyone involved.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"The Bible says men will be saved by the foolishness of preaching, NOT by
 the foolishness of the preacher." -- Tom Brewer