From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Southern Baptists Ensuring Orthodoxy
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:25:55 GMT
Organization: Glassboro State College

In reply to an earlier article on this topic, Richard Pitts wrote a 230-line
article, most of which appears to be my own text.  I waded through some of it,
so here are comments on the central question:

> I ask, what do the moderates want to teach/do that is so precious to them 
> that they put up the fight to keep doing it?

The same thing that Martin Luther wanted to do: think.

I am not Roman Catholic because I do not believe that denominational leaders
are infused with hocus-pocus Infallibility.  If some church leader makes a
claim, I expect to see it backed up with evidence and arguments.  The current
moves by the conservatives in the SBC are attempts to subvert my right to ask
for such evidence and arguments.  If I don't agree, then I'm no good.  It does
not matter whether they can prove what they say or not.

I oppose this desire on the part of men to establish binding creeds.  On some
issues, I agree with the conservatives; on others I don't.  I oppose the
creeds in both cases.


Here is one basic example: Inerrancy.  I believe that the doctrine of
Inerrancy is mostly meaningless; to the extent that it means anything, it has
nowhere near sufficient evidence to support it; and even if true, it is
largely useless.

The people who espouse and insist upon Inerrancy have never produced an
argument that held water.  To keep the s.r.c. flames down, I'll refrain from
passing along my specific opinions about the kinds of `arguments' that
Inerrantists usually use to support the belief.  Suffice it to say that I do
not think much of these arguments, and I consider Inerrancy a doctrine with
no reasonable support.

Usually, when somebody has a doctrine he can't demonstrated, I don't consider
it essential.  Lots of people believe Inerrancy, none has ever demonstrated it
to me, from the Bible or otherwise.  So I do not worry about Inerrancy; the
only time I discuss it or think about it is when somebody brings it up (or
when I need an example 8-).

In general, if somebody says "So & So tried to convince me of his beliefs, but
he couldn't back them up", everybody applauds.  However, nobody ever applauds
when THEY are the ones who have been dismissed as unconvincing.


Right now, the SBC contains a lot of conservative Christians who believe
Inerrancy, and who cannot adequately defend the belief.  As a result, they are
using political methods -- with all the unseemly and unChristian behaviour
that `political' implies -- to require beliefs that they cannot demonstrate.

What I want is the right to demand justification from someone who tells me
that I must assent to a belief to be a church member.  Conservatives, who have
no such justification to offer, apparently want to deny me that right.

I will not remain with a bunch of Southern Baptists who want to be Pope.  If
that is where they are going, they will go without me.  Maybe it's wrong for
me to oppose men who claim they are infallible; maybe it was wrong for Martin
Luther.  However, as has been observed, Paul did specify situations in which
one should break fellowship with others.  Those who teach unsound doctrines
(and I consider Inerrancy unsound) do fit one of those situations.

 --

Some side comments:

 a) Mr Pitts writes that the Statement of Faith to be required by the
    Seminaries was "arrived at by honest study of the Scriptures and the
    same end would be reached today, if it was redone."

So what?  The guys who wrote it may well be wrong.  There is no guarantee that
"honest study of the Scriptures" produces infallible results.  I'm sure that
the Council of Trent was careful, along with Thomas Aquinas and innumerable
Popes.  But there's a reason you aren't Roman Catholic, isn't there?


 b) Mr Pitts asks why the SBC stopped supporting the Baptist Joint Committee
    on Public Affairs (a lobbying group that argued to keep the government out
    of church business).

Because they were trying to keep the Church out of the Government business.
The principle here is that when you have your church start interfering in the
government, eventually the government will start interfering with your church.
In the interest of "freedom of religion", the BJCoPA was arguing for the
freedom of non-Christian religions.  That was not acceptable to some SBs.


 c) I wrote of numerous realignments and rearrangements of funds that resulted
    from the recent political intrigue in the SBC, and Mr Pitts wondered
    rhetorically if this is anything besides a money/power game.

Probably not.  The SBC is not a denomination in the sense that other groups
are: it exists solely as a cooperative venture undertaken by independent
churches.  They cooperate in funding and running missions, seminaries, and
other activities.  If not for this working together, the denomination wouldn't
exist at all.  As a result, the breaking of these links is a useful way of
measuring the SBC's health.

 --

People interested in this subject might want to see Nancy Tatom Ammerman's
book, _Baptist Battles_.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"But if you wish to discuss this question then you must leave room for surmise
 and differences of opinion, as I do.  Do not make your own ideas into
 articles of faith as that abomination at Rome does.  For then your faith may
 become a nightmare."
             -- Martin Luther, _Defense and Explanation of all the Articles_