From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Southern Baptists Ensuring Orthodoxy
Date: 10 Sep 92 07:40:28 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <Sep.5.16.44.49.1992.17087@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
...
>Some of the issues that motivated the movement back to conservativism are
>theological ones.  However, the methods which have been used to effect change
>are political.  For the conservatives, this is a theological dispute -- but
>for the people who get booted out of the seminaries, it's a political dispute.

I too am a conservative and I believe conservative issues are worth striving
to achieve.

I'm not as up on these political moves as Mr. Provine, so I maybe have'nt see 
what he has.  I did once subsribe to the Tennessee Baptist's newsletter and
canceled my subscription due to the seeming political nature of the
paper - this was in the mid 80's.

>While I agree with the conservatives on some of the disputed issues, I oppose
>the methods they have used to ensure orthodoxy.  If a faculty member is not
>convinced by evidence or arguments that your opinions are correct, the only
>proper earthly course of action is get better evidence or better arguments.

The Apostle Paul seemed to take a harder line.  He pretty much said if
someone doesn't follow what we have taught on moral grounds, don't associate 
with them.  If it was on theological grounds, he said reject them after
the second warning.  Paul argued from authority.

>Threatening to fire him amounts to admitting that you can't produce good
>arguments for your ideas.  I can see why someone might complain about a
>professor who has become a Muslim; but I know of no cases quite that extreme
>(besides which, such a person would probably resign on his own).

If one can't produce good argument and the issue is not essential, then
I can see your point, but most of the issues I've seen/heard seem to 
fall into the category of essential (e.g., the Scriptures being the Word
of God, the Virgin Birth of Christ, the Deity of Christ, His resurrection,
etc.)  Granted I here these from the conservatives and this is what they
say about the moderates.  

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?

>Another problem with the recent events in the SBC is the lack of discernment
>by those who have been using the measuring-stick.  In short, they've attacked

I agree with the concern - we should be unified on the essentials and allow
for divergence on the non-essentials.  However, if one wants to have the
name Southern Baptist, one needs to do what they want.  If this name thing
isn't important, then why hold on - one can still function as a church, but
not have the name.

>ANY deviation from their beliefs, without first considering the importance of
>the issues.  For example, some complaints against people have included:
>
> a) a nominee to a seminary whose church had a `liturgical worship style'
> b) a committee director who opposed capital punishment
> c) a nominee to a missions board whose church had no Sunday night services

I've never heard these seemingly petty cases as being a point much less the
point of the debate between the conservatives and the moderates.  In fact,
I've never heard of these cases.  The only regulatory thing that I've 
experienced at the church level was a case of a Southern Baptist Church
supposedly accepting as a member an believer, who had not be baptized by
immersion.  This doesn't reflect on that believers salvation, but on the
church which didn't hold a SBC line on baptism - I believe immersion is
the correct way, incidentally.

>These issues are not central Gospel teachings -- I can think of no instruction
>from Jesus commanding the Death Penalty -- but they were enough to cause the
>conservatives oppose the nomination or rehiring of the people in question.  By
>failing to discern what is central to Christian teaching and what is not, the
>conservatives treat people who don't have Sunday night services as if they
>don't believe the Resurrection.  It appears as if all that matters is whether
>one disputes a traditional idea; it does not matter _which_ idea, how central
>it is to the Gospel teaching, or even if that idea has any Scriptural support.

Could you give references (dates, times, locations) where these points were
of such concern?

>By associating themselves with disputes over matters which are not directly
>Biblical, the conservatives have made themselves look petty and divisive;
>which is not, I think, completely inaccurate.

The issues I here about are major and not minor.  If people are doing things
for political gain, which I can't deny, but would hope not to be the case,
then the person gains no favor with God, regardless of the outcome.  The outcome
may be good, but the person may not be rewarded by God for his work.

>And finally, there's the aspect of destroying what you want to save.  We build
>seminaries because we need to study the Scriptures and educate pastors to deal
>with the problems they'll have running churches.  One basic principle that all

I agree, but I'm not sure if they help a lot on how to run a church.  

Also, the studying the scriptures part is good, but depending on an untested
professor's preconceived approach, it may be hard to just leave it open 
and unrestricted.

>Protestant denominations rest on is that tradition can be wrong: if we felt

Agreed.  Most tend toward the Scriptures as the basis.

>that it was impossible for church traditions to lead us astray, we'd all be
>Eastern Orthodox.  Traditional Protestant teachings are (hopefully) based on
>sound reasoning from the Scriptures.  However, few people -- and virtually no
>Baptists -- believe that traditional teachings are somehow infused with
>infallibility.  The people who read the Bible 200 years ago might have made a
>mistake, or not known something we know now.  Therefore, we should constantly
>and carefully study all of the most recent textual, archaeological, and
>historical information to ensure that any errors in our beliefs are corrected.
>That's one of the things you want a seminary for.

Agreed.

>But the recent conservative movement -- which has included taking over the
>Boards of Trustees and imposing statements of faith -- rejects all of this.

I don't think it rejects all of this.  It may limit it and this in and
of itself is not bad.

>In essence, it assumes that whatever is on the Statement of Faith is
>infallible, and anyone who denies it shall be declared anathema.

I have seen this and I too have problems with it, but the Statement of
Faith was, I am sure, arrived at by honest study of the Scriptures and
the same end would be reached today, if it was redone.

>The result of this is that the conservatives, in their effort to preserve the
>traditional Baptist teachings, have discarded that same tradition.  Baptists
>have always held to the "priesthood of the believer" -- an idea which is not
>at all welcome now.  Baptist have, traditionally, avoided all humanly-written

How is the "priesthood of the believer" not welcome, now??  

>creeds, relying only on the Bible -- but now, there are Official Creeds which
>have to be adhered to by seminary professors.  Baptists have, traditionally,

There are creeds for the Churches that are really what the members say they 
believe, when they are joining a specific church.  We had one on the wall
at the church I grew up in.

>strongly supported the strict separation of church & state -- but the SBC has
>recently stopped supporting the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, a
>lobbying group that argued to keep the government out of church business.

Do you know the stated reason for dropping support?

>I am not, in principle, opposed to conservatives influencing the teachings and
>direction of a denomination; in several cases I agree with the theological
>issues that motivated the SBC conservatives.  However, I feel that they did
>not act wisely and with discretion; as a result, they have damaged the very
>thing they set out to protect.

Again this is open to debate.

>During the decade-long controversy between the various wings of the SBC, over
>$100,000 was spent on mailings and canvassing people to vote one way or
>another -- money that could have been spent filling real needs.

All big groups spend a lot of money on mailings and I am often disgusted
with it even in my own church.

>In the aftermath, some Baptist churches and State Associations (such as the
>Baptist General Association of Virginia) have recently been reducing funding
>to the SBC, and reallocating those funds to some of the very places that the
>SBC dropped: a seminary in Europe and the BJCoPA, as two examples.  A new

My church did this for some of the missionary groups, when it was thought
to be unwise to give money to a liberal group.  We are a key player
in the conservative movement, but yet we, as OTHERS ARE able to do, diverted
our money to where we thought it was best used.

It might be well noted that we were criticized for our diversion of funds -
are moderates so tough on themselves?

>seminary is being started in Richmond, staffed by professors who have been
>terminated from the SB-run seminaries, and funded by donations that, in the
>past, would have gone to the SBC seminaries.  Some churches with dual
>affiliation (SBC and American Baptist Convention) are likely to drop the SBC;
>a group of Southern Baptists formed a group called the "Cooperative Baptist
>Fellowship", and it is rapidly turning into a new denomination (by Baptist
>standards for `denomination'); I know of several churches -- some very large
>ones -- that will probably dump the SBC in favor of the CBF.

I ask both sides (conservative and moderate) is this a money/power game
we are playing or is it a theological concern we have.  Look at the above
paragraph and see what the concerns are.

>Most, if not all, of this could have been avoided had the conservatives in the
>SBC been more careful about making the changes they wanted.  Had they chosen
>their battles wisely and considered carefully the traditional principles that
>were being lost in an effort to save other ones, the process -- and the end
>results -- may have been much more pleasant for all concerned.

Paul created a lot of controversy in the Corinthian church by saying some
of you follow Paul, some some one else - he asked "is Christ divided?" - the
answer is NO.  However, Paul said that he figuratively applied himself
to the situation and that it was also good to have controversy/division, for
it shows who is approved by God.

>Given what is effectively a formal-split-in-progress, I suspect that the SBC
>will not be the largest Protestant denomination in the US very much longer.

I'm not sure that this is a loss - it may be a re-alignment of some resources,
but I'm not sure the split will be as big as some hope for, either.

>I'm not sure if this is good or not; it may be that, working in smaller
>groups, they can get more done without the infighting that has affected
>everything undertaken in the last 10 years.

Maybe, but maybe it is for purification of both sides.

>Still, it's a little sad to see a group of 14 million people, working together
>with no demands stronger than "we agree to cooperate", collapse.  It seemed
>like a testimony to the way in which Christ can help people overcome their
>differences, but apparently the people involved didn't want to work with those
>who are different.

Paul says reject and don't associate with certain people, which implies it
is better not to hold on to those who don't follow the sound teachings,
than it is to keep them for the sake of some proported unity.

Again, I ask what do the moderates hold to so tightly that they need
to start a new denomination in order to apparently keep doing it?

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |