From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Southern Baptists Ensuring Orthodoxy
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:44:50 GMT
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey (nee Glassboro State College)

Growing out of a discussion about Gov Clinton and Sen Gore, there has been
some discussion of the recent controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention;
some see current events as positive course corrections, others see them as a
miniture Inquisition.

I'll try to fill in a little bit for people who don't know all about what is
happening.  I am divided in my loyalties between the conservatives and the
moderates on theological issues, but I think the conservatives did not act
wisely in carrying out their agenda.  Take that into account as my bias.


In recent years, some people have perceived a liberal shift in the seminaries
and churches of the SBC.  (Note that a `liberal' in the SBC may be considered
a moderate in one of the truly liberal denominations, such as the Methodists
or Presbyterians.  A `moderate' SB would probably be a fundamentalist
reactionary in those churches.  Don't even ask about the UUs.  8-)

To prevent this slide into liberalism, some conservative members have moved to
push the denomination back into conservative Christian doctrines.  While I
don't, in principle, object to moving a denomination back to conservativism,
I _am_ bothered by the methods that were used, the lack of discernment in
what issues to contend, and "destroying the city to save it".

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.
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.
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).


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
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

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.

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.


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

But the recent conservative movement -- which has included taking over the
Boards of Trustees and imposing statements of faith -- rejects all of this.
In essence, it assumes that whatever is on the Statement of Faith is
infallible, and anyone who denies it shall be declared anathema.

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

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.


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.

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
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.

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.

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 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.

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.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"But I won't let others live in Hell
 As we divide against each other
   and fight amongst ourselves.

 Too set it our ways, to try to rearrange;
 Too right to be wrong, in this rebel song." -- U2