College football in America was rocked to the core by recent news of conference expansion and realignment. Moderate spectators and rabid fans alike were no doubt anxiously anticipating the outcome of these sudden developments. With Nebraska’s departure to the Big Ten Conference and Colorado to the PAC-10 Conference, the Big 12 Conference was rumored to likely dissolve quickly thereafter, with Texas and and handful other Big 12 schools possibly headed to the PAC-10.
One of the teams looking to follow the money train to the PAC-10 was Baylor University. Texas Governor Rick Perry has been vocal about his preference that Baylor be included in any conference realignment that also includes the other Texas teams in the Big 12 – Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech. Furthermore, Baylor launched an all-out effort in the Texas Legislature to make certain that they were included in the move to the PAC-10.
Orangebloods.com reported that this effort seemed to be falling short. Originally, Colorado, with its big money Denver television market, had agreed to leave the Big 12 with Texas and Co., leaving Baylor as the odd-man out with no financial leverage to speak of. What’s more, the website also cited sources stating that “some schools in the Pac-10, including California-Berkeley, have a real issue with adding an institution with religious ties like Baylor to the conference.”
Should this be a surprise? Probably not. California-Berkeley has never been shy about its liberal bent. In 2005, the school’s website posted an article stating that only 12% of the incoming freshman population considered itself to be conservative on such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage. Liberalism continues to subvert our country through many avenues, now college football can be included.
Ultimately, the dust settled and the Big 12 stayed together with ten teams and a great sigh of relief was heard around the sports world coming out of Waco. Sadly, Baylor would have been jobbed otherwise. Not because of their football record, their academic status, or their ticket sales. No, they would be pushed out mainly because of their ties to Jesus Christ.
Good luck to Colorado, the cultural and economic fit for the PAC-10.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 102 comments }
Baylor a Christian school? Um, isn’t the seminary there a seminary of choice for CBF’ers? [snicker] Silly Berkley. Baylor is just as liberal as you–they just don’t have the guts to come out and admit what they believe.
Baylor doesn’t have a seminary. Truett is an independent institution that exists on the property of Baylor, but is completely separate from it. I don’t know much about Truett, but David Garland is its dean, and he’s written some of the best conservative, New Testament commentaries I’ve used. I don’t know how the profs and administration are across the board, though.
Joe,
You’d make Michelle Bachmann proud. Whenever you don’t have anything constructive to say, just throw around the word “liberal” a few times and then maybe, just maybe, someone will care what you have to say.
Let’s take a quiz here, Scott, old son. Would someone with the following beliefs be welcomed and affirmed at Baylor or say Southern Seminary?
1) The record of Jesus being born of a virgin is just a myth.
2) Christianity is not the only true faith or path to God. We have no right to claim that a muslim, for instance, cannot get to heaven if he/she is sincere in their muslim faith.
3) The New Testament does not teach that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuals who are in committed, monogomas relationships should have those relationships welcomed and affirmed by the church. God does not call that sin.
4) The Bible is reliable with regards to faith and practice but is not, nor does it claim to be, inerrant or inspired.
Now, not only would someone with such aberant, un-Christians beliefs be welcomed and affirmed at Baylor, not Southern, I will bet you a Hardee’s thickburger and a chocolate shake that there are more than a handful of faculty on staff at both the university and the serminary that believe and teach that.
Yeah, Baylor is a staunchly christian university. Perfect for folks from the CBF.
Yeah, but since Baylor is also a University which is trying to gain prestige as a research facility, they don’t require each and every student to adhere each and every doctrine nor are they even required to be a Christian.
Heck, did a little research and not every student at SWBTS is a Southern Baptist. Who knew?
Face it, there’s no evil plan of evil being drawn up in bunkers beneath other seminaries to wage war against SWBTS. There’s also not some grand scheme to enact a Mainstream Resurgence so you can go ahead and cancel that order of bumper stickers. Most of the people in my generation are more interested in missions and reaching people rather than whose name is on a plaque on a building that’ll get torn down in a few decades or whose name gets to be on wikipedia’s Conservative Resurgence page.
Also, there’s no Hardee’s around here, haven’t been in over a decade…
so you can go ahead and cancel that order of bumper stickers
Aw, dang. They’ve already shipped and I can’t get a refund.
I would hope Brandon and Scott when they talk about Baylor would frame it in reference to the Underwood article about Baylor in circa 04 issue of Mother Jones magazine.
Or at a minimum this board could use the help of Barry Hankins Uneasy in Babylon.
We have gone around that mulberry bush before but I can’t remember anybody who frequents this board or SBCimpact having read it.
DAvid Underwood now president of Mercer was speaker at the BJC luncheon at the CBF a few days ago.
The difference between the BJC and Charles Pickering ADF would come closer to discussing the nature of Baylor and its differences with fundamentalism, than this weak shot of a distinction between Baylor and Berkeley.
Google up Randall Balmer on Baylor in CToday in 2002,and the Mother Jones article about Underwood and Jeffrey Lyle; and then look at the several articles that distinguish theBaptist Joint Committee from Christian Legal Society and Alliance Defense Fund.
That seems to me to be where the real discussion is.
Stephen:
I haven’t read all of those articles that you cited, but the analysis is even more complex than you suggest.
First, wasn’t Judge Pickering a moderate Baptist in Mississippi? I had heard that he was President at one time of the Mississippi convention, as a moderate, but I could be wrong about that.
Second, it is not correct to compare the CLS and ADF as fundamentalists vis a vis the BJC. Sometimes those groups see eye to eye. Other times they differ. I would say that the BJC insists upon a view of the First Amendment that could be called “strict separation.” The CLS and ADF, to my knowledge, advocate a view that might be called “accommodation” of religion, but not strict separation.
In the recent case, for example, where the Supreme Court decided that the Hasting College of Law in California could decide not to recognize a religious group on the campus because it restricted membership to people of its religion (and it excluded homosexuals), the ADF argued that religious groups should be able to restrict membership to those in their religion and not lose state recognition afforded to other groups. That is not a Fundamentalist position. The Baptist Joint Committee submitted an AMICUS (“friend of the court”) brief, that, strangely, took no position in the case. I really don’t know what to make of an AMICUS brief that takes no position in the case, except to note that is an embodiment of moderate Baptists.
But at any rate, I would suggest that the comparison between these groups is not as easily categorized as “Fundamentalists” vs. moderates or some other group.
In RE Louis Comment 8 or so.
Don’t know if you read the Jeffrey Lyle/Underwood magazine report from 04 Mother Jones but it is easily googled up and gets to the heart of the matter as far as Baylor is concerned.
Pickering was a member of the SBC Peace Committee in 87. My best memory is he voted with Ed Yound and Jim Henry most of the time.
Robert Marsh was his pastor in the early 70′s. Marsh’s son Charles is now a UVA proff. Robert Marsh’s deliberations on the SBC takeover is the subject of a gut wrenching presentation to his church in Atlanta, interestingly enough written up by Big Daddy Weave’s Dad, Doug Weaver; and that as well is easily googled up.
Charles Marsh was originally scheduled to deliver the Buddy Shurden Church State lectures in Bham back in April.
For sure would be fascinating to have Charles Marsh explore some of the church state differences between Pickering and the BJC and their implications for this moment in our country; and furthermore to see if the rubric of inerrancy with all it’s social baggage was adequate for the moment Pickering found himself in 87; and if he, like his former pastor Robert Marsh, has any regrets, second guesses about his thinking at the time.
I think if you are sincerely interested in these matters, Aaron Weaver would join me in the recommend of a careful reading of Hankins Uneasy in Babylon.
Is Baylor a conservative school? lol Is Baylor a Baptist school? lol Is Baylor a Christian school? lol
Cal needs to rethink this one. They are behind the times. Baylor has been neither Christian, nor Baptist, nor conservative for a while.
David
I don’t think it had a thing to do with their beliefs–it all had to do with money and Baylor can’t generate enough to stay in that league. They compete on some levels but their football program sucks. I do enjoy a discussion of Baylor’s lack of Christian ethics and beliefs but it is secondary to money these days. To be honest though, I would consider Baylor to be slightly more Christian than the west coast schools.
Josh,
I think you’re right in that it had more to do with money, and which schools would be considered good for TV…and which schools would be good for the reputation of the conference. Thus, Baylor would have been left out of the Pac 10 deal. But, to my surprise, the Texas and Oklahoma schools didnt jump, nor did Missouri. I really thought the Big 12 was gone there for a while. I guess they’ll be looking for someone to add to their conference now. They’re missing 2 schools. I wonder which schools the Big 12 will go after next year?
David
Ignoring the ignorant fundamentalists like Joe and Volfan for a moment…
Let me offer a few comments:
Truett Seminary is not an independent institution. The seminary is operated by Baylor University. My dad usually teaches one class per semester at Truett in addition to his regular teaching/administrative duties as a professor in the Baylor Religion department. His check, at the end of the month, comes from Baylor. I think Mike is confusing Truett with Baylor Law School which is not owned but affiliated with the university (and located on campus).
I’m at Baylor. I followed the football happenings pretty closely as did most Wacoans. I even blogged critically about the comments that came out of Berkeley. Ultimately, I think the decision to snub Baylor by the Pac-10 had little to do with religion. In terms of $$ (which was what this realignment was all about), Baylor brings little to the table. Last time we made it to a bowl game, incoming freshmen were 2 years old. Aside from the UT and A&M games, attendance is less than stellar. We’re great in non-football sports and have a better academic reputation than the majority of the schools in Big 12 and PAC-10 but football has been lousy. In that regard, we brought little to the bargaining table.
Thankfully, the PAC-16 didn’t happen and we’re safe in the Big 12 for at least the time being…
Baylor is a big place. Those who holler liberal liberal liberal have likely not spent any time on campus. For what it’s worth, Union’s David Dockery was seriously considered for the presidency. Ken Starr was selected instead. I believe Volfan has a daughter that goes to Union. Interesting that the president of the school Volfan helps fund interviewed for the BU job. Clearly Dockery doesn’t see Baylor as some bastion of liberalism like Joe and Volfan…
A couple professors in Baylor’s department of religion told me Truett was a separate institution – affiliated but free and with its own boards and stuff like that. It’s possible I misunderstood them, but that’s what I was told.
So you’re saying that Baylor wouldn’t welcome and affirm students who reject inerrancy, the virgin birth, the clear biblical prohibition on homosexual activity, and the non-exclusivity of salvation in Christ alone and you’re saying that there are not faculty members there that also hold to those aberant teachings. Then you are a liar and you know it.
Joe,
Do you have any friends? Anyone in your life think you’re a pleasant, nice person? For your sake, I hope so.
Way to ccompletely avoid the question. Very telling. Your dad got WAY better than he deserved back in Georgia, by the way.
My last comment (15) was completely out of line. There was no call for me to say that. I’m sorry.
Nice.
No. You said what you wanted to say. Don’t be like Clinton and back away from it now.
Scott, I had no right to say what I said. I came in the house hacked off that something was wrong with my lawnmower and took it out online. Saying I disagree with someone’s theology or lack thereof is one thing. What I did unjustifiable.
The thing is, Joe, you’ve made that SAME comment to me once before. Sticks and stones. I could care less what you think. I feel sorry for you. Obviously, you’re not a happy person.
As to my dad, he’s an accomplished, successful professor who has had a positive impact on the lives of thousands of college students, a great preacher and pastor who is now an active Baptist layman, and an awesome father.
Your really mean-spirited comments reveal much about your character.
In Joe’s defense: He admitted it was wrong and apologized. That also says a lot about his character.
Matt,
Maybe you missed the part where I noted that Joe has made that exact SAME comment before about my father. Hard to take his apology seriously.
How about we all stop insulting each other and be more Christ-like? This is ridiculous that we have 60+ comments and most of them are insults and bickering.
Joe’s favorite tactic right now is to throw out the insult, give enough time for people to read it, and then apologize. He’s done it on several articles here and on other blogsites as well. I’m sorry, but you just can’t keep doing that.
Then again, it’s really modeling the fire insurance that we peddle in our churches.
BWD:
Thanks for the info on Baylor. My father in law went there. My children might. For me, it is hard to describe Baylor in one clear sentence. My father in law says, there is something for everyone there. Lots of different offerings and perspectives, I suppose.
I recently was told by a well known and well placed conservative Southern Baptist that the trustee selection at Baylor is getting very conservative, and that the conservatives might end up “owning” Baylor.
Thank you Herb Reynolds and Paul Powell.
But then, others have rightly noted that if the trustees do not take an active role in faculty selection, the trajectory of the school will not change much.
So, I guess it all remains to be seen.
As much as I love Texas, I am just glad that I don’t live there as a member of a Baptist church. Too much fightin for me!
Hey Joe,
You do realize that not every student at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is a Southern Baptist, right?
They still allow visiting scholars to study.
Granted, the number is like 98.7% of the student population IS Southern Baptist, but there are some who are not with the denomination.
Scott, why would it matter if every student at SWBTS is Southern Baptist? There are a lot of conservative Christians that are not Southern Baptists. Further, not every Southern Baptist is a Christian. Finally, what is your deal with SWBTS? I don’t have any ties with that school.
Just using it as an example…
I don’t have any ties to Baylor or Southwestern either.
BDW,
If you’re at Baylor, then that seals it. Baylor’s a liberal school.
Les
“No, they would be pushed out mainly because of their ties to Jesus Christ.”
At some point, people have to stop blaming Our Lord for the way they are rejected by others. If people feel that they are rejected by others ‘because of their ties to Jesus’, let them ask themselves:
have they been self-righteous in their behavior towards others?
have they come across in an obnoxious manner ?
have they failed to listen to the other party with respect?
have they failed to see the other party as a human being with dignity?
have they, in their attempts to get people to ‘think like them’, behaved in ways that Our Lord never did?
Sometimes the rejection is NOT because ‘of their ties to Jesus Christ’.
Sometimes the rejection is because they come across as obnoxious, smug, self-righteous jerks.
Our Lord isn’t the One getting rejected at all.
In cases where the messenger is an obnoxious jerk, rejection of the messenger might actually be an affirmation that Christian people are to represent the light of Christ.
There are more horses’ asses out there than there are horses.
Actually, that was said because Berkeley in fact did say it as a rejection to our Lord and Savior by rejecting Baylor due to it’s affiliation with Him…
Actually, Baylor was opposed by the Pac-10 by Cal-Berkeley and apparently others in that conference based on the fact that Baylor had religious affiliations. Of course, Baylor is in the unique situation of being attacked by their Baptist brethren because they are perceived as not being religious enough, while the other side attacks Baylor because they profess any faith at all.
Kind of puts Baylor inbetween the ole rock and a hard place; doesnt it?
David
have they been self-righteous in their behavior towards others?
Translation–Have they ever said that the Bible reveals to us the standards of right and wrong and that what it says is true and anything else is false?
have they come across in an obnoxious manner ?
Translation–Do they proclaim that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation?
have they failed to listen to the other party with respect?
Translation–Have they said that other religions (Mormons, muslims, etc) do not lead to heaven?
have they failed to see the other party as a human being with dignity?
Translation–Have they ever told somone that Christ loves them and will forgive them of their sins if they place their faith in Him?
have they, in their attempts to get people to ‘think like them’, behaved in ways that Our Lord never did?
Translation–Have they said that the Bible is God’s inerrant, infalible, insprired word and that anything that contradicts what it says is wrong.
In other words, no conservative is a real Christian.
Oh, you’re totally right about Jesus not being exclusive. It’s not like He said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no man comes to the Father but by me”.
Hi JOE,
Did I strike a nerve ?
Nah, I just figured people needed a solid translation of where you’re coming from.
Oh no, JOE. Not this time.
You are your OWN person.
Time to start owning your OWN words.
And your OWN behaviors.
Now, Joe, if the horse’s shoe fits . . . . . . .
Baylor stopped being a Baptist school a long time ago. They’re an independent, private University…much like Belmont University in Nashville and Wake Forest in North Carolina. And, would you really call them Christian schools? Or, just private schools with a Christian founding…much like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. And, is Baylor a conservative school? Well, when you hold it up next to Cal-Berkeley it is. So is pretty much any University in the nation…Cal is so liberal. But, when I think of conservative schools, I think of Union University, the 6 SB Seminaries, Luther Rice, Trinity in Indiana, Truett-McConnell in Georgia, Liberty U. in Virginia, etc. I really do not think of Baylor, anymore.
Also, the UT…the University of Tennessee…is just a plain ole great school.
David
Volfan,
Care to respond to my previous comment? You mention Union as a conservative school. Why do you think the president of Union would allow himself to be considered for a position at a non-Baptist, non-Christian school as you describe Baylor? What does that say about the school your kid attends which you fund with your Tennessee dollars?
Maybe Dr. Dockery was willing to go to Baylor to help it become more Bible believing and conservative? Maybe? I know that he certainly helped Union U. turn more Bible believing and conservative.
BTW, I’m much more glad that TBC dollars go to Union U. now, than I was before Dr. Dockery came.
David
Baylor is actually still affiliated with and funded largely by the Baptist General Convention of Texas, a more liberal denomination than the SBC (see the split between them over the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message). Baylor’s liberal bent toward evolutionism is well-documented by the documentary “Expelled” and by William Dembski, a former Baylor professor.
Though money and revenue were surely considered (as I noted with Colorado’s Denver TV market), the outcry from the Pac-10 was publicly aimed more toward Baylor’s religious affiliation than to money.
Yea, William Dembski is the definition of objective…
A number of Dembski’s supporters at Baylor eventually turned on him with public criticism.
As an aside, the BGCT is not a separate denomination from the SBC. The BGCT, like the SBTC, is a state convention of the SBC.
My mistake, I should’ve clarified that it was the SBTC.
Regardless, there was a split in 1998 due to the liberal bent of the BGCT regarding inerrancy of Scripture and the 2000 BF&M was formed and the SBTC partnered more closely with the SBC while the BGCT rejected the 2000 BF&M and formed a dual-partnership with the already-split CBF.
The BGCT does not have a dual-partnership with the CBF. If the CBF did have some sort of partnership, we’d likely not be going through such financial woes.
There are, of course, BGCT leaders who are also active in the CBF. Some are; many aren’t. The president of the BGCT – who I like very much – is not a supporter of the CBF and attends the annual meeting of the SBC.
The BGCT does allow affiliated churches to designate their mission offering to the SBC or CBF, however. A similar arrangement exists in the BGAV and up until recently, the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina.
BGCT partners with both the SBC and CBF financially through churches, in missions, poverty initiatives, etc.
Sorry my wording was not to your liking. Let’s stop all this nonsense bickering. Not edifying or constructive.
Don’t know how you would construe my comments as bickering. Many people don’t have a firm understanding of the relationships between various different organizations in Baptist life.
You described the BGCT as a denomination. It’s not.
You referenced the SBC when apparently you meant SBTC.
And you stated that the BGCT as an organization has a “dual-partnership” with the CBF. That’s not accurate either.
I offered substantive corrections and you call it “nonsense bickering” Just trying to correctly describe the relationships between the organizations for current and future readers.
Hope I won’t be accused of bickering but let me add that Baylor is NOT “funded largely by the Baptist General Convention of Texas” as you stated in your original comment.
The BGCT allocates 1.66 million to Baylor in 2010, down from 1.9 million in 2009. Baylor’s operating budget for 2010 is 403 million. That’s a drop in the bucket.
Since this is a football-themed post, it’s worth noting that the BGCT’s yearly total contribution to Baylor wouldn’t even cover the yearly salary of the football coach Art Briles whose base salary is 1.8 million.
You have insulted Joe and Volfan, you have disregarded Matt’s attempt at reconciling you and Joe by essentially saying, “He started it” and are nit-picking my comments to death because the wording doesn’t suit you though the initial point that I made still stands true. Finally, you have avoided every issue of Baylor and the BGCT’s inerrancy and creationism denials and directed your comments toward little things in attempt to discredit those who truthfully and rightly criticize their liberal views.
Thanks for reading and I pray that we will all learn humility through all of this… Lord knows we all need it.
So I’m the badguy not Joe?
I didn’t respond with a “He started it.” He made a rather cruel comment about my father – something he has now done more than once.
Sorry you don’t like to be corrected.
Yea sure, the BGCT affirms the BFM1963 rather than the BFM2000. Neither documents mention the word “inerrancy.” But yes, many BGCT leaders prefer to use different language to describe their view of biblical inspiration and biblical authority rather than the politically-charged, divisive term “inerrancy.”
As far as creationism: Baylor is a research university not a bible college. Not to put down bible colleges but the two are different, with different missions and purposes. Naturally, as a research university that desires academic excellence, Baylor teaches science in its science classes. Heck, even most smaller Baptist colleges, conservative and moderate alike, still teach evolution in their science courses.
You’re in Dallas, I see. Ever spent any time on Baylor with students and faculty?
BDW,
I dont think Brandons problem is with being corrected. I dont think that is what he was referring to when he talked about bickering…
If youll read through the comment thread there has been a lot of “bickering.” My guess would also be that he wasnt just referring to you and Joe either… But I could be wrong. I think you are being overly defensive to what Brandon is saying.
I dont think anyone is saying “you’re the bad guy.” Brandon is just saying, “everyone, lets tone it down a bit and be more respectful to one another.” There should be no problem with this.
Yea, Joe said what he said [again] about my father and somehow I “insulted Joe” and I’m “overly defensive” Good grief.
When’s the last time someone fired a nasty comment about your family here @ sbcvoices?
BDW,
Read what I write… I said you were being overly defensive towards Brandon, not Joe. I also never said you insulted Joe… Talk about “Good Grief.”
How about you respond to what I actually say.
As a matter of fact, two of my closest friends are Baylor grads and one of my mentors was the interim president for the BGCT in 2009 (I believe that’s the year) and all affirm what myself, others on this post, and Dembski say about them.
Also, you called Joe an ignorant fundamentalist and said he probably had no friends before he ever said a word to or about you. Was he in the right? No. Difference is: he apologized and owned up to it, you continue to be prideful and disrespectful to everyone here.
True, I guess he owned up to it AGAIN. Gotta take the apology of a repeat offender with a grain of salt.
Jan Daehnert was the interim Executive-Director. I assume that is who you refer to. It’s interesting to learn that he thinks of Baylor as you do.
That will make for an interesting blog post. Long-time BGCT leader has no love for liberal Baylor, says mentee. Always gotta give my Texas Baptist readers an occasional BGCT-related post from time to time.
Actually, Dr. Daehnert said nothing about Baylor. So, before you go and be extremely un-Christ-like and smear a man you don’t know (as you’re so angry at Joe for doing about your dad), he only said that the BGCT had hit some hard times in liberal areas but that he was confident that the new president was the man to boost the convention.
It makes me truly sad as a Christian writer that you represent Him in the blogosphere. I’ll be praying for you, brother.
OK, so now Daehnert said “nothing about Baylor”
So, Daehnert actually doesn’t affirm “what [yourself], others on this post and Dembski” say about Baylor University.
Kinda contradicting yourself. Either he said something about Baylor or he said nothing about Baylor.
Speaking of sad, I find it sad that you misrepresent the views of your mentor. Not a very good mentee.
I’m out. You, Joe and Svoboda can get back to doing what y’all do…
Actually, as Matt said, you need to read the comments before you respond.
I said Baylor AND the BGCT with my friends as the Baylor affirmation and Daehnert as BGCT.
Not misrepresenting anyone, sir. Glad we’re done here. I’m gonna have to pray for myself as well on the humility factor.
I doubt if the Pac 10 schools were offended by Baylor’s religious beliefs because I don’t think they take them seriously enough to offend anyone. Just a thought from watching them closely over the years and spending time on their campus.
Please. How can there be a ‘liberal’ bent towards the theory of evolution?
That label ‘liberal’ is very confusing.
The label liberal is a theological term that is often confused with the political term, though for some reason they seem to overlap in the same people. To say there is a liberal bent towards the theory of evolution would be to say that they deny the creation miracles because they sound so unscientific. Theological liberals deny the inerrancy of Scripture, especially when it pertains to miraculous accounts that could make one who believes them look like a backwoods superstitious hick.
All theological liberals are political liberals. They go hand in hand without any exceptions in that case. Not every political liberal is a theoligical liberal. There is one particular group of people, who I will refrain from identifying, who are almost without exception liberals (at least in this country) with regards to politics who are rarely if ever theological liberals.
Nope. Not all “liberals” in regards to their theology are “liberals” in regards to their politics.
You’d actually be amazed at how conservative I am since you’ve declared me a liberal despite knowing absolutely nothing about me.
You’re theologically conservative? Your defense of Baylor as not being theologically liberal proves otherwise.
No, according to your definition of a theological liberal, which is to disagree with your professed stances on various religious and doctrinal issues, I am a theological liberal.
However, according to your blanket statements, I also have to be a politcal liberal. However, that is far from the truth which is why I’m calling out your insulting brushstroke that you try to paint people with during your posts.
But hey, you conservatives have long tried to make people into caricatures and stereotypes while becoming amazing stereotypes and caricatures in your own right.
Oh, and I just disagree with you on some tertiary issues. You’d probably be surprised at how much we’d probably line up theologically.
George W. Bush was a pluralist who believes there are multiple paths to heaven. That’s your definition of a theological liberal, right? Are you now going to argue that our former President was a liberal? Kinda got twist and complete redefine terms for your statement to be true.
Big Daddy,
There’s no doubt that Bush was a theological liberal. Obama is a theological liberal as well. The difference? Bush was more politically conservative. I wish we had Bush back.
David
Josh – Some schools in the Pac-10 specifically named the religious affilitation as their primary issue
Christiane – You’re right, evolutionism would be completely liberal, not merely a “bent.” Liberalism, in this sense, would be things outside of Scripture’s teaching or contradictory to it
Brandon, how dare you suggest that scripture is true. How narrow-minded you are. (/sarcasm)
Big Daddy Weave:
Why do you hate fundamentalists?
My Church teaches that God is the Creator.
My Church does not rule out that Creation is evolving,
as God is also the God of the Natural Law,
and nature is ordered by His Hand and no other.
Well, your church also teaches that the bread and wine in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper actually become the body and blood of Christ. It also teaches that instead of heaven or hell there is a third option after death–Purgatory. It also tells members they should pray to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Now, while these are all interesting and a real conversation starter at parties, they don’t have anything to do with what scripture teaches. Therefore, their position on evolution lacks, how you say, credibility?
You don’t believe in that God is the God of the Natural Law ????????
JOE,
you wrote this: “your church also teaches that the bread and wine in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper actually become the body and blood of Christ”
not biblical . . .
my, my, my,
so we are not to ‘gnaw’ on the Body of Christ and drink His Blood?
(check your translations in the original language for the word ‘gnaw’ and study up on its signifigance)
Gosh, no wonder that one of the excuses for the persecution of the Early Christians was the charge against them for cannibalism, what with their beliefs and all !
But Joe, tell me, where do you think that the first Christians might have gotten their idea about the Body and the Blood of Our Lord in the Eucharist? The concept existed before the first Nicene Council, you know. And it was found in all five of the early centers of Christianity. So it must have got its start at the Church in Jerusalem. But how? And when? And from whom?
I wonder where you think that the idea came from.
I would love to know what you think.
Joe?
Joe?
where did he go?
Question for Joe:
Why did you go out of your way to mention “the clear biblical prohibition on homosexual activity”? Does the bible not prohibit ALL sexual activity outside of marriage? I find it interesting that throw in one very specific sin (yes it is a sin) in the same breath as theological (true) frameworks such as the virgin birth and inerrancy. Not disagreeing on the sin part….I just find the attitude it reveals interesting. Exhibit A in Death of a Major Denomination!
Well, I have never heard any church saying that God’s prohibition on sexual activity outside of marriage in the Bible is really just an outdate prejudice and not to be taken seriously in the 21st century. When people stop singling out homosexuality as just a prejudice of Fundy’s and not a sin I’ll stop singling it out.
Most all of our state baptist schools have been taken by the so-called moderates many of whom, unfortunately, want the acceptance of the dominant eductional institutions as any price. They fear to be associated with the ignorant folks from the backwoods so much that they class practically all who believe anything as dumb fundys. When the mods. were in control, they made it abundantly plain that they would not allow any verbal inspirationists on the faculties of the seminaries when they had the say so. Then they wonder why they lost control. When we really needed people to work together, the moderates were as narrow minded as any fundamentalist. They just couldn’t buy the idea that there were those who were willing to pay the price in time and effort and research to seek and find evidence that suggested confidence in Scripture might be a better way than that which was always walking in clouds of doubt wherein one could intrdouce any tom-dick-and-harry idea. They also never seem to realize where the more radical and skeptical students in their entourage might go. Between three of us who were students at SEBTS, we knew of 5 or 6 students there in the period of 72-76 who did not even believe in th Deity of Christ. Fancy that!
I have heard of a strange belief of SOME (not all, thank God) Southern Baptists that in effect denies the divinity of Christ:
it is called the ‘eternal submission of the Son’
Apparently this teaching was taken from part of an ancient heresy, long ago rejected by orthodox Christianity, and was recently revived to ‘shore up’ some strange ideas that have grown out of teachings about the place of women.
Christiane, I can’t imagine why you wish to concern yourself with the apparent heresies of Southern Baptists on Southern Baptists blogs when there are so many heresies to confront in your own religion. Why do you desire to antagonize, especially concerning areas where you seem quite uninformed?
Hi DARBY,
I was responding to this comment by Dr. Willingham:
“Between three of us who were students at SEBTS, we knew of 5 or 6 students there in the period of 72-76 who did not even believe in th Deity of Christ. Fancy that!”
Perhaps he was referring to some ‘ESS’ believers ?
Darby, you should be glad for the early councils of my Church.
They dealt with a whole lot more than denial of Christ’s divinity.
Gosh, that’s right. You don’t believe in Church Councils because each of your Churches are ‘autonomous’. C.B. tells me that is why nothing can be done to form an SBC watch-list for known clergy predators. He says nothing can be done because the ‘autonomous’ model is biblical.
Many Christians believe that the model for Church Councils is in the Bible.
Actually, I would say church councils are by far the most common form of church government in the SBC. Might want to check the facts.
Big Daddy Weave,
You said, “Baylor is a big place. Those who holler liberal liberal liberal have likely not spent any time on campus.”
I graduated from Baylor. My major was Religion. “Liberal, Liberal, Liberal’ was the religion department at Baylor while I was there: 90-94. I had one professor, Lester the Tester the GPA molester, who held the same view of the bible as the Jesus Christ of scripture (perhaps there was one other: my Church History prof). All the others, I repeat all the others that I had, played quite loose with the bible and the sound doctrines of our faith. Additionally, I had an ethics professor who made it clear that abortion was not murder. I had an Old Testament survey professor who taught us the OT wasn’t written until around 200 BC. My New Testament survey prof would not say yes when I asked him point blank one on one if Jesus was God. He said, “Well, I think he was divine..” And I could keep going, and going some more.
I never thought it was a Christian school, just that it had been under a Christian influence. The bars in Waco were stuffed full of Baylor students on the weekends. I was an RA in the dorms from 91-94. 80% of the students lived like hell. I know, I had to deal with it. (back in 82-85, when I first went to Baylor as a student, I was one of them).
BDW,
a response?
Not only was it liberal back in 90-94, but we have no reason to believe that it is not even more liberal now than it was then…
From well over the majority people I talk to that are personally familiar with Baylor say that it is “liberal, liberal, liberal.” Not always, but usually it is safe to go with the 80%.
Also, it is very telling when all of the more liberal-bent people are the ones who are trying to defend Baylor all the time. If it was truly conservative than you would hear a few more conservatives speak up.
This may help Gary Dilworth put things in a more substantive perspective; And Gary, have you read Barry Hankins Uneasy in Babylon.
What do you know about the Texas Regulars influence on Judge Pressler or Rice University’s Hundred Pages on WA Criswell in Race and Class in Texas Politics?
Baylor in MOther Jones:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2005/12/professing-faith
http://www.txbc.org/1998Journals/Dec98Jan99/Dec98reynolds.htm
Came across the great reference point as well and was delighted to see the name of Jack Flanders listed first in Herb Reynolds Great Roll Call of Faith.
Dilworth, you have a false polarization. The Struggle of Baylor is not in comparison to Berkeley, but in comparison to the 48 Texas Regulars. You’re historical perspective is grossly skewed.
I have told the truth. And I’m getting out some information. I can detail much more of what my religion professors taught. The most significant thing to me was not that they presented their arguments for why they took the positions they did, but how they refused to present the arguments and positions that did not agree with theirs. That same OT Survey prof told me in class one day that the arguments for why Daniel could have written Daniel were simply no good. He said he did not think they were any good. Cause I asked him to share those with us, in class. That was very significant to me, since on the first day of class he promised us he ‘did not want to make a bunch of clony academicians who thought like’ he did. My professors had an antisupernatural bias, save the couple I mentioned. And the New Testament professor I mentioned, who seemed to shy away from saying Jesus was God, had a great time teaching us that the bible was guilty of sin against women. I asked him during class if that was the logical conclusion of his material and he said it was. I relished his honesty at that point.
I find the reference to Jack Flanders interesting. His theological liberalism is one of the things that produced a need for the SBC Conservative Resurgence.
Did we really have liberalism in the SBC back in the 1970s? Of course we did. Dr. Flanders of Baylor was a good example.
Jack Flanders coauthored the book, People of the Covenant. The book said:
“Daniel presents many historical problems. In fact, the number of historical inaccuracies has led Walter Harrelson to suspect the author to have misrepresented deliberately the historical events and notices in order to provide his readers with a subtle indication that he was actually writing in a much later period with quite a different historical enemy of God’s people in mind. Whether or not the errors are intentional, they illustrate that the author writes later than the events and redacts materials in light of his own purpose to inspire men of faith to endure temptation and hardship.” (Quoted from A Hill On Which To Die by Paul Pressler.)
Believing there are errors in the Bible, whether intentional or not, is what Southern Baptists call liberalism. Also, rather than deal with the problem, moderates defended him all the way.
David R. Brumbelow
Easily a consensus is Flanders was right and Pressler was wrong.
The problem was Pressler realized a wedge issue when he saw one in the tradition of the Texas Regulars.
Your Problem Brumbelow is you think Seminary should be just three years of sophomore and Junior Sunday School Classes.
Flanders had a conscience and a mind and he taught from conviction.
Check out the MJ story on Lyle and Underwood.
Here is a PBS discussion for you:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/bdaniel.html
The Baptist struggle wasn’t over liberals and conservatives as it was over resentment in the conversation over education and ignorance.
Aaron Weaver’s Father made that clear in his treatment of Robert Marsh (Adrian Rogers classmate at NOBTS) presentation to his deacons at 2nd Ponce De Leon in Atlanta in the 90′s. And I have linked Herb Reynolds testimony above.
Stephen,
You have just demonstrated one of the typical reactions of moderates and liberals when presented with a clear, unambiguous example of liberal theology. You totally ignored it and refer to conservatives as uneducated and ignorant. By the way, conservatives have consciences, minds, and teach from conviction.
At least within the context of the SBC, if one believes there are, or could be, errors in the Bible – that is a definition of a theological liberal. I thank God Southern Baptists have clearly stated we believe the Bible is totally true and trustworthy. And that we expect our professors and missionaries to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
There is no way a person can make a statement like Jack Flanders’ above quote, and also believe the Bible is inerrant, or totally true and trustworthy.
The SBC Conservative Resurgence was primarily about theology, even the SBC Peace Committee acknowledged this. The Conservative Resurgence was about conservatives and liberals, and the moderates who defended and excused the liberals.
By saying Flanders was right, are you saying that you agree with his above statement of there being errors in the Bible?
David R. Brumbelow
David:
I think there are errors in your thinking. I think we have been around this merry go round before.
Aaron Weaver’s DAd has the easily googled history on Robert Marsh’s pilgrimage in this matter.
Reams of material has been written; Fisher Humphreys being chief among them.
Harold Bloom said it best for me in the American Religion; an excerpt I have googled and presented best of my memory to you and others on several occasions.
It’s just not as you thought it was; I am hoping a discussion of the recent bio of Bonhoeffer may shed some light.
Then again, for true believers (in the Eric Hoffer sense) like yourself, I doubt the outcome will be much different than it was when the CR fundamentalists got their inerrant Butts kicked the third day of the 87 Inerrancy conference at
Ridgecrest, and forall practical purposes redoubled their committment to the fog machine they had created and misled a great host of folks into the mess you now have with Ronnie Floyd.
But best of luck to you.
I don’t claim to have all the Truth. I just have been deeply convinced, like Bloom, that what yall did was tragic; a fiasco and a travesty.
David Brumbelow: Here is Bloom for you.
After deep reading and consultation, a horde of correspondence and several published articles, conversations with James Hefley, EllenRosenberg, a host of people; when I read Bloom back in 94 I said that’s it; that is as close as I will come to understanding the Truth of the SBC matter in this lifetime.
I don’t mean this as mean spiritted or condescending, just the brutal Truth I came to about Jesse Helms, Judge Pressler, Adrian Rogers, Mohler, Paige Patterson, Ronnie Floyd, Criswell and the great Crusade of the fundamentalist takeover, what you have misnamed the CR.
The third from the last sentence in this two paragraph excerpt is the Truth in the Nutshell. If I could afford to get it on a TEE Shirt I would wear it all over Nashville SBC meetings if it would make a difference:
Quoting Bloom:
[Bloom 228-230, 232]
….American history provides the useful example of the bigoted nineteenth-century political party called the Know-Nothings, which is a highly appropriate name for the dominant reactionaries among the Southern Baptists. It is especially applicable because they know nothing at all, including the Bible, which they carry about but appear never to have read. Real Fundamentalists would find their archetype in the formidable J. Gresham Machen, a remarkable Presbyterian New Testament scholar at Princeton, who published a vehement defense of traditional Christianity in 1923, with the aggressive title Christianity and Liberalism. I have just read my way through this, with distaste and discomfort but with reluctant and growing admiration for Machen’s mind. I have never seen a stronger case made for the argument that institutional Christianity must regard cultural liberalism as an enemy to faith. Machen reviewed E. Y. Mullins’s Christianity at the Cross Roads (1924) with a rugged empirical attack on Mullins’s characteristic personalism and mysticism. What remains the Moderate Southern Baptist vision of the Resurrection, an intensely emotional confrontation between the Baptist Soul and the resurrected Jesus, was decried by Machen as an evasion. Either Jesus was resurrected, as a bodily fact, or he was not. Termed by George M. Marsden a commonsense follower of Sir Francis Bacon, Machen also reminds me of the boldly realistic Dr. Samuel Johnson. One can see Machen refuting Mullins in the style of Johnson refuting Bishop Berkeley, with Machen rebounding from kicking the great stone rolled aside from the tomb of Jesus. But if Machen, a scholar and an intellect, is rightly called a Fundamentalist, then I must insist that Wally Amos Criswell and his swarm be called something else, and Know-Nothings will do very nicely.
The background of the Know-Nothing coup at the Southern Baptist Convention of 1979 goes back a very long way, but I will pick it up, in Marsden’s wake, with arguments conducted in America a century before that, between premillennialists and postmillennialists. Postmillennialism had dominated the country until the end of the Civil War, and was particularly identified with our major theologian, Jonathan Edwards. Our age was fulfilling the prophecies of the Revelation of John the Divine, and at the end of our time would come the thousand years pervaded by the Holy Spirit, after which Jesus would return. But in the 1870s, a premillennialist drive began, with the growing sense of a new dispensationalism, which deprecated our era, denounced supposed progress, and reaffirmed ultrasupernaturalism. The dispensationalists, who became authentic Fundamentalists, first circulated the term “inerrancy” in regard to the Bible. The Know-Nothings of Nashville and Dallas have taken over the term, but originally it had a factual, indeed an empirical meaning. God had created both the cosmos and Scripture, so each would manifest a freedom from any error in design. The Bible, like the universe, would yield everything to a Baconian search of the facts. Gresham Machen inherited this argument, which he developed with great force. His dispensationalist or premillenarian condemnation of American culture as a Babylonish liberalism had a strong factual basis in the United States of the 1920s. Whatever we think of this today, we ought never to confuse it with the Know-Nothings who assert they are its heirs but are nothing of the kind. Marsden rightly insists that Fundamentalism was primarily a religious movement and only peripherally a social and political matter. But, as he added, that was Fundamentalism up to 1925, and not the movement of 1980, when his book was published. The tragedy of the Southern Baptist Convention is the result of a purely political and social conspiracy that still masquerades as a religious movement. Its reductive anti-intellectualism reminds one of the Spanish Fascism of Franco; the Know-Nothing Baptists are the heirs of Franco’s crusade against the mind, and not the legatees of Gresham Machen. But Fascist has never domesticated itself as an American term, so I will continue to employ Know-Nothing as the accurate counter here.
During my senior year at Baylor I took a theology course wherein the professor taught us that this passage in Eph. 6:12 ["For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places."] referred to corporations and big business. He told us that Paul had just such entities in mind when he wrote those words. He said corporations were the source of a great deal of injustice in our society.
Gary, you prejudiced, inbred, fundementalist hick. How dare you suggest Baylor might be liberal in their theology. I bet you believe salvation is found exclusively in Jesus Christ, too, don’t you?
(/sarcasm)
Thank you for making me smile, Joe. I knew you were kidding the instant I read “prejudiced, inbred.” And yes, Christ is Christianity, and salvation is found exclusively in Christ and no where else.
Yeah, Gary, count me as one of those narrowminded fundies, too.
Stephen,
If I remember right, during the Conservative Resurgence Judge Paul Pressler would refer to an old legal saying, “If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the law is on your side, argue the law. If neither the facts or the law are on your side, attack the character of your opponent.
Rather than confront the issues, moderates and liberals so often just attack the character and intelligence of conservatives. Could it be because they know they would lose if they argued the issues and facts?
I see also that you can’t answer a simple question about whether you agree with Flanders’ quote and whether you believe the Bible has, or could have errors in it. Another difference is that conservatives are happy to honestly tell people what we believe. So many moderates and liberals want to be deceptive about it. I do have to give Jack Flanders credit in this respect. In his book he openly admitted that he believed the Bible contained errors.
The Conservative Resurgence was primarily about doctrine and the inerrancy of the Bible. For those who continue to claim it wasn’t, all one has to do is look at the difference in the doctrinal beliefs today of the SBC, in contrast to the CBF and Alliance of Baptists. For those who may not know, the CBF and Alliance of Baptists were the moderates and liberals who broke away from the SBC as a result of their losing the battle in the Conservative Resurgence.
Southern Baptists, in the Conservative Resurgence made it clear that Southern Baptists had stood for, and would continue to stand for the inerrancy of the Bible.
David R. Brumbelow
I see also that you can’t answer a simple question about whether you agree with Flanders’ quote and whether you believe the Bible has, or could have errors in it.
See, I disagree with whether liberals will tell you what they believe. I think they will. A liberal like Ehrman or McLauren will tell you they reject inerrancy (a doctrine all real Christians hold to), the exclusivity of Christ as the way to salvation, and the miracles recorded in the Bible.
Moderates are much more dangerous because they pretend to believe orthodox Christianity but are very cagey about theyir true beliefs. You really have to “smoke ‘em out” to get them to admit what they really believe. Their beliefs are just as unbiblical, soul damning, and heretical as the liberal they’re just not man enough to come out and admite what they believe. They want you to believe they’re just as conservative as a conservative while being anything but.
By saying Flanders was right, are you saying that you agree with his above statement of there being errors in the Bible?
David R. Brumbelow
Mr. Fox? That question was addressed to you. What is your answer?
Comments on this entry are closed.