I’m hearing our president and other important national leaders frame our religious freedoms by using the term “freedom of worship.” That phrase is restrictive and narrow.
Our First Amendment ensures us of this:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Those who have an agenda to rewrite history will push to privatize our Faith so that our rights will only be preserved for what takes place within the walls of our houses of worship or in our homes – but not in the public square.
I believe our First Amendment gives us these rights and more:
Establishment Protection – our Government will not sponsor a state run Church or give preferential treatment to any one religious group over others. Most of our original colonies had a state run church and taxes paid the salary of the clergy of that state sponsored religion. This was wrong.
Extrinsic Protection – If you do not feel a part of a religious group or dominant religious faith in your country, county, or community – no government entity can force you to attend, give, or participate against your will. It was against the law to NOT attend church in some of our early colonies and fines, jail time, and banishment was meted out to the dissenters.
Evangelism Protection – We are not truly free unless we have the freedom to share our ideas and beliefs in the market place, media outlets, and through personal relationships.
Our religious freedoms were hard won and it took many years for our founding fathers to realize that the hands of government had no business in the control or jurisdiction over the affairs of religion.
As America loses its moral compass and wanders in a postmodern desert, these freedoms and protections can be lost in one generation as new generations of Americans forget the history that forged these blessings.
© Ron F. Hale, June 28, 2013
So, do you think that Christianity should receive preferential treatment in America?
William, just to be a bit contentious: “do you really think Christianity is getting preferential treatment?”
My answer to you question: “No. I’d settle for constitutional treatment.”
I think many Christians expect preferential treatment.
Does your concept of “constitutional treatment” mean that Christians get preferential treatment?
I’m not attempting to be contentious, just asking for clarity.
How about, “people of faith get preferential treatment according to the constitution”?
It doesn’t say free exercise of Christianity. But that is one of the protected groups.
Now we gotta define preferential.
William Thornton,
I do not think Christianity should get preferential treatment in America. However, I do believe that the founding of this nation was squarely seated upon the Judeo-Christian ethic and moral structure. The marriage between the founding documents and Christian principles cannot be denied.
There is much evidence to affirm the above to be true. John Quincy Adams, speaking upon the 45th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence stated the following:
“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
No, I do not believe that Christianity should receive preferential treatment. Yet, I do believe that if an effort to bring about a divorce between the principles of our civil government and the Judeo-Christian ethic and moral structure on which it (our government) was founded is successful the children from the marriage (our freedoms) will become sickly and die.
For those “children” are children who cannot live without both parents living together in harmony.
CB,
Amen.
David
Ron,
Without question this is the first step on the road to losing those freedoms. Prepare for persecution because it’s coming.
Joe Blackmon,
I have spoken to my Pastor John Wylie and Brother Malcom Ellis and we agree that there is coming a day in the near future when our nation will turn and look upon us Christians as the enemy. Our founding fathers set us a Constitutional system that would protect us Christians with the right of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. With that done it would not only help us but it would create an umbrella for everyone else to do their own thing such as voicing opinion and religious rights to worship the way people wished without persecution by a government sponsored Church system.
Now, with this homosexual push, they (our government) will one day make illegal to speak in public or behind the pulpit against the vial catastrophe that these Sodomites call “a way of life” and they will use whatever motive that they can do shut us Christians up. And President Obama isn’t going to slow down his trail of fire any time soon.
There seems to be a desire to drive “religious freedom” inside the four walls of church houses and worship centers. Al Mohler was talking about this same thing on Focus on the Family today, especially in the context of the recent marriage decisions. He mentioned someone, perhaps the President, had said that marriage as a religious ceremony was not affected and could still be performed according to the dictates of that religious body. Mohler pointed out it wasn’t nearly so simple, mentioning Catholic charities in Massachusetts. Several recent incidents of bakeries/cake decorators who are in dutch because they did not want to supply a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding because it violates their religious convictions. The other side wants them to have to do so, regardless of their religious conviction.
William,
I come at this as a Christian but from one that is tied to a Baptist tradition and history of struggling and fighting for religious freedom. Men like John Leland finally got through to Madison, Jefferson, and Washington that religious toleration was not enough; early Baptists did not wish to be “put up with” and tolerated by anyone. They wanted the freedom to preach and practice their faith with the liberty of conscience. The Bill of Rights contains their ideas … for which they bravely contended.
Christianity enjoys a home field advantage, but we have been losing it to secularism for the last fifty years. Other world religions have come to America in droves. We should not expect preferential treatment, but we should be very wary of … entrenched government bureaucrats, mass media, and the liberal-progressive church in joining an unholy alliance and creating a hostile environment that shuts us out and down.
Ron F. Hale,
What is toleration? Could it be that we extend our patience until they change? Could it be that we do not agree but we pause with our response till it is necessary? Could it be that we totally disagree but we will worship our God without regard to how they react? Or is it compromise?
Good post.
Bruce,
Religious “toleration” carries a lot of history as you look back to the Act of Toleration of 1689 and earlier to laws passed in Maryland (1649) and in Rhode Island (1636). These laws helped but they did not go far enough in assuring total religious freedom without the fear of a state run established religion “make you do and agree” to certain things. Early Baptists were persecuted because they chose not to conform to the “dominance” of the establishment.
Baptists have been that way for a long, long time….and, a lot of us still dont want the govt. telling us what to do.
Of course, my roots are in the hills of TN….people back in the hills dont trust the govt., and they dont like the govt. telling them what they’re gonna do, and what they aint gonna do. No, sir….we don’t like that.
David
Ron,
Maybe it is time. I do not fear persecution. I have lost jobs because I have taken a stand against certain practices. It has ruined me in the industry I am familiar with. However, God has provided me a career change and shows me His hand in every event I pursue. I am amazed.
Bruce,
Henry Dunster, the founding president of Harvard witnessed the whipping of Obadiah Holmes (a Baptist) and he became a Baptist himself — and while contending for religious freedom, he lost his job.
Yet, he became a boon and blessing to Baptist our our quest for religious freedom in America.
Some things are worth contending for!
Ron,
It is a wonderful life we live. But it is very scary. I love it.
Sorry, I read and responded to your first reply to me before I read your second.
I generally agree with you.
Ron,
Thanks for this post. I agree with you that religious liberty, in all its various aspects, will be a mey issue in the days ahead. I think we as American Evangelicals could possibly learn something regarding this from Evangelicals in a place like Spain, where they have a long history of advocating for religious liberty as a tiny minority persecuted by the power brokers of a religious majority which through the years has evolved into a mostly secular and liberal majority.
Great point David …and…many of our needed lessons for the future are lost in the pages of American history and especially the struggle of early Baptists.
Blessings!
Key issue, not mey issue 🙂
Great post, Ron.
May the Lord help our country to never lose the freedom we enjoy, now, in the USA.
You know, everytime I watch Braveheart and The Patriot, my heart feels a strange warmth and joy as William Wallace and Capt. Benjamin Martin fight for freedom….to free their people from the rapes, and the beatings, and the houses being burned down, and the murders, and the tyranny that they’re enduring….
FREEDOM!
David
David Vol …
Sorry, your comment caused me to picture you in a kilt running across a battle field. 🙂
Ron,
That’d sure be a sight, alright….maybe too much of a sight! for some!
lol
David
Hi RON,
on reading your post, I thought about an incident in Great Britain where a man was arrested for preaching against homosexuality in a shopping mall. It happened some years ago, but it made the national news. I looked up something on ‘Wiki’ and found this, which I think is what you are worried about happening in the USA:
“Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person’s colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3] Any communication which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[4] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[5]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom
I don’t see it happening here, because although we have colonial ties to Great Britain, we have evolved our own government around much more liberal gun laws and free speech laws than they have now in Great Britain.
different country, different civil culture . . . but strangely, Great Britain IS seen as a Christian nation by history and tradition, being that it’s monarch is also the head of the Church of England (Anglican),
but perhaps because the nation is more unified, certain decisions have occurred there in a place where ‘keeping the peace’ civilly is very highly-prized.
I’d partner with conservative Arminians in the FIGHT for religious freedom.
We don’t have to fight for religious freedom. We merely have to freely practice our faith “faithfully” and let God defend us. That’s how the end comes anyway.
So, Greg, are you saying that you dont believe in a country fighting for it’s freedom? What if they’re defending themselves from saaaay…. Nazi Germany and Japan?
David
The First Amendment intrinsically ties three things:
1. Disestablishment of religion
2. Freedom of the Press
3. Right to assemble peacefully
What the Press and Civil Libertarians fail to realize is that these three are inextricably linked in our society and they are supported by the Second Amendment in which an armed citizenry formed the individual States’ ability to protect these rights from an intrusive federal entity. What that means for the Press and Civil Libertarians is that if the church falls and gun control prevails the next to fall with be the Occupy Wall Street folks and anyone else who wants to protest the government followed by control of the media.
In our country, you cannot have one without the others. It will take time, but I think Eric Snowden is another exhibit in both an intrusive state and the eroding away of the First Amendment.
And for the record, this is not about Obama-bashing because Bush was the one who started the Dept. of Homeland Security and TSA. Both parties are marching us in quickstep down the path of eroded freedoms and government control.
Rick,
Great comment. Baptists should always stand tall FOR ALL of the Bill of Rights not just the 1st Amend.
A free church in a free state is a Baptist Axiom.
What a wonderful Baptist post to put up both looking forward to July 4th and as a response to the closing decisions of the Supreme Court. Intrinsic in freedom of religion is freedom of speech and freedom of assembly (which in Greek would undoubtedly use some variant of ekklesia or at least echo that noun that we render to “church” in English).
I’m still not a fan of emphasizing persecution specifically since Jesus already told us we would face it. There is a meme in literature of “salt of the earth” kind of people that stand tall and strong and quietly endure difficulty. While not expressly from the Bible (that meme, the phrase is, of course), it seems consistent with the calls by Jesus for us to be the light of the world, the salt of the earth, and the city on the hill.
Ronald Reagan famously referred to the United States as the city on the hill. But it really is the believers who are only a portion of the entire American nation that have that RESPONSIBILITY (not an accomplishment per se).
Greg,
Of course, we will face persecution as a Believer in the Lord….as long as we live in a dark world that doesnt love God, like we do. But, thank God, we dont have to endure what the Christians in Muslim countries have to go thru. Thank God that we live in a land of freedom. Who wants to be persecuted? But, when it comes our way, of course, we need to go thru it…with the help of God.
I’m glad we live in a land of freedom. I think that’s what Reagan was talking about….that we’re a light on a hill to all other nations in the world about how to have a FREE country….I dont think Reagan was talking about us being a Christian nation, which is showing the world the truth of the Lord. I think he was talking about having a free country.
David
I wasn’t finding fault with his comment. I enjoyed it as most everyone did. But we believers have that responsibility, not the nation.
Greg,
I agree that we, Believers, should be a light on a hill, in regards to the Gospel. But, I really think that Reagan was talking about a free, democratic republic….shining the light of a free country on other countries around the world. I dont think Reagan had Christianity in his mind, whatsoever.
David
I think that if we provide any benefit of freedom to the world it will be strongly founded in the freedom from the slavery of sin. All other freedom is illusion and temporary by comparison.
Greg,
Yes, I agree….real freedom is in Christ. As a Believer, we should preach freedom in Christ.
Freedom in a country is a also a precious thing. I value it. I’m glad we’ve got it.
David
Brothers, let us be faithful in gospel proclamation. Our generation may indeed suffer greater persecution in these United States. But our generation is but a blip. In the end, God wins and our sufferings are but for a little while. As a postmillennialist, I have great confidence.
“The postmillennialist believes that the millennium is an era (not necessarily a literal thousand years) during which Christ will reign over the earth, not from a literal and earthly throne, but through the gradual increase of the Gospel and its power to change lives. After this gradual Christianization of the world, Christ will return and immediately usher the church into their eternal state after judging the wicked. This is called postmillennialism because, by its view, Christ will return after the millennium.”
The gospel is the key and it’s proclamation is the method God will use.
At least that is my opinion.
And your empirical evidence that this is coming about from current events is what exactly?
Rob
Rob,
“empirical evidence that” what “is coming about?” I may be a bit slow today, but what are you asking?
Les
“Brothers, let us be faithful in gospel proclamation. Our generation may indeed suffer greater persecution in these United States. But our generation is but a blip. In the end, God wins and our sufferings are but for a little while.”
Les Prouty,
I think you are right as the rain. As a premillennialist, I have great confidence. 🙂
You’re so bad. I think our great confidence is in Christ Jesus regardless of the eschatological framework. So I have great confidence, TOO!
CB, happy to see an optimistic premillennialist.
Thank you, Brother Les.
My “optimism” and confidence are based on a “Revelation”, and many “inspired” documents of great things to come.
Tell me, where did you get your optimistic and confident outlook? I know it did not come from Auburn. 😉
CB,
“My “optimism” and confidence are based on a “Revelation”, and many “inspired” documents of great things to come.”
Amen and amen!
“I know it did not come from Auburn.”
You surmise well. We’ve Aubur Tigers have always been second fiddle and often a day late and a dollar short. We’ve had to manufacture pigskin confidence. Project it if you will.
So I’ve found my optimism somewhere else, like you have.
“For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.”
Amen and amen!
And while still here, War Eagle!
🙂 🙂
BTW, I am freely using emoticons today because Dave Miller has his grandson visiting him and he will not be monitoring the threads and will not see them. 😉
Oh Yeah, lest I forget.
ROLL TIDE to you, War Eagle!! November is coming . . . . . that is, if we are still here. Amen and Amen!
GrandsonS.
Two of them.
And they are wearing me out.
They will be here until next Sunday and frankly, I just don’t know if I am going to survive!
However, if I die of exhaustion, I will die happy.
And emoticons are still evil.
Enjoy the days, my brother. For such days are all too few for long distance Granddaddies.
Dave,
I shall exercise my freedom to emote:
🙂 🙂 😉
I shared this on my facebook the other day, along with the following articles.
In recent years, this administration has used the term “freedom of worship” instead of the language of the Constitution. I suspect in coming weeks, months, years, you’ll be hearing it more often. In short, this statement means that our freedom only exists within the confines of the church and it is doing things that directly relate to their worship services. But if a church does something other than its sacraments, like say a hospital, an orphanage, adoption or a university–“freedom of worship” does not cover it. There is also question on whether that would cover churches doing things like Bible studies or events that are not directly on church property. Please be paying attention…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/28/obama-freedom-to-worship-assaults-first-amendment/#.UczPww5uhSo.facebook
http://nationalreview.com/corner/352251/making-religious-liberty-more-hobby-kathryn-jean-lopez
We definitely need to be paying attention.
Kelly,
Thanks for paying attention and informing others. I visited your church website– pretty nice back porch view you have there!
September is sooner. Gig ’em Ags.
Greg Harvey,
It is highly possible that the National Championship will be played on an earlier date this year, Sept 14.
However, you can be sure as the rains in Seattle that St. Nick has been preparing since the day after we destroyed the Golden Domed Munchkins of Notre Dame, to deal with the one threat of the AGGIE NATION, Johnny Football.
I predict that this season will show thatmA&M and Manziel reached their high water mark last year.
William Thornton,
May you and all your family be blessed and may such a wonderful thinking tribe increase.
Did any of you have concerns about the religious freedom of those in the SBC who would not sign off on the innerancy of the Scriptures and lost their positions in the SBC?
Did any of you have concerns about the religious freedom of those who believed that God could call a woman to preach but lost their jobs because they refused to be told what their belief was.
Did any of you have concerns about the religious freedom of those who would not sign off on the 2000BF&M creed and were fired?
I could list many more examples.
Keep in mind that these religious freedoms were taken from fellow SB members.
But now outside forces will exert their influence on the SBC and they probably will not be as nice as those in the SBC who took religious freedoms away from their fellow Christian brothers and sisters.
Sure seems like the tide has turned and now all of this– woe is me talk.
“Sure seems like the tide has turned and now all of this– woe is me talk.”
Tom Parker,
Please do not use the word “tide” in such a negative sentence again.
I realize you are from TARHEEL, North Carolina and do not know much about the positive nature of the word “tide” when used in conjunction with words like CRIMSON “TIDE,” ROLL “TIDE,” MIGHTY “TIDE,” BAMA’S “TIDE,” THE “TIDE,” and other power words.
However, I do beseech you as one who knows the power of TIDE since my birth, to be mindful of how you construct sentences in the future and bring no bad tidings on the noble TIDE from this day forth.
Tom,
Your application of religious liberty in the context of a religious group determining its own parameters of participation seem misplaced to me.
Self-determination is the essence of religious freedom. Nobody’s religious freedom has been infringed by the SBC determining her own principles of fellowship.
That is a grossly misplaced application of the doctrine of “religious freedom.”
Religious freedom means a religious group is free to determine for herself what the rules are. Those that choose to follow other rules of faith were perfectly free to do so.
Religious freedom does not mean religious anarchy.
Tom,
The SBC is now reaping the harvest from some of these decisions that in some case were unwise, unwarranted, unnecessary, and unbiblical. Yes, there were a a handful of classical liberal professors who should have been removed. That could have easily been done without the destruction and damage to people and institutions that happened as a result of this purge that you referenced. Time will tell, but it may be that the “resurgence” burned down the house in order to kill two roaches.
Yes we should have established the belief that the SBC believes that the original manuscripts of Scripture are absolutely without error. But we should not have fired or alienated persons who hold to the inspiration and infallibility of the Scripture in every context–not just matters of faith–but for whatever reasons preferred not to use the term inerrancy.
The words “inerrancy’ and “conservative’ have become borderline idolatrous words in SBC life. We have elevated these words to a status that is simply unmerited. The Bible says “The Law of the Lord is perfect. The Proverb writer said, “Every word of God is pure.” Although I am comfortable with the Word inerrancy, if we were going to make this word and concept a litmus test for orthodoxy, I would rather we used a biblical term like “perfect,” or “pure,” or “God-breathed” to use as a litmus test, rather than a word not found in the Bible. Clearly, I believe that the Bible teaches the concept of inerrancy about itself. But it doesn’t use the term “inerrancy” to describe itself.”
The SBC traded in an emphasis on “The Bold Mission” thrust for a focus and emphasis on “inerrancy” anf “conservatism.” The Bold Mission thrust was a Kingdom movement, and a missions/evangelistic campaign. The inerrancy/conservative thrust became a campaign for doctrinal purity–as interpreted by some. We now a more “doctrinally pure” convention, in the eyes of some; but a less effective missions, evangelistic, discipleship, church growth, SS attendance, and baptism convention. It appears to me that when the SBC was less “doctrinally pure”–at least by some persons estimation–but more evangelistic and missions oriented, we were more Kingdom minded then; and more in the center of God’s perfect will. The fruit and statistics bear this out.
There should be a lot of soul searching, rethinking, and repentance going on in the SBC. This soul searching and repentance may have to precede the revival that we all pray and long for. The missionaries that were fired because they refused to sign the BFM 2000; and the ones fired or not hired because of the invasive inquiries into their private prayer lives; the mistreatment of at least three high profile women in the SBC in the name of “doctrinal purity”; persons fired or not hired who held to the BFM 2000, but believed that within the boundaries of the BFM 2000, a woman could preach or be a deacon–which is not restricted in the BFM 2000—these atrocities must be accounted for. Indeed they are being accounted for. We are now reaping the consequences and paying the price for these wrongful and shameful decisions. The blessing of the Lord was upon the SBC in a mighty way when we were not holding to cold dead orthodoxy and “doctrinal purity.”
Please don’t misunderstand me. I strongly believe in inerrancy and I embrace without hesitation or reservation the BFM 2000. I beleive though it was a mistake to make it a test of orthodoxy. That may have been the beginning of our decline.
Tom,
Following your line of reasoning not even a local church can lay out theological parameters for church membership without violating the religious liberty of a person who wishes to join and doesn’t hold to those parameters. The SBC is not the US government. The SBC has the absolute right to define the theological parameters that are required for affiliation with the convention.
Actually Dwight,
There were a lot of “roaches” and we did not “burn down the house.” We called in the CR pest control, got rid of the roaches (liberals), and sprayed for termites (more liberals), those silent destroyers of homes founded on theological truth, and saved the house (actually six of them).
Dwight. I have to agree with CB. There were more than a couple roaches.
But I agree with you that we may taken the fight to a level far exceeding the need.
I like what you said about trading in Bold Mission Thrust for theological uniformity
Well, Frank, my only thing with that trade is that if the Bold Mission Thrust was going to have the gospel that David Goshee, Bruce Presscot, and the New Baptist Covenant folks preached, I’ll make that trade every day of the week and twice on Sunday. 🙂
Joe,
I don’t disagree with you. What gospel we were thrusting into the world is absolutely crucial–eternally crucial.
I think if we could have dialed it back at times it might have been even more productive for the Kingdom.
I am a bit conflicted when I think about the CR. But, the good far, far outweighed the bad. So, as I said, I don’t disagree with your post.
I guess, like any war, there are casualties and that includes the war for truth.
Dwight: Amen!
There is no one that got hurt in the CR that didn’t get way better than what they deserved.
While there may not have been that many full out “liberals” there were many moderates, who are actually worse than liberals. Liberals outright deny the gospel that Jesus and Paul preached. Moderates believe virtually the same thing, they just aren’t as honest about it. They try to redefine terms so they SOUND like they believe the gospel when in fact they don’t.
Then you’ve got conservatives who, while believing the gospel, were willing to cooperate with moderates and consider them brothers/sisters in Christ. Folks like Russell Dilday, for instance. Well, when you’re not willing to take a stand against heresy and you are willing to tolerate those who believe it, you are just as much the problem as they are and if you get hurt, well, maybe next time you’ll stand with God rather than men.
You decry the firings and people who were hurt in the CR. I celebrate them and personally think the CR stopped well short of where it needed to go. Thank you for reminding me about them, though. I needed a happy thought to put a smile on my face. 🙂
Joe, mark me down as one who does NOT decry any firings. They were absolutely essential.
Frank:
They were not essential. They were totally unnecessary and someone will give an account to God some day.
Yes, they were totally unecessary, Tom.
If you’re a moderate who doesn’t believe the Bible or the gospel that Jesus and Paul preached, that is.
Dwight, I agree with much of your statement here: that inerrancy is a key doctrine and that some of what was done in the name of the CR crossed the line of Christian behavior.
However, you said, “Yes, there were a a handful of classical liberal professors who should have been removed. That could have easily been done without the destruction and damage to people and institutions that happened as a result of this purge that you referenced.”
First of all, I don’t think I agree with the characterization that there were only a “handful” of such professors. I think two (perhaps 3) of our seminaries were overrun with them. It was not just a couple of professors.
Second, people had been raising questions about liberal professors since the Elliott incident of 1961(?). They were told that there was no such problem, their concerns were largely ignored by the powers-that-were.
Third, when the conservatives started asserting their voting power at conventions, the moderate side, instead of seeking peace in any way, fought with a viciousness that is largely ignored today.
So, while I agree that much of what happened should not have, there were reasons. It is not quite as simple as it is often presented.
Dave: I am sure the moderates fought. What would you expect them to do? Sit back and want to sing Kumbyah? And with the Fundamentalists at the helm, with the motto the ends justifies the means, what chance did anyone back then have? There were innocents, and not just a few innocents damaged who did want peace. They were fired and reputations damaged, not because they did not believe in inerrancy, but because they did not want to join the fight.
You are right, it wasn’t that simple, too many got caught in the crossfire that should not have been.
And as you can see in the last 6 years, those same people who started the CR are continuing to fight. That is why the CR keeps being brought up.
I think we are going to see God purge us of this in the next coming days. What is happening around us isn’t something I see as a bad thing, but a necessary thing. Christianity is a minority today. We can’t control the culture anymore, and I think that will drive us to our knees more than to each other’s throats. It will purge the church of liars, thieves, and rapists. We didn’t do it, and I don’t think God can take much more of his bride being as dirty as we have been for many years.
We will purge people we don’t agree with theologically, but we will hide child rapists, rapists, and liars who are high up in the celebrity bracket.
I think God is answering Dr. Willingham’s and others prayer concerning the Great Awakening happening again. God knows we need it both in the church, SBC, and out in culture.
Debbie, if you had been part of the SBC during that time, your perspective might have been different.
It is easy to sit back and judge based on second hand reports, to condemn “fundamentalists” as a group based on antipathy toward fundamentalism in general.
But there were real problems that needed to be dealt with. The SBC has problems – perhaps some of them created by tactics in the CR (especially the combative nature of some folks). But I am convinced that had we not stood and resisted at that point, the SBC would be in a horrible state today – as spiritually barren as the liberal/moderate denominations whose paths we were mimicking.
The ends may not justify the means, but the ends did matter.
Debbie:
I agree, it was not in the nature of the moderates to fight or to fight dirty like the Fundamentalist did and do.
Say or do something out of line with the Fundamentalist in the SBC now and see what happens to your SBC job.
What has been created is an atmosphere of fear–constantly monitoring what one says, etc.
That, Tom, is ridiculous revisionist history.
Debbie:
When the truth is presented to folks like Dave Miller about what actually happened during the Takeover, they will always cry that it is ridiculous revisionist history.
Debbie:
I really like what you said:”We will purge people we don’t agree with theologically, but we will hide child rapists, rapists, and liars who are high up in the celebrity bracket. ”
They decide what is theologically correct–that is the men-if you do not agree with them-out you go.
Where is the heart in all of this for these people. Might be a good time for some to re-read 1 Cor Chapter 13.
Passive-aggressive much, Tom?
You could address and interact with me instead of talking about me to others, could you not?
These aren’t second hand reports Dave. I wrote a post on the very first blog I had and researched through interviews from Judge Presley and Russell Dilday. I posted all the parts, one each day of the interviews given by Bill Moyer. I realize you would label him liberal, as would I, but it does not mean the documentary was not telling the truth. Judge Presley did not deny it certainly.
Judge Presley was heavy on the interviews. It was not hard to find them. Interestingly all have disappeared, or at least I can no longer find them on the internet. 🙂
Debbie,
You might be better able to find the interviews if you searched under Judge Paul Pressler rather Judge “Presley.”
ALso,the Moyers interviews were not very informative as to what was actually at stake in the SBC during the CR. Moyers had an ax to grind of his own and his reporting was skewered.
BTW, Judge Pressler is a fine Christian man. You would have respected him had you opportunity to have known him during the CR and he is a gracious man with a wonderful family now.
Debbie,
In your research did you happen to research Russell Dilday’s lying to the Executive Committee? That alone was more than enough to justify his dismissal. Or how about his promise to the EC not to get actively involved in the SBC presidential campaign and then later on reneging and saying he would do everything in his power to make sure Dr. Stanley didn’t get a second term? I have done a lot of research myself and I know a lot of people personally involved in those situations and I don’t believe that they are lying.
“””I agree, it was not in the nature of the moderates to fight or to fight dirty like the Fundamentalist did and do “””
This is absolutely untrue. I had the President of the CBF block a vote on me becoming a pastor of a church that he once pastored because I was a conservative person going to a seminary that was rescued from a leading moderate–Dr. Russell Dilday.
He did it by using a few people in the church he knew personally as friends.
I did not do anything to anybody but simply said I admired Dr. Paige Patterson. At that time, I did not even realize there was a war going on.
No, moderates fought and fought passionately–I won’t call it “dirty” if you agree to reciprocate.
Tom,
“””When the truth is presented to folks like Dave Miller about what actually happened during the Takeover, they will always cry that it is ridiculous revisionist history””’
I’m assuming you are using the word, “truth,” in the same way moderates used it back then–sort of a subjective view of facts based upon a sliding scale.
You might be better able to find the interviews if you searched under Judge Paul Pressler rather Judge “Presley.”
Ha ha ha. I was listening to Elvis Presley earlier. I won’t do that again when speaking of Judge Pressler.
JOhn and Frank: Again, what did you expect some to do, sit on their hands and do nothing? I just think there could have been a better way as Dwight mentioned. Guys, we are Christians first. Fighting of the magnitude of the CR was wrong in my opinion. Too many lives were destroyed by false rumors. And was it wrong to sneak in, lock office doors so that some could not get in? Both sides were wrong, but the Conservative/Fundamentalist side did innumerable damage. There weren’t many casualties on this side of the spectrum. Again, the means are just as important if not more important than the ends.
Marty Duran posted something on Facebook that I believe is at the heart of our problem. He posted this truth:
“We’ve substituted doctrinal belief for personal belief, that’s why many people are devoted to causes and few are devoted to Jesus.” -Chambers
The ends may not justify the means, but the ends did matter. – As born again, Jesus bought, spirit filled Christians, the means matter too. In fact, I believe the means matter more than the ends.
Sorry The ends may not have justified the means, but the end did matter should have been italicized or in quotes.
Debbie, I believe there are times to fight and times to make peace. I think there was a time when the cultural war made sense.
I’m not so sure it should be our leading strategy (nor scrapped altogether).
I think this quote has a lot to teach us all.
CB: Moyer did nothing but ask questions. The answers given by Judge Pressler were in and of themselves very revealing. There was nothing skewed about it. Bill Moyers is a journalist I respect, even though I do not agree with his theology. His journalism was very well done in this 8 part piece.
Debbie,
A question or two for you. Do you believe that the United States was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic and moral structure? If so, do you believe that, as Ron Hale has made mention, “America is losing its moral compass” as is evidenced in the SCOTUS decision on DOMA?
CB: Yes I do but it had nothing to do with being Christian. Christ wasn’t in the picture, morals were. I am not saying this is wrong, I am saying this is how I see it and the first mistake. God was emphasized, again not wrong, but where do you see Christ mentioned in any document written concerning the United States.
Morals is not the answer as you can see if you look around today at the laws and overturns that are happening. It took a short period of time to erode considering how young the United States is. A nation of people individually transformed by Christ is the answer.
The Great Awakening is a good example of this. Christ preached, people saved, bars close down etc.
I’m sure those of you who are pastors and teachers here remember the old illustration of the teacher who told a young boy to sit down. The boy replied “OK I’m sitting down on the outside but I’m standing up on the inside.” That’s the result of founding a country on morals instead of Jesus Christ and the Gospel message.
“God was emphasized, again not wrong, but where do you see Christ mentioned in any document written concerning the United States.”
Debbie,
From the very beginning, many of the people who had a direct input in the “birthing” of this nation referenced the Lord Jesus in both statements and writings. History provided far more examples than can be recorded here.
Christopher Columbus himself spoke of Christ. Actually he made a Trinitarian statement:
“It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could feel His hand upon me.) the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit . . . Our Lord Jesus Christ desired to perform a very obvious miracle in the voyage to the Indies, to confront me and the whole people of God.”
You mentioned the “Great Awakening.”
Even Benjamin Franklin (whose relationship to Christ has drawn much attention throughout the history of our nation) attributed the effects upon the founding of our nation of the Great Awakening to the gospel of Christ.
Franklin stated this about the Great Awakening in his autobiography:
“It was wonderful to see the change soon made in the manners of our inhabitants. From being thoughtless and indifferent about religion, it seemed as if all the world were growing religious, so that one could not walk through the sown in an evening without hearing psalms sung in different families of every street.”
Debbie, as you know, it was the preaching of the biblical gospel that brought about the Great Awakening. Therefore, it is no long leap in logic to assume that Franklin was in reference to the effects of the Good Story of Jesus Christ in his comments of the positive affects the Great Awakening had upon the founding of this nation.
One will be hard put to separate the preaching, teaching, and believing the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the founding of this nation.
Tom, the SBC took no one’s religious freedom. Such freedom does not carry with it the guarantee of a job, or of tenure in a job. Religious freedom actually guarantees that a religious organization like the SBC has the right to determine their own doctrinal parameters without gummit interference.
But I would agree with you that it wasn’t always pretty…
Have a nice weekend.
William:
I am not an English major and maybe no one in the SBC had their religious freedoms taken but the record will show–firings after firings in the SBC to rid her of the dreaded liberalism.
It was a disaster and what I see in the SBC today is one word-decline.
It will not get any better IMO.
Just maybe God is judging the SBC for what Christian brothers and sisters did to each other in his name. We are not to treat each other this way. IMO he is not pleased.
Many were forced out and many more have voluntary left and my prediction many more will leave.
But very few at the top of the SBC will ever acknowledge the better days of the SBC are gone.
When you burn away all the filth and impurities of silver, it gets smaller but more pure.
So, when the SBC rid itself of filth…well, you get the point, I’m sure.
I have ex-SBC moderate, even liberal friends. While we may (and have) chosen different directions, it is unchristian to use the words you use.
The SBC still has some filth, as is manifestly evident.
Perhaps you would reconsider your word choices here.
I agree with you, William.
It is hard to imagine a point at which it would be appropriate to call people filth.
I noticed that the missionary budget of the CBF is more than 2 million dollars less this year than it was in 2011. Can you tell me why the CBF has been in steep decline from its inception? The SBC is in decline because of the times we are living in, not because they ran the liberals out. I maintain that had the liberals not been ran out the SBC’s decline would more closely resemble that of the CBF’s.
Joe and John,
Great comments. And, those of us, who were living in the SBC back in the day, know that there were a lot more than just a few liberals in our schools, leading entities, etc…..and, they had all the power… they controlled the SBC.
When we look at all the denominations that turned liberal, they are all dying….none faster than the United Methodist and the liberal, Presbyterian Churches….Bible teaching, Gospel preaching Churches are full of former Methodists and Presbyterians.
David
Thanks Vol,
And you know the Lottie Moon offering this past Christmas was one of the largest on record. The SBC has a whole lot of vitality left in her. Does she need to make some changes? Yes, and I thought the past two years convention meetings have the SBC heading in the right direction.
John Wylie,
Had the liberals not been removed from administrative prominence in the SBC:
1). There would be very little decrying of the SCOTUS decision on DOMA in the posts and comment threads of Baptist blogs this past week.
2). The intense interest in soteriology and ecclesiology would not be present in the SBC.
3). SBC seminary housing would not be full to overflowing.
4). the SBC would be dead rather than struggling with how to fulfill the Great Commission in a post-Christian world.
CB,
I couldn’t agree more. If the liberals were still in control the SBC would have a whole lot of preachers preaching “hath God said?????” The liberals remind me of the serpent in the garden, interjecting doubt where there once was clarity and putting a question mark where there once was a period.
CB,
If your #4 is true, and the moderates were in charge prior to ’79, why then, did the SBC experience such explosive growth during the years the moderates were in charge? Decline set in when they were no longer in charge.
CB, I will not be able to respond ’til tomorrow if u have a follow up question due to the fact I will be traveling.
Dwight,
Because the Conservative, Bible believing SB’s were, out there, preaching the Gospel and trying to win people to Jesus.
It had absolutely nothing to do with the liberals being in charge. In fact, they were a hinderance to the good things that were taking place.
And, Dwight, some of them were more than just moderates… they were plain ole liberals…believing in universalism…denying the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus…believed that abortion was okay….taught that there were 2 Devils…believed in women pastors….etc, etc, etc….. They werent just moderate….they were Bible denying liberals.
David
Dwight,
Is it possible that the “exploding” growth of “yesteryear” was taking place was because of the prevelance of easy believism?
I’ll share a coupe of reasons why I am skeptical of the handwringing and rampant talk of SBC decline. I see several reasons for less baptisms and declining membership.
One because, as CB points out, healthy soteriological shifts and discussions are now taking place, many which are resulting in more care being taken toward regenerate church membership and baptism. This is a god thing, IMO.
Two because, even though we’re “planting” more churches, brace yourselves for this one, we’re declining in membership because many, not all – perhaps not most- but many, of the “church plants” simply are existing off of “transfers from other churches” and transient people who are members of other churches that attend a plant on the military base or at college.
The SBC has always been about goal setting and numbers games….is it possible that the new and poular big church planting goals and numbers is actually coming back to bite us in our numbers game?
I’m all for church panting..our church is working with several….but I’m wondering if the slow growing, focus on regenerate membership and bringing of lost into these new churches is the Philosiphy of other church plants/planters.
While we’re talking about church plants – its not a church plant when a pastor gets upset and takes a group of people and starts a church…nor is it one when a group of members do it.
To put a bow on this, are we;
Inflating our church planting numbers by calling actions planting that aren’t?
In our church plants simply facilitating church hopping instead of new convert growth as the NT teaches?
Are we simply stressing over “declining numbers” when that might actuality be ignited by a good and proper focus on regenerate membership and baptism?
Dwight, liberalism in the SBC was largely concentrated in our seminaries. The vast majority of our churches were not liberal, though they varied in their recognition of the problem and their support of the CR solution.
The “SBC” does not reach people. Churches do. The success of the SBC in the 1950s era was not due to its liberal/moderate leadership (focused, as it was in seminaries). It was due to what was going on in our churches. The recent problems of the SBC are primarily church problems.
Tom,
I think you may be conflating issues. There are other reasons that account for the decline, such as the general spiritual confusion and malaise in society.
It’s possible that the Church is actually getting purer as it is getting smaller. Maybe somebody already said that come to think of it.
There are also economic factors making it difficult to grow congregations these days.
Your contempt of the SBC and glee at the decline aside, there may be other reasons for the decline than the sinfulness of conservatives.
“””but the record will show–firings after firings””””
Tom, actually most of the personnel changes were the result of “resignations,” not firings. Many resigned to avoid being fired, like my Ethics professor at Golden Gate who believed homosexuality was a legitimate, biblically defensible expression of love.
Needless to say, he and I had interesting exchanges in class. He used an objective method of grading tests and papers so he could not flunk me for the class, though I’m sure he would have liked to.
I ended up getting an “A.”
PS–He was actually a pretty nice guy, so the only problem I had with him (and the administration) was his theology. But, that’s a rather big problem it seems for someone teaching Christian ethics.
This was in the early 80’s before homosexuality was accepted by society at large. You might say, he was a “trail-blazer” of sorts.
At my church this morning the following people made an appearance: Marines, US Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy; Revolutionary war soldier, War of 1812 soldier, Civil War soldiers (both sides, slavery was called an “abomination”), Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan; Washington, Adams, Jefferson (completely rehabilitated btw), Madison, T. Roosevelt, Hitler, Yamamoto, Lenin, bin Laden, Jesus. I probably forgot some others.
..a patriotic extravaganza. SCOTUS was mentioned, although absent animus.
Hey, folks, Ron’s article was not about the SBC and the CR. We’ve beaten that one around the infield again, but let’s put our focus back on the topic, okay?
The CR discussions so easily get out of hand.
Dave Miller,
I think that our friend Tom Parker brought up a question that moved the dialogue to the CR. And although the CR is a subject worthy of dialogue from many perspectives, I do believe you to be correct. Ron’s post is not about the CR or the SBC.
The subject of Ron’s post is a worthy subject and I want to respond to a part of his post here.
Ron stated:
“Christianity enjoys a home field advantage, but we have been losing it to secularism for the last fifty years. Other world religions have come to America in droves. We should not expect preferential treatment, but we should be very wary of … entrenched government bureaucrats, mass media, and the liberal-progressive church in joining an unholy alliance and creating a hostile environment that shuts us out and down.”
I believe Ron is right. “Christianity enjoys a home field advantage.” I believe that to be true. I agree with Ron’s entire statement quoted above. Some seemingly do not and they do not because they maintain the position that America was not founded upon Christian principles. I made one comment above in response to William Thornton (I do not believe that William Thornton denies our nation was founded on Christian principles. I am using his name simply because it was to his comment I responded.) related to our foundational documents being based upon a Judeo-Christian ethic and moral structure.
I believe that to be true and I believe that our nation’s history will prove that to be true.
One person who freedom loving people recently lost had much to say to Americians about our past and our future. That person was Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of Great Britain.
In a speech encouraging America to maintain its biblical foundations she stated:
“If you accept freedom, you’ve got to have principles about the responsibility. You can’t do this without a biblical foundation . . . Your Founding Fathers came over with that. They came over with the doctrines of the New Testament as well as the Old. They looked after one another, not only as a matter of necessity, but as a duty to their God. There is no other country in the world which started that way.”
Although I do not believe we, as Christians, should be given preferential treatment, I also believe that if the principles on which this nation was founded are continually eroded, we, as a nation of free people will no longer be free to protect anyone’s religious freedom, Christian or otherwise.
CB,
Thanks for your kind words toward me and wise words in your comments. Our home field advantage has been lost as an army of social progressives have worked very hard to chip away our foundational beliefs and freedoms. They have many so confused or scared to say “Merry Christmas” at Christmas or “Jesus” at Easter.
Our home field advantage will only be secured and turned around by sharing the Gospel with everyone coming to our shores. The freedom that comes with this true soul freedom will continue to fan the flames of lasting liberty. We’ve got to do a better job at this … and, at a time when we are fighting over so many wood, hay, and stuble kinds of issues.
Ron,
The fact that they are going to come after our religious liberties shouldn’t shock us, but it should drive us to be better students of the word. As it gets more difficult, possibly even illegal, to share the word, it will be important to do it clearly and accurately.
Joe,
I agree wholeheartedly with your statement. Whether we have liberties or not in this nation we have a higher calling to be presenters of the Gospel and to maintain a solid doctrinal footing that makes the Gospel plain to those who God is calling to be saved. My prayer is for a passionate cry for discipleship in the church in America so that those who are being brought up in the Word would be compelled to share what they have received no matter the cost.
“My prayer is for a passionate cry for discipleship in the church in America so that those who are being brought up in the Word would be compelled to share what they have received no matter the cost.”
Yes . . . “not matter the cost.”
Therein is the challenge. And it always has been. Maybe that is what American Christians have forgotten.
Well stated, Ryan Abernathy.
Joe,
Jesus taught us to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves — as He sends us into wolf country. Through His salvation — We will not have to expereience the wrath of God as believers. However, He did not promise that we will be free from the wrath of men (nor was He).
We will need to know the Word of God … and …we need to brush up on our history as Believers in forging this great nation. We are losing the backstory. We have not passed down the stories like … Baptist pastor John Leland playing a key role in pressuring James Madison for the consitutional amendment to protect religious liberty — our “first freedom” in the Bill of Rights. Virginia Baptist preachers stayed in jail more than the church house — but they got their message across and were willing to lay down their lives.
We will not have to experience the wrath of God as believers. However, He did not promise that we will be free from the wrath of men (nor was He). –
A good and important statement Ron. Well put.
I hope you aren’t calling me a moderate Frank, because that would be far from the truth both theologically and in idealology. But it’s a fun word to throw around I’m sure. 🙂 I am as Frank Page said 6 years ago, a conservative who isn’t mad about it and certainly not going to shove anyone out because of my views.
Many people in modern times have tried to interpret the First Amendment and the establishment clause to mean something which the founders never intended it to mean, (outlawing prayer in schools, etc.)
But interestingly, within just a couple months of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights being adopted, President George Washington thought it appropriate to say in a national proclamation: “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly implore his protection and favor…”.
See “Freedom in America: 41 Things Every American Should Know” http://memorytyper.com/OrgPages/MemoryTyper/WhyIsAmericaFree.aspx
Debbie’s statement(s) above are indicative of how moderates parse words.
She makes the argument–and she has repeated a version of it several times throughout the years–“Both sides were wrong, but really the problem was all the conservatives.”
No, it was a creeping moderate faction sprinkled with a few liberals that was setting a course for destruction for our Convention. I was there. As a conservative at Golden Gate I watched moderate and liberal professors seek to indoctrinate a new generation with error.
I was at Dilday’s seminary as a conservative and was mocked and ridiculed for my conservative views in class. The professors were moderate and proud–and bullies. The difference: I had been a pastor for over 15 years before I went back to seminary the second time.
I was able to hold my own. The moderate professors sank their own ship and were soon out the door right behind Dilday. In just a matter of months, with the hiring of a godly, conservative president, the seminary made a huge turn.
I was able to complete my degree and continue my ministry without the bullying I had received at two seminaries.
It is revisionist history to ignore the fact that many self-declared moderates were knee deep in a fight to continue a moderate path for the convention.
It is true that some behavior on both sides was wrong, but it is equally true that the theology on the conservative side was absolute right. The moderates were leading us down a path toward theological error and it was only getting worse.
There is not “but” about it.
The reason the CR comes up in this discussion could seem like a hijack, and maybe it is in some ways.
But, theology does play a huge part in the development of the ideas of religious liberty. In fact, it can be argued strongly that without the principles of Christian theology spread about in the hearts of the colonists, there would not be the religious liberty we experience today.
I was at Dilday’s seminary as a conservative and was mocked and ridiculed for my conservative views in class. The professors were moderate and proud–and bullies.
That is the truth that moderate and moderate supporters won’t admit–the SBC was full of moderate influence, particularly at the seminary level. And as much as anyone tries to claim otherwise, that includes SWBTS, although I’ve heard it was more conservative under Dilday than most of them.
Dilday is also proof that a compromising conservative is a moderates best friend. Someone who is willing to say “I believe in inerrancy, and the historicity of the virgin birth, but I am willing to cooperate with people who reject both of those” does NOT truly believe in inerrancy or the virgin birth. If they did, they wouldn’t cooperate with someone who didn’t.
Frank,
What years were you at SWBTS? I’m wondering if we were there at the same time.
I’m not saying that something shouldn’t have been done Frank. I would not stay at a church who was Liberal for example, I am saying that it shouldn’t have been done in this bloodshed way. It was a Civil war and if you look at the effects of the Civil war against states the United States is still divided. It was a bloody war. Lives are still affected by it today there was so much healing to be done because of backdoor politics and yes, I do blame the Fundamentalists for that. They are still trying it today. Case in point, turning against one group that helped them in that war, the Calvinists.
Debbie,
You would leave a “liberal” church. That says it all. I noticed you did not say you would leave a “moderate” church. The only difference between a moderate and a liberal is
time!
You just don’t get it. You see through moderate-colored glasses that make it impossible for you to see the tremendous good that was done by getting rid of the moderates, compromisers, and liberals in our seminaries.
You don’t see it, because you were not there, any more than you were there during the Civil War. It is so easy to criticize a soldier in any fight. It is much harder to be one.
You just simply do not have your facts right.
David,
I began the same year Dilday departed. Actually, I think he had been gone for a time. I can’t remember if Dr. Hemphill came before I started, or shortly after.
I think I started in 1994 and finished in 1997. I researched for my thesis for another 3 years and returned for graduation in 2000. I think that is the time line.
As someone pointed out, Dr. Dilday was not a moderate (at that time) but a compromising conservative (Joe’s description is accurate). If I remember correctly, there was a huge turn-over right before I started and shortly thereafter, so most of my training at SWBTS was solidly conservative.
It was not the same when I went to Golden Gate in 80’s. I had professors that were conservative, and more than a few, that were as far out on the moderate limb as one can get before falling to the ground as a liberal.
PS–My experience may have been more conservative than others at that time because I was in the new M.A. in theology program. My curriculum was much more narrow than an M.Div. student.
Out of 62 units, well over 40 were in my major (philosophy of religion) with Dr. Lemke and Dr. Ted Cabal, both solid conservatives.
You were there a few years after me, then. I was there in ’88 and ’89. I actually had Dilday and Newport as co-professors for Biblical Hermeneutics. There was a mix of perspectives when I was there. Some professors were quite conservative. Some more moderate leaning. Some of the moderate-leaning ones more respectful of conservatives, some (though not many) not so much so. Dilday and Newport were always polite toward me personally, but you could tell they had a bit of a stick in their craw about the CR and the way things were going in the SBC.
David,
I had Dr. Newport. He was a great guy and a brilliant scholar, but frankly I was not impressed. I remember him as a genteel guy. The issue of conservativism vs. moderate theology did not come up.
a compromising conservative (Joe’s description is accurate)
I want a quarter every time someone says it and a nickel everytime it’s in a blog post or comment thread. LOL
Compromising Conservative: One who will not join the fight.
I have no problem with that distinction, even if it were true. In war they call those who will not join the fight, casualties.
Fact of the matter: Dilday was up to his eyeballs in the fight. He just preferred doing it behind closed doors.
I was at GGBTS during the 80’s as well. I had the same experience. It was an interesting time. I also did some work at SWBTS from 2000-2004. That was an interesting experience as well with a few profs abandoning ship to go to Baylor.
It was 1994 – the year I graduated with MAMFC, MRE. The firing of Dr. Dilday occurred during the spring trustees meeting – with much wailing and gnashing of teeth. It was tough being a conservative on campus – you knew it was the right thing to do, but the trustees were being closed lipped about the whole thing which was infuriating. One of the graduates tore off in front of everybody the signature of O. Damon Shook (the chairman of the Board of Trustees) right off of his diploma on stage. I was currently trying to get through the second half of Systematic Theology with Jeff Poole (as liberal a prof as one can get) with all the name calling and vitriol during those weeks as one can stomach.
I meet Dr. Dilday a couple of times, once at a BGCO student dinner – he was cordial and very polite – but you could tell there was friction between him and some of the participants of one of the most conservative conventions in the SBC.
Rob
Dilday Dismissed. The premier achievement of the Takeover faction at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary was the dismissal of seminary president Russell H. Dilday. Named president at Southwestern (SWBTS) in 1977, Dilday considered himself a thoroughgoing theological conservative, but he objected to the harsh spirit and the assault on Baptist freedoms associated with the Takeover faction. As a result, he became a target as the Fundamentalist uprising gained speed in the mid-1980s.
Dilday and SWBTS trustees reached a compromise over his role in the denominational controversy during a six-hour closed-door session in October 1989. Ken Lilly, a trustee from Arkansas who had mailed eighty-six pages of press clippings which he claimed were “political” statements by Dilday, said after the meeting, that Dilday was “one of the premier leaders in the SBC,” and that “Dilday is free to speak his conscience.”[12] A few months later, in early 1990, Christianity Today, named Southwestern Seminary the top theological seminary in the United States .[13]
While at the 1990 SBC in New Orleans , Dilday was quoted as saying the “crass, secular political methodology used in the Takeover of the Convention these past twelve years has satanic and evil qualities to which I am desperately opposed.” Seminary trustee chair Jimmy Draper was reported to have called other trustees about a possible meeting to “deal with Dilday.” Dilday explained he was not implying that fellow believers were satanic.[14i]
Trustees lauded Dilday for fifteen years of “able leadership and administration” at the seminary during his March 1993 evaluation.[15] He was then abruptly fired March 9, 1994, only one day after he had received the favorable job-performance evaluation and trustees said no action was planned against the embattled president. Trustees gave no official reasons for the firing. Trustee chair Ralph Pulley, a member of First Baptist Church in Dallas , told Dilday: “We don’t need a reason. We can do it. We have the votes, and we will.”[16]
http://www.sbctakeover.com/chapter11.htm
“””Dilday considered himself a thoroughgoing theological conservative, but he objected to the harsh spirit and the assault on Baptist freedoms associated with the Takeover faction.””””
That’s the myth perpetuated in the press. I was there. Dr. Dilday did not teach a class while I was at SWBTS, but many of those he hired and supported did teach–and they were harsh, opinionated and had an agenda.
Like many, Dr. Dilday was not caught with the smoking gun in his hand, but they did find the receipts for the ammunition supplied to his underlings.
As has been said, Dr. Dilday may not have been a moderate, but he had much in common with Jane Fonda.
As has been said, Dr. Dilday may not have been a moderate, but he had much in common with Jane Fonda.
If you are a president of a seminary and you permit moderates to teach there, you are as guilty of their heresy as they are, Frank. The simple fact remains that Dilday’s next job was as president of Truett and it is plainly obvious to anyone who doesn’t want to ignore it.
And as you and I know, Frank, the definition of a compromising conservative is one who claims to believe in conservative biblical doctrine but is willing to cooperate with those who deny it, thereby proving that he doesn’t believe what he claims. If you look that definition up, it has a picture Russell Dilday right beside it.
Joe,
Also, Dr. Dilday was not just sympathetic to the moderate cause, he advocated it among the faculty. Moderate professors were not just tolerated, they were celebrated.
Frank
What part of that is supposed to shock me, brother? 🙂
“”””Dilday was quoted as saying the “crass, secular political methodology used in the Takeover of the Convention these past twelve years has satanic and evil qualities to which I am desperately opposed.” Seminary trustee chair Jimmy Draper was reported to have called other trustees about a possible meeting to “deal with Dilday.” Dilday explained he was not implying that fellow believers were satanic.”
This is exactly the double-speak that made the battle so difficult. He clearly implied those with whom he disagreed were satanic, but then put a smiley face at the end of the sentence.
True religious freedom cannot thrive in a land of double-speak. It cannot be fueled by moderate passions for Truth. Lukewarmness simply cannot sustain religious freedom.
I certainly would not have signed up to sacrifice my life if need be for a “moderate view” of our national values. I was idealistic and there was no depth to which I would not sink to protect and preserve those liberties.
PS–I served on a submarine, hence, “no depth to which I would sink.” OK. It was pun that worked for me.
As I read these posts about the CR in the context of religious liberty, I have gained a new insight into just what went wrong in our country.
While the Founders, almost to a man but certainly a super majority, were staunch, conservative Christians, by the time they came to actually write our documents they did so in the most “moderate” way possible in the hopes of not seeming to be establishing a theocracy.
I don’t think they could have dreamed that on the eve of the 237th birthday a major recording artist, clutching a rainbow flag to her chest would conclude the national anthem with, “land of the free and home of the gay.”
My insight is this: moderation in theology will not provide a lasting foundation for religious freedom. A moderate faith is no faith at all. The tide of human depravity will always push a moderate theology off the cliff of godless liberalism (civil religion).
The Founders great intent will be the nation’s downfall.
Debbie, Frank, Joe, et al.
I asked nicely once and you guys ignored me. This is not about the CR – read the post again.
If you continue to ignore me, my only recourse will be to put you on moderation.
I’m sorry Dave, I didn’t see it.
Dave,
I actually posted why the CR discussion was also a matter of religious liberty and how it related to the post.
I’ll bow out.
I actually posted why the CR discussion was also a matter of religious liberty and how it related to the post.
Yes, I agree….it was all Frank’s fault. Bwahahahahaha
You folks ever hear about the sources of our religious liberty and why the Christians were recognized as having the freedom that they have? First, the religious liberty idea comes from the Baptists, even those so identified in history, with the General Baptists writing about and with the Particular Baptists actually putting it into law and practice (Roger Williams and Dr. John Clarke in Rhode Island). Next, the Baptists of Virginia forced the issue so that Thomas Jefferson got to write the Religious Liberty Statute for that state for which he is justly famous, but he got to do so due to Baptists insisting on the matter. Likewise, James Madison gets elected to the Constitutional Convention, because John Leleand gives his support to him for that purpose, the purpose of getting religious liberty. And then there is the matter of Christians earning their right to speak in this matter. First, there was the committee of Baptists in Va., headed by an ancestral relative of a friend of mine, Elijah Craig, who with the committee met with the colonial legislators and made the agreement that in exchange for the freedom to practice their faith, the Baptist ministers would go back to their communities and encourage the young men in them to enlist in the Patriots Cause. My grandmother was a Craig which is why our son wears that name as his first name. In any case, Elijah Craig must have focused along with his relatives, James and Lewis Craig, in getting the Craigs to enlist in the American Revolution. I found one whole regiment of Craigs in the Virginia militia in the Revolution, and I know that for a fact as I took notes on the regiment from a volume of the DAR and copied each members name, some 2000 or so, from the lowliest private right up to the Colonel. The last name of every one in that regiment was Craig. I used ditto marks. Now the Episcopalians were the Generals, the Presbyterians, usually, were your majors and colonels, and the Baptists in Va. were the cannon fodder. I should add that since armies like to have a cheering section, the revolutionary forces had chaplains and Baptists were among them. In fact, the last person to address the Continental Army before it disbanded was John Gano, the noted Baptist minister and chaplain of that day. I came across info. in some work on Kentucky Baptists which indicated that he had the rank of General. How reliable that information is, I cannot say. It is noteworthy that one of our professors wrote a paper about Gano baptizing George Washington by immersion. The professor was in the Moderate camp with no axe to grind, and he believed from the presence of some 60 witnesses that the incident actually happened.
Now note, the Baptists encouraged their young men to enlist in the Patriots Cause, a civil war against a duly constituted government, the monarchy of Great Britain. Where was the IRS then, and who gave them the authority to come into Baptist Churches and demand to see the minutes of their meetings, etc.? Far as I am concerned that is an act of Treason with the IRS being a threat to take away one’s religious right of freedom of religion, a basic doctrine of Baptists. Besides, the nation has benefited from Baptist Chaplains, along with the chaplains of other denominations, since the actually beginnings of the American Revolution. Therefore, the ruling at Fort Bragg recently that soldiers did not have a right to bear witness to their faith is TREASON! And our government, it would seem, is about to launch into a course of treating freedom of religion as only for your own private thing in your own home or your own little religious group/church. THINK WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO THE GREAT COMMISSION RESURGENCE.
I always love to read what you write about the Founding of our country, Dr. J.
It’s good to hear from someone who was there 🙂
Thank you Frank L. Yep, I sure feel these days like I was there, when it happened. My wife can’t make up her mind whether I should have been born in the last century or the Star Trek one, because I love both Westerns and Sci/fi.
In relation to the subject of this post there is an old proverb from a past generation that is worthy of reflection, I think. It goes like this:
“As the home, so the church; as the church, so the nation.”
I think there may be some merit to that. Is it not true that as the values of the home (the family) have disappeared, the Church likewise compromises and begins to condone that which was at one time not tolerated?
Does a family, a local church, a free nation that had a godly heritage but failed to appreciate it have a future?
I’m reminded of the church scene in “The Patriot”. As the reverend takes up his rifle to join the militia he states, “The shepherd must tend to his flock….And at times, fight off the wolves.”