I have friends who believe that the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC was a work of God that turned a denomination from the path of ruin which other denominations have followed. I have other friends who think the CR was a political shenanigan, a power-grab that had little to do with theology. They do not admit that there was a genuine problem with liberalism and see the CR as a tragedy which has ruined our denomination.
I think there is some truth on both sides.
I was a foot soldier in the CR. I attended the Houston convention in 1979 and was thrilled when Adrian Rogers was elected president, a turning point in our denominational life. I attended a few of the conventions during the 80s, as time and money allowed. I was there at the 1990 SBC when Morris Chapman won a landslide victory in an election many thought would reverse the history of conservative victories. After that decisive victory, the CBF was formed and the moderates threw in the towel as far as the national SBC was concerned and took the battle to the state conventions. All I ever did for the CR was cast my vote and speak to my church about the issues. I was never one of the leaders (I was a young whippersnapper back then) nor was I an organizer. I just attended and voted my conscience.
I checked out of national SBC life soon after that 1990 convention. I moved to Iowa where we had bigger fish to fry, just trying to survive as SOUTHERN Baptists in the frozen north. Our state convention and state paper intentionally left national SBC political information out because we did not wish to be divided by the things like that. I attended a couple of conventions in the years I was in Cedar Rapids (1991-2005) but usually only because they were in Orlando, where my parents lived (Kissimmee) and it was an excuse to take some vacation time.
Then, the IMB controversy hit in 2005 and I got interested in national politics again. I had just finished a 2 1/2 year term as president of the Baptist Convention of Iowa and had moved to Sioux City, so my focus on state convention life waned and I became involved in national Baptist life again, through blogging.
The CR was the kind of war you do not soon forget. Those of you who are young whippersnappers cannot, perhaps, understand how it was back then. It was war, bloody war! On both sides. (Moderates like to present it as an attack from conservatives on innocent and peace-loving moderates, but that is historical revisionism at best – both sides brought out the big guns.) It was a war that left an imprint on this denomination and has continued to affect us more than 20 years after the shooting war ended.
(For those who object to the militaristic wording, all I can say is I think it is an apt description of SBC life in the 80s.)
Here are some of my persectives, nearly 25 years later, on the CR and its effects on our denomination.
1) The CR was a battle that had to be fought.
It was an ugly epoch in the life of the SBC, but I am thrilled that it happened. I would not be SBC anymore if it had not. I have heard more than one person assert that there was not really a liberalism problem in the SBC. Others have said that inerrancy was not a significant issue, or was a smoke screen.
I saw liberalism first hand. I attended a small Baptist college and I experienced the effects of liberalism. I saw the debilitating spiritual legacy of liberal teaching on the lives of those I entered school with and who were my friends. All of our professors were from Southern Seminary except one who came from SEBTS. They undermined or ridiculed every doctrine I had ever been taught in church. The complete truthfulness of scripture. The uniqueness of Christ. The existence of the devil as a real entity. The substitutionary atonement of Christ.
One OT professor started class by saying that there was no such thing as predictive prophecy. Any such prophecies in scripture were actually written later and falsely claimed as prophecies. In a Hebrew class, he said these words, “Let’s face it men, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammend; they are all just different flags under which God flies his name.” Overhearing a conversation I was having with another student, he recommended that we correct our theology by watching the John Denver movie, “Oh, God!”
We had a well-known professor at our Spiritual Emphasis week tell us that Jesus did not actually come to earth intending to die, but that his death was the result of political miscalculations.
When my school cleaned up the religion department the year after I left, the OT prof went to teach at Midwestern Seminary, until he finally settled in a Virginia Baptist college. Another of my profs became president at one of the CBF-affiliated seminaries that formed after the CR.
I went to SWBTS after a couple of years at Dallas Seminary, and I encountered a mix of conservative and moderate profs.
No one can tell me that there was no real liberalism problem. I saw it firsthand. I sat under the tutelage of men who were not just moderate; they were Bible-doubting, Blood-denying, faith-crumbling false teachers, and I did not want their kind to spread in the SBC. I went to conventions not for any desire for political power. I loved the Word and was committed to Christ, and I was then, as I am today, convinced that doing nothing in terms of liberalism in the SBC was far more damaging that joining the fight.
2) The CR had too much collateral damage.
From my observations, the number of liberals in the SBC was relatively small. I think there were three primary groups during the conflict. First, there were liberals who were undermining the faith. There were conservatives who joined the fray and were determined to root the liberals out of the SBC. The third group was a significant group. They were conservatives who believed everything other conservatives believed, but did not see the need for the war or did not like the way the war was being carried out.
It was my belief then and I remain convinced today that my side, the conservative side, made a huge mistake in drawing the orthodoxy line at the political level. Those who believed what we believed but did not join in the battle against liberalism were viewed as enemies of the faith. Better that we had tried to win them than target them.
Too many genuinely conservative men were labeled as liberals because they did not support the tactics of the Conservative Resurgence.
3) The CR created a warrior class.
The fact is, though, it was war and it was easy to think that if you were not with us, you were against us. If you voted for the other side, you were the enemy. I thought that was a mistake, but it was an understandable mistake in the middle of a pitched battle such as was being waged in the 1980s.
But, unfortunately, that warrior spirit has survived and there is a tendency, especially among some of those of my generation and older, to carry that into many of our modern denominational battles. The CR was over a fundamental issue of the faith. Most of our battles today are between groups which fully affirm the BF&M and are committed to Baptist theology.
But that warrior mentality, the us-against-them, we-are-fighting-for-our lives mentality is not easily left behind. I’m a pretty conservative guy in every way, but I have been labeled a moderate more than once by bloggers who disagreed with positions on denominational issues. I am afraid that many of the controversies we face today are the spiritual children of the warrior mentality we developed in the 1970s and 80s.
Anyone ever noticed that churches that start out of splits tend to be prone to splits in their existence – something in the spiritual DNA of the church. I am afraid that the CR left something in the DNA of the modern SBC that leaves us prone to fighting and splintering over issues that do not matter.
4) CR Warriors sometimes fought with fleshly tactics.
Paul told the Corinthians that believers had weapons of warfare that were spiritual, not carnal.
For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ. 2 Corinthians 10:3–5
I am afraid that too often we adapted the weapons of the flesh to fight this battle. If, as I believe, the battle was righteous, we could have eschewed some of the more extreme tactics that were used and eventually accomplished the same aim with less collateral damage. It is easy to say that now with 25 years of space, but I said that (to the four people who listened to me) back in the days of the battle. I sometimes did not like the weapons my side chose, even though I agreed with the aims for which we fought.
There was a tendency common then which is still seen commonly today – the “fight fire with fire” mentality. The other side was political, scheming in secret meetings, and we must do the same. I never accepted that argument. We are told to return good for evil and are specifically prevent by scripture from fighting fire with fire.
I am thrilled with the results of the CR. I am not proud of all the tactics that were used.
5) The CR won the war, but did we lose the peace?
Today, Japan and Germany are our allies. Why? Because when we defeated them in WWII, we then set about rebuilding them. We not only won the war, but we won the peace as well. The USA prospered because we made our enemies into allies.
There were a significant number of true conservatives who either stayed out of the war or even sided with the moderate/liberal side. When the shooting war was over and the reformation well under way, we should have reached out intentionally to the non-aligned conservatives and made them welcome in the SBC.
Too often, we continued to ostracize and view with suspicion those who did not join the cause. If the USA can turn enemies into allies, could not the SBC (with the help of the Holy Spirit) have done the same?
Conclusion
Those are my reflections on the CR in the SBC. I am glad the battle was fought and won. I think the SBC is healthier today than it would have been had we done nothing. I shudder to think where we would be today if the CR had not happened. On the other hand, just because the goal was worthy does not mean that everything we did was right. Some of our tactics were fleshly and extreme and this has left an imprint on our denomination.
I am thrilled that we can today move forward as a conservative, inerrantist denomination. I hope that never changes. But we must also deal with the effects of the CR on our denominational life.
One man’s opinion.
I hesitate to post this and leave. I’ll be out of touch most of the day, so I’m trusting on all the threads that you folks will play nice, be excellent to each other and party on, dudes.
In a word (copying Dave): yep.
The ends justify the means. That same tactic is still being used in the Louisiana Baptist Convention. Except, now the witches are conservative inerrantist Calvinists, not moderates or liberals. What hath the C.R. wrought?
I think that’s the kind of comment you can only make in retrospect. In the middle of the effort you might have been able to see both sides and realize that both sides chose to battle and to turn it into a war and both sides knew the SBC would be lost to their faction if they lost the war.
Which is to say that the people who fought the war believed it was for all the marbles and believed it was a matter of the essential character of their faith that was at stake. And in the United States we have seen repeatedly that this kind of war is often won by liberals controlling the levers of power in other denominations (Episcopal, non-Missouri Synod Lutheran, etc.)
That isn’t “ends justify the means” and the fact that Dave would, in retrospect, confront the attitudes isn’t either justifying the behavior nor condoning it. It’s offering personal biography as an opportunity for perspective.
Greg,
I’m sorry, I’m not following your reply. I made no comment on Dave’s motivations. Merely pointing out the tactics used in the C.R. are still being used at this very moment in Louisiana Baptist politics.
Conflating the two events–the CR and the disagreement at LC–and labeling both as “ends justifying means” and “the same tactic” is what I was addressing. The use of the term “war” by Dave suggests that there was an overarching strategy that eventually prevailed. As it turns out, history confirms that use of the term “war” in terms of the implementation of a strategy that worked when, if you will, diplomacy was no longer effective.
Your skirmishing at LC is, indeed, a tactic or more precisely a counter-tactic. As is the decision at LC to not renew the professors (which actually is a tactic and the presumed but not proven strategy is to eliminate Calvinist instructors perhaps just at LC or perhaps all Calvinists across the LBC). Oddly enough, you’re playing into the supposed strategy by highlighting that–in your opinion–this is very specifically and only about eliminating a Calvinistic instructor (or several).
Your skirmishing has been somewhat effective, but suggesting that your means justify your ends while theirs don’t might be–umm–shortsighted. Which is to say: your strategy isn’t clear, the endgame isn’t clear, and you might not by acclamation be accorded the high ground simply based on your own perspective. Just something to think about.
You might study the CR and determine what your strategy is, what your endgame is, and how you can assure yourself that your means are never justified by your ends should this turn into an all out “war”. And sometime after the fact I invite you to consider your comments and to then attempt a more thorough comparison. After you’ve done that and realize that you might have to select tactics that are based on the wielding of raw power–not unlike using the popular press to draw attention to a situation you think is wrong–then you might have a bit more understanding (and perhaps sympathy) for the tactics used in the CR.
I would offer that your current comments are premature and also antagonistic towards some people–the folks who agree with the CR–that might very well be your allies in Louisiana. And, trust me, you need allies who can do strategy, who can devise tactics, and who can reason very clearly from the Bible when a strategy is morally appropriate and when it is ethically defective. Your experience in doing such things will improve with practice, I’m sure, but you might not have arrived yet.
Or I could be wrong and you’ve got this all figured out? As I regularly tell my wife: I’ve been wrong before and I’m sure I’m wrong again.
Greg,
You are very much wrong if you think I don’t know what CR tactics are and how to fight those who are using them. I, and others, have played the cards we can, as David Hankins and Joe Aguillard do all their deeds in the darkness. I have brought light to only actions that were public, the firing of Calvinist professors which was never about theology but power. No conflation here. Many of the Baptist politicians in Louisiana are indeed trying to have another CR. You can believe that or not. I’m not writing here to persuade you or anyone else in this thread. Take care.
So you’re committed to the view that the CR tactics were often selected at the time simply based on ends justifying means? And your tactics are above comment?
Joshua,
Thank You, for your continued reporting on LC. Your current update shows some of the issues of politics within the SBC. I know it has cost you dearly for standing for the teachings of Christ. The body will be better off due to your reporting.
Thanks, John.
Joshua,
Your statement, “… the firing of Calvinist professors which was never about theology but power.” is revealing. Are you saying that you were in a meeting with the LBC leaders where you heard them state that the actions taken were not about theology but rather about power or are you surmising?
My grandfather was a very wise man, though as a teenager I didn’t appreciate some of his wisdom. More than once he chided me with “when you ascribe motives to another’s actions you reveal your own.”
Could it be that you are so sensitive to the theological division within our Convention that you automatically ascribe sinister motives to those who disagree with you because you can not believe anyone would disagree with your theological stance?
Unfortunately the leaders of SBC who are pressing for some sort of theological compromise between those who reject Calvinism and those who adopt it will never be successful. The theological divide stems from our views of God and man. I have yet to encounter a Calvinist who, when pressed, will say unequivocally that they agree with the BF&M, Article II on God with specific reference to the word “free.”
I’m old and I’m tired, but one thing I’ve learned is that the Devil never stops his attacks to destroy the faith and he uses every tactic imaginable.
To T, Jr., how true! I, too, am old and tired, but we must toil on. Determining where and when and how and whom and why and etc. is no easy matter. Arrogance is a problem for our enemies, and, sad to admit, a problem for all of us, right or wrong. Who has not seen the arrogance of ignorance, and who has not seen the arrogance of knowledge? One problem we have is fear and the lack of fear, that is, we have fears and plenty of them, realized and unrealized, and often we also do not have the one most needed, the fear of God. Seems like it has to be one of two options: sick pathological fears of many varieties or the one, all-consuming, life-giving, awe-inspiring fear of God. I once knew a man who said, “I fear no man, but I do fear God. I do fear Him.” I awoke with that thought on my mind this morning, and came up with a text and an outline for the subject, Awakening Fear, thinking of the subject of 40 years of petitions, a Third Great Awakening, one that reaches every soul on earth and that for a thousand generations….just so God can crack a joke (He has already in Rev.7:9, a number no one can number) to cheer His despairing followers with optimism about His promises that He had Jonathan Edwards write about in Humble Attempt, promises to be pleaded and which were pleaded by Carey, Fuller, Judson, Rice, and others for the launching of the modern missionary movement and the Second Great Awakening. Hark! What is it I hear? A sound of a going in the mulberry trees?
R. Richard Tribble Jr.,
I don’t publicly state what I don’t know. So, to your answer your two questions, no.
What tactics? Encouraging people to attend and vote? Making facts known about some of our employees? Electing declared conservatives? Was the CR just a dressed-up witch hunt that merely switched power from one group to another? Do you actually think that mods in control back then did not use power to control hiring and appointments?
You may have a just cause at LBC but err in your making it an equivalency to the CR.
Do you actually think that mods in control back then did not use power to control hiring and appointments?
Hum… that is an interesting comment… back then… today… same ole tactics… different players.
Sounds like the comments from someone too young to have actually been there. All he knows is what he has read.
Les,
And you have only read about the Civil War and the founding of the SBC. Does that mean you can know nothing about it? That’s a fallacy, brother.
Yes it is Joshua. “Let no one despise your youth” 1 Timothy 4:12.
Hiring and firing are two different things, are they not?
It’s one thing to hire and appoint who you want, to hire only those who share your views, your ideology, your politics, your theology.
It’s a completely different thing to purge a department, to fire folks and be completely dishonest in doing so.
Also, The Southern Baptist Journal. The Southern Baptist Advocate.
Those were very popular conservative newspapers that read like the National Enquirer.
Dave,
I don’t have your email so this is the only place i can post, but i wondered if my earlier post on a different thread is still in moderation intentionally or unintentionally. I presume it was moderated because i posted 3 links, but they are of great value. Thanks.
Since he’s out, I can definitively answer that more than one link will put the comment in moderation from my personal, previous experience.
His email is davemillerisajerk@hotmail (Yes, it’s a real email. Yes, I’ve used it.)
[dot] com
I believe Dave will be out for a good part of the day. I can affirm that your post is still in moderation–probably b/c of the links. Because it is there and not in the trash I can assume that it’s at this point unintentionally there. Because of the nature of the comment I’m not in a position to free it from moderation.
You can also email Dave at davemillerisajerk [at] hotmail [dot] com
Mike,
Thanks for the explanation. I’ll email him.
Excellent article Dave! I agree completely!
That’s because you have high intelligence. #1 sign of high IQ is agreeing with me.
Well, I want to say I applaud your posting. My experience goes back past years by about 20 years. I think the first SBC I ever attended was in St. Louis in either ’59 or ’61 or both (I don’t have the Annual readily available to check the ’59 date). The issue had already arisen. In ’59 I caught some references to the liberalism ideas in a Psychology class. Later, in ’61 in a second semester of that class the professor introduced us to Ralph Elliott’s book, The Message of Genesis. One student said, “Ah, Professor, your just an Atheist!” The student was a former gang member and street thug who had been converted. At work (welfare dept.) a fellow minister who had a year and a half at Midwestern said to me, “Your ignorant for believing in the Virgin Birth.” With that kind of personal offensiveness, one can understand the animus that was raised in the conflicts that followed.
I attended the SBC in ’63, and it was the aim of the conservatives in that year to do something about the liberalism in our seminaries. Most, I think, thought it was settled by voting on the 1963 BFM. You can imagine my chagrin, when I heard my Hebrew Professor at SEBTS a decade later laughing and saying, “Yes, we had our view written in there, too.” (it was in the preamble, about judging the Bible by Jesus…never any thought as to how objective such a Jesus was without the Bible). I still have a few items from those days, one recounts a professor at Midwestern describing Abraham’s offering up of Isaac in terms of a pastor of a FBC offering his son on the communion table and cutting out his heart!!! Even in the 60s SEBTS had the reputation of being the most liberal of the seminaries. In 72 I attended that school, and while there was almost kicked out of the doctoral program due to a paper I wrote on the Lausanne Covenant (Billy Graham’s organization’s work) on the article on Inspiration. My grade was a C- without a mark on the paper. The professor was enraged; he ranted and raved for about 15 minutes. A fellow student after class advised me to apologize to the professor. I said, “What for? I didn’t attack him. I never even thought about him.” Any way, I went in and said I was sorry and the professor passed me with a B. (The paper did not have any marks on it, because I had taught Senior Papers at Morehead State in Ky., taught history for two years at SC State, and had delivered a lecture at Columbia Univ. in NY).
I attended the SBC in ’75 in Norfolk, ’77 in St, Louis, in ’85 (the big one), ’86 Atlanta, and several others, including New Orleans in ’90. I did get to the one in Greensboro in 2006. Always I voted, and, David, your analogy of the war is most apt. I thought of the SBC in Atlanta in terms of my ancestors (at least two great great grandfathers) fighting with Johnston from Chattanooga down to Atlanta where Hood took over and lost the battle (Johnston, the only general that Grant said he feared, had fought some of the most brilliant battles ever fought. I forget the number, but the idea of fighting a battle, withdrawing an army from it, retreating, fighting again, and doing it all over again, is considered to be the most difficult of operations in war). Yes, we won, but we also lost something. My ordaining pastor, Dr. Campbell who had spoken out against the liberalism in ’63 voted for the other side in ’90. Why? He claimed we were being used to advance the careers, aims, and ambitions of some people. Years later, I would still disagree with him, but he did have a point. We were losing some of our freedoms as Baptists. In ’85 I had begun to realize that some of our practices were not really founded upon scripture, but upon our own perceptions of Scripture. Take the complementarian issue. How could Sandy Creek have eldresses in the 1700s, when they did not question the word of God? Well, they might have had a better method of study, a more synthetical approach, one that allowed them to be able to deal with apparently contradictory ideas/practices being presented in Holy Scripture.
There is more, but I will cease by saying, “Just because a person is orthodox in precepts and practices, that does not prove, necessarily, that he or she is a Christian. Just consider Judas as an example.”
I always enjoy reading your comments. Fascinating.
Add to 51 years of being an ordained minister, 28 years of actually pastoring, the research of 6 years intensely in church history on the folks who were persecuted through the last 2000 years, 2 yrs of research on I Cors.13, a year or two on Preaching, the same on the first 13 Psalms, 40 years of praying for a great awakening, and sufferings hard to be described, let alone imagined, with blessings like wise hard to be imagined. Thank you Adam G. in NC. I live in Apex. where do you reside. My net address is jimwillingham@att.net
Northeast Franklin County.
I have shared this on a couple of occasions in my blogging history, but think that, for those who have not heard it, it may be a good time to share it again.
A few months before he died, I had a conversation with my dad (Adrian Rogers, for those who may be new to Baptist blogging, and not yet made the connection for one reason or another) about the SBC. He told me at that time what concerned him most about the future of the SBC. He used a term that he would never have used publicly, but a term that he and I both understood. He said that what most concerned him were the “tire-slashers.” That is, as he explained it, those who were more committed to the cause of the CR than the Lord of the CR, the Lord Jesus Himself, and, in some cases, more loyal to certain leaders of the CR than to the principles which fueled the CR. In other words, those who were willing, metaphorically speaking, to go out and slash someone else’s tires as long as it was useful and served to further “the cause.”
Does this mean my dad was becoming more “moderate” in his perspective? Does it mean I am sympathetic to the “moderate” perspective because I choose to share this? In my opinion, not at all, in either case. But it does mean we should all take special care to examine our own hearts with regard to our motives and bottom-line loyalties in whatever cause we should choose to champion or whatever banner we should choose to raise.
David,
Growing up in West Tn, I loved your dad and had as much respect for him as ANY person I knew. I had just graduated from Union and was at the airport when your dad flew in from Houston and the Bellevue church family was there to greet him there. I actually shook his hand that day. I was invited to his office on a couple of occasions later and cherished those meetings one on one. It really amazed me. I still listen to his sermons at times today.
I agree that there are a lot of people who get involved in battles and they follow personalities because they do not care to think out the ramifications of the issues for themselves and there are a lot f people who get worked up over perceived issues that are not really the case. That is a very real problem and people who are true leaders know how to use that to their advantage. From your dad’s perspective, he saw much of the manipulation being used probably on both sides of the isle… and I believe his heart was in the right place.
I believe that today most people’s heart is in the right place on both sides of this issue. It is one thing to argue the merits of the theologies being espoused but it is another to take stands on the political wranglings that are going on in the backgrounds that many people are totally oblivious to. That is a big part of the problem that we are facing as a denomination today at least as I see it. In a lot of respects, your comment hits the nail on the head where the crux of this whole issue is concerned and believe me, there are a LOT of very smart folks that know exactly what they are doing where the politics of the convention are concerned and they are making the MOST of those who don’t.
Remember one other thing: as far as the heart issue is concerned; if the head has someone convinced that they are right, they believe their heart is right. It seems to be a LOT easier to judge the hearts of others than it does our own.
David: I think the Conservatives were awakening to the fact and the reality that, once aroused, men are given to excesses and there is no easy way to ameliorate their vindictiveness. It is hard to think of others, when one wants to lash out. Nevertheless, such is required of God’s people. I have often grieved at the thought of the lady professor put out in the cold with no cancer insurance for her husband by one our institutions. Where was the Christian charity in such action. The same goes for the canning of even those with whom we disagree theologically. None of this is easy.
thank you for remembering that lady, Dr. WILLINGHAM . . .
I understand she is now doing well, but there is no doubt she and her family suffered greatly at the time
Christiane: Note also the reference to eldresses in my comment previous to the one about the lady professor. And thank you.
David,
I thought alot of your dad.
Dave,
Good post.
Points one and two offer a good balance. Where there was error it may have been quite severe as you note in #1. That the problem was pervasive or ubiquitous, your #2 clarifies.
To my way of thinking this intensifies your observations, amplifies them. Your #5 may be the best, even if I think others have rightly pointed out Baptist distinctives, while liberation, also tend toward fracture and fragment. Mark Noll for instance – http://www.toddlittleton.net/baptists-inherently-fractured.
Again, good post. Thanks for reflecting.
Dave
Good post & observations.
I was part of the CR from the beginning. I served on various SBC committees
and eventually served on the board of Southern for 8 years, 3 years as chairman.
In the early days most of us who were involved got involved for the right reasons. But your observations about the creation of the warrior class and fleshly tactics is spot on, and yes there was far too much collateral damage.
After I finished my tenure at SBTS I basically checked out of denominational life; too many bad memories and too much pain. But the truth is you cannot impact change from the sidelines.
So, I encourage young pastors today to stay connected. The good far outweighs the bad. Keep the focus on Jesus and love one another, even and especially those with whom you disagree.
The CR had it’s purpose even though it turned into something that most never intended. Now it’s time to move on. Hope this generation will do a better job than mine did. Blessings.
From the perspective of one coming of age at that time, the CR meant that I didn’t have a place in the SBC of my ancestors and that I grew up in. When I left home at 18, I also left the SBC behind and I haven’t looked back. I follow this site and a few others because I swim in a sea of Southern Baptists, so to speak, and it’s useful to keep an eye on what’s going on. But I’m not a Baptist any more, and I have no regrets.
Dave,
You are very right when you use the word “war,” and that the liberals/moderates were just as mean and acted just as ugly as some conservatives did.
I was in Dallas and Atlanta when we had 40,000 plus show up for the SBC. I saw some liberals act very ugly….even had one get in my face, screaming at me for not voting for Winfred Moore for 1st VP. I mean, he was mad, mad, mad….
Thank God for the CR. If not for the CR, I, too, would NOT be a SB, today.
David
Thanks Dave,
Although sometimes the tactics of the CR left something to be desired, it was still absolutely necessary. All one has to do is look at the CBF and we know the best thing that could have possibly happened was for the liberals to leave.
Dave:
Your experience almost parallels mine exactly, except I went to law school instead of DTS where I had planned on going.
Of course I agreed with the CR and its aims. I cannot imagine what the SBC would be like today if the CR had not been successful. Wait, yes I can. It would be just like the CBF.
There are some wonderful people in the CBF. But the CBF has no doctrinal confession.
That is a flaw of gigantic proportions. In my opinion it really is not charactristic of the Christian faith.
How can we make disciples and teach others what Jesus said if we can’t agree on who Jesus is, whether the Bible contains his words etc.?
So, the spiritual necessity of the CR was very real.
The CR was also necessary from a practical viewpoint. It is simply not healthy for a denomination the size of the SBC to have an elite class in the educational and denominational levels that set the course for the denomination.
The feeling by very many laymen in the SBC in those days, and ministers who trained at the SBC seminaries in the 1950s through the 1970s was that the educational institutions were actually fighting against what the churches were trying to do in establishing love and loyalty for the Lord and the Bible. They were also afraid that other entities like the CLC (now ERLC) took positions and promoted things that were contrary to the beliefs in the churches. Can you imagine having a seminar about sexuality and having someone from Playboy speak?
So from a human standpoint, the CR was an exercise in simple self determination that is a healthy thing.
I do not disagree that all people, of any faith or any persuasion, can be ugly and act out. It happens in religion. It happens in politics. It happens in sports (e.g. the poisoning of the trees at Auburn by an Alabama fan, whom I think is still very unrepentant.)
But I think that is the lesson to learn. Not that there was something unusual about the CR. Humans were involved, so there will be some level of people doing bad things. It’s just that simple.
I personally went to several Conventions, 1985 in Dallas, was in the hotel rooms where the conservative leaders met to socialize and pray, was in the meeting of lawyers (only briefly) who had gathered to figure out how to respond to the motion made by the moderates to wipe out the Committee on Nominations report and substitute the nominees with State Convention Presidents and WMU directors.
I remember the days when motions were made, and the entire platform voted for the Moderate side, as did the Press section. That was always a very interesting visual. The Press people all sat together, and they would vote in a block.
The Moderates that I meet or see today are a very interesting mix. Some have gone to more liberal denominations – like Bob Maddux. He was study body President at Baylor in his day. When I met him he was with Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Now he is an Episcopalean. I am sure he is at home there. But that doesn’t look anything like Baptist Conviction to me.
I also see Moderates who are sad. I see Bill Sherman from time to time. He has done a great job in retirement at a local church in a community outside Nashville. But he watched in shock and horror as Belmont College went in a pro-gay direction. He really could not see it coming. He defended the religion department at Belmont and the administration for decades, saying that they were just as conservative as conservatives. I wondered what planet he was on. The CBF is not far behind on that score. Bill will need some real encouragement if that happens.
I see other Moderates who are now in conservative churches. Some of them still work for the denomination. They act as if nothing has happened.
I see other young Moderate leaders who are really eaten up with politics. That is really what they are about. Theology is secondary or tertiary. They are just trying to keep the CBF, the Alliance or whatever together to have enough funding so that they can have a job somewhere so that they can write and preach about Global Warming, gay issues, immigration, or what have you.
So I say that the CR was necessary. The people involved in it had faults, but that is not a unique trait of the CR.
The warrior class – you are spot on. The SBC is way too bellicose.
I also think that Conservatives have a very bad track record of reaching out for fringe things. That is what the SBC is struggling against today. There are a lot of Christians who major on strange things.
If we could read the Nicean Creed and focus on the topics that it mentions and make our Conventions about that every year, AND we could really make loving each other the cornerstone and emphasis of our behavior, we’ll do o.k.
Louis,
Thank you for your comment… I too flirted with the notion of law school and had a lawyer willing to pay me to go to school if I would just agree to go to work for him when I got out. I did advise him on a couple cases which he was successful in though.
I appreciate more than you will ever know for making the following statement:
The CR was also necessary from a practical viewpoint. It is simply not healthy for a denomination the size of the SBC to have an elite class in the educational and denominational levels that set the course for the denomination.
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.
That was the problem in the late 70’s and sadly it is the problem in the SBC today.
May God bless you.
Bob: It is interesting to find us on the same side. You are quite right about there being no need for an elite class to run the SBC as the Mods seemed to have intended. You are also right as with Dave that the CR was something needed. The only thing we did not figure on was the fact that there would be those who would use it to advance their own causes (i.e., careers, etc. and that at the expense of others). Pathologies come to the fore in situations of conflict. Let there be a psychological abnormality hid in the depths of one’s personality, and it will be evinced in struggles for mastery and success.
While I hold to Sovereign Grace (or calvinism as some call it), I am not blind to the reality that there are those who believe like I do, but whose aims, etc., are inimical to Gospel results. Folks in the Traditionalist mold will find the same problem among their adherents.
My prayers for 40 years (will be this Fall, if I live till then) for a Third Great Awakening are informed by the reality that there are those who would take advantage of even a blessing like that. The same thing can be seen in the days of our Lord, where the disciples were arguing right up until and including the night He was betrayed about the matter of who would be primary in authority in His kingdom. Even so, the blessing is worth the terrible risks, for I consider the possibility of a 1000 generations and the multitudes on millions of planets (if man should spread to the stars) as a distinct and desirable reality from the writings of one of the noted sources of Limited Atonement, Dr. John Owen. Imagine a person of the limited atonement perspective expecting more souls to be saved than one holding to general atonement. Brethren, I am trying to get you to look at and think about your theology, your biblical theology, the most exciting, engaging, enticing, enduring, exciting, exacting, entertaining, enthralling, entrancing, eulogistic expositions of explicit essences of the Divine Everlastingness of the Eternal One in Three.
Dr. Willingham,
I, too, have prayed for years about another Great Awakening. I have also been praying for a real revival in the Church.
May the Lord make it happen.
David
Amen!
Thank you, volfan, Dave. I should expect as much from my Grandma’s home state, and fan of my Great Great Grandfather’s school (Univ. of Tenn.). :).
Dave,
After reading many comments on different threads over several months,
I have found there are many moderates in the SBC today. I think some are now leaning toward the liberal side.
I’ll just give one example, church discipline, this is taught in the scriptures,
and very rarely exercised. Many will say today, oh, let’s smooth this over
and move on. Today, some folks live a life of sin, adultry, fornication,
drunkeness, and pot just to name a few. Smooth it over, church, let’s move on. I think it’s sick. Liberals want to smooth it over.
We need a CR in the churches of today. Great Post Dave.
Bob:
You are welcome. Thank you, too, for your recollections. I also really appreciated Adrian Rogers, and was so pleased to see your affection for him.
Hope I get to run into you sometime.
Thanks.
Likewise. It is nice to have someone that wants to “run into me” as opposed to “running over me”.
Little humor there. I know I am loved!
Bob,
He is a part time Mactruck driver.
Any one who doubts the Mods. use of power should have heard one who was once a member of them and how he got called in to the office of a certain FBC and threatened with a contract in order to get back in line. The word came all the way from Nashville. And he never again pastored any more good churches, but wound up where I was from the get go, pastoring small country churches. He would see the fellow on his death bed who had sent the warning, and lived on for several years. It is sad to think that there are others, people who are fundamental, Bible believing Christians, or so they claim, who will have their eyes to open in horror, when they do not see Heaven but the Lake of Fire, a real reminder of the care we must take to be sure that we “in the faith.” I once heard a fellow preach on that text, and I wondered what his end was. As I draw near to that time, I look on the Lord Jesus Christ as my only hope and all that I did for Him as of little consequence. In fact, as nothing in comparison to what He did in dying on the Cross for my sins.
I’ve said it about 100 times. The biggest problem in the SBC today is not Calvinism or Traditionalism or any of the other issues we fight about. It is that there has been no one of Adrian Rogers’ stature who could inspire us.
I think Dr. Page may have the ability to be such a man. He’s the closest we have. Other than David Worley, of course.
Lol
Dave,
I’ve never found theological compromise very inspiring.
Perhaps, the knowledge of how to work out compromises wherein every participant feels like a gainer? Cf. John Leland and the compromise between the Separates and Regulars.
Well, OK then. I reckon this puts it all in perspective, don’t it fellows? I am really glad it is all finally cleared up and everyone has perfect clarity.
Do clarify!
I’m not sure whether this comment was directed at my post, or at a particular comment.
But, for the record, my view of the CR was clarified largely by conversations with an unnamed source with the initials CB.
Dave,
The comment was directed toward a couple of comments in the thread.
The post, your post, is a well developed presentation of specific realities of the the CR. Had the CR not happened, none of the guys who often fight here over Calvinism would be here fighting over Calvinism. Most would have no idea what Calvinism is nor would they care because they would be theological dwarves bred and birthed by theological dwarves and godless liberals in Baptist pulpits and seminary classrooms.
They would be fighting over professing homosexuals, lesbians, and heterosexual serial-marriage adulterers and whore-mongers and abortion advocates teaching Old Testament, theology, or Greek in their seminaries.
As for the warriors? The SBC needed us to do what we did at the time we did it. Had some not been willing to “go for the jugular” the cause would have been lost. Overall what we did was right. Did we make some bad decisions? Yes. Yes we did. Were there any sinful actions on the part of CR warriors? Yes. Some of us did sinful things. Have any of us repented and sought forgiveness from God and the people we hurt? Yes we have. Do any of us live with regrets? Yes. Yes we do. That is the way it is with a true warrior. No matter the war or kind of war or cause it was or is, the true warrior lives with regrets.
CB,
I love your comment here brother. All my favorite preachers are old CR warriors. They pulled off, with the help of God, what no other main line denomination has ever done once started in that direction and that’s come back from the brink of apostacy. Because liberalism always leads to wholesale apostacy.
I will tell you folks a story. When I went to the SBC in ’63 to vote to save the convention from liberalism, I stayed in private housing (arranged then through the convention. My room mate was a western pastor from Northern New Mexico, Brother Estes Hardy, whose church had sent him on the Sante Fe Chief (passenger train, a streamliner) to as he said, “Save the Convention from Liberalism.” Brother Hardy, originally from Oklahoma, had gone to New Mexico due to a lung problem. During his service in Oklahoma, he had a call from a child to come home cause Daddy was threatening to shoot momma. Seems that Daddy was an old time outlaw, one of the Doolin gang family members. He had broken out of prison to come and kill his wife, because she had divorced him and married someone else. Anyway, Brother Hardy went over and found the man lying behind a hedge that surrounded the house (hedges to restrain the wind and dust of the prairies) with a rifle in his hands. He turned and threatened to shoot the preacher. Brother Hardy began talking to him. Eventually, he slipped up and sat down beside him, won him to Christ, reached out and took the rifle and then persuaded the man to turn himself in and go back to prison.
Them old Western Preachers were real dillies, fearing no one but God. One of them I heard about took two western guns into the pulpit with him and laid them on the pulpit. Needless to say, no one felt called upon to oppose that preacher.
Some, of course, were murdered for preaching the Gospel. People do become enraged, when one is preaching the truth. Billy Sunday was once told, “You stroked that cat’s fur the wrong way.” Billy answered, “Let that cat turn around.”
Thanks Dave. I also lived through the CR and was a supporter of it.
At the ’83 Convention in Pittsburgh, I had the opportunity to attend one of those famous hotel-room strategy meetings. Well known CR leaders, names you would recognize, were present. On that day I became disillusioned with the movement. I walked away, deciding that I would continue to cast my votes for leaders who were, to the best of my knowledge, biblical conservatives but that I would not be involved in the CR at the strategy level. That decision cost me. Those who were more vocal in trying to expose unethical tactics among CR’s leadership ranks, it cost them far more. In those days, one could be labeled ‘moderate’ based on the scantest of evidence and that label would go virtually unchallenged. Good people were marginalized for no reason other than some insider’s speculation about them. And persons who were not particularly qualified were given responsibilities because they could be trusted to do what they were told to do.
Some things I observed:
– I heard the names of persons proposed as possible candidates for leadership positions summarily dismissed because they were labeled “unreliable” by someone in the room.
– I heard things like: “He’s charismatic.” “He’s criticized Bill Gothard.” “We need to be careful with these Calvinists.” “He doesn’t give an invitation.” “His son’s in one of those Christian rock and roll groups.” “Put them in room 214; the reservation’s under [name].”
– I heard a torrent of criticism unleashed toward Joel Gregory because Gregory suggested that we needed to avoid making shibboleths out of tertiary doctrines.
Good has come out of the CR but there has been collateral damage. There are still wounded soldiers whom to this day have not found safe haven in the SBC. There have been vague acknowledgements that some unfortunate tactics were used to advance the CR but virtually no repentance.
I have no wish to go on a crusade to tarnish the legacies of flawed men whom God used. Yet I would like to make some effort to acknowledge and to restore those who were hurt by their flaws.
I repent for my silence. I should have been more vocal in exposing what I saw, even if it meant sabotaging opportunities I might have had. I was a coward.
Blessings.
The fact is that anyone who wants to say that such politicizing didn’t go on is ignoring the truth. It went on long before the CR, and it continues to today. It will be here after we are all dead and gone. It is present in every agency of the SBC. It is about power and prestige. It is about names and places. There are plenty of good and godly people who are willing to serve but who will never get the opportunity because they aren’t connected to the proper people, don’t live in the right locale, didn’t go to the right school, or don’t hold to the right theology. It is a game we play.
With all due respect to Criswell, Rogers, and Stanley (all men whom I admire and I have no bone to pick with any of them) as well as a host of others, they played that game and won. Hotel room meetings and convention center hallway decisions were instrumental in the CR.
Now the tide has turned to other issues. Mohler is the most prominent among the powerful names of the day. If you think that those in positions of denominational prominence such as seminary presidents, agency heads, board presidents, and mega-church pastors don’t use their influence in a political way, you’re ignoring the truth. The up-and-coming “golden boys” will be promoted and touted as the best and brightest for our future, and they’ll learn how to play the game too. Maybe I’m just being cynical……..
Thank you for sharing this insight.
Likely, many who followed the leaders and directors of the CR knew little about the ‘inside workings’ that you describe here,
but DAVID’s post together with your comment do provide me with more understanding, as a student of Southern Baptist beliefs and practice.
John Wallace:
I have been in meetings like that, too. I have heard people who were asked what they thought of people who might be nominated to the Committee on Committees or the Committee on Boards (the old name) or as Trustees.
I certainly cannot speak for the meeting that you were in.
But the meetings that I have been in had similar discussions, but they were not for the purpose of maligning people. The purpose was to try and determine with the collective knowledge of the group whether they had heard anything that would cause them to believe that this person, though conservative, might get on a committee or a board and have allegiances or feelings that might cause them to go weak if the time came to act.
I know one very prominent pastor, for example, who if you heard his preaching would think that he was a conservative fire brand and woud walk through a wall of flames to do the right thing. But there was concern about him because he had a lucrative contract with the then Radio and Television Commission, and many were afraid that if he voted in a way that upset the denominational leaders that the contract might be threatened. So, he was not recommended for a slot.
There were others who were conservative, but they also had said some negative things about conservative leaders, so there was concern that they might not be willing to be bold in a controversial situation.
As you know, various conservatives had been trying to “save the Convention” since the 1930s. You see Dr. Willingham’s reference to a meeting in the early 1960s when conservatives came to “save the convention.” But despite all of the vocal conservatives in those annual meetings, the SBC boards and agencies did not get more conservative.
The leaders of the CR knew that they basically had one chance to get it right. They could elect Adrian Rogers, but if Roger’s appointments or the trustee boad nominees could be watered down just a bit, the institutions would end up with boards that were too timid to act.
The CR leaders knew that what were needed were not just “conservatives,” but “movement conservatives.” Movement Conservatives were people who really saw the probelm very clearly and were willing to act. Adrian Rogers was like that.
There were conservatives of all stripes back then. Some were movement conservatives, some were friendly conservatives, some were fair weather conservatives, and some lived in both worlds.
It is unfortunate if people are wrongly tarnished. That should never happen.
But I can understand why men like Paul Pressler and Paige Patterson, who had taken so much personal heat and threats from others wanted to be very careful about whom they recommended for boards etc. People really do forget, and most people don’t know the half of it. The Moderate Convention leaders and their cronies were not going away quietly.
When you can enlist a guy like Bill Moyers to make a T.V. show about what was going on, you have all of the editors of the State Baptist papers (except Indiana, I believe), all of the Seminary Presidents, the FMB President, the President of the Sunday School Board and other agency heads and such to support you, you are very powerful.
Upsetting that applecart by changing committees and trustees was only going to happen with a careful selection of the right people. And deciding who is right for a certain job is an important task.
Again, I agree with you that no one should be lied about.
But I know plenty of biblical conservatives today whom I love and admire. But if I were asked whether they would make good committee members or good trustees in 1982 or 1983, I would have to say “no.”
They had divided loyalties, and they were just not far enough along in their conviction or something that caused me to believe that they would “go wobbly” when the pressure was on.
I think of one guy in our city in particular. Pastors a big church. Great speaker. Conservative. But he hid behind his desk in the days of the CR. And in every committee I know that he ever served on he did not lead to make a sound, biblically based decision. He was always trying to forge a compromise, and the compromise always ended up selling biblical principle down the river.
It kind of reminds me of the U.S. Supreme Court selections. Conservative Presidents have made several bad picks – Douglas, Warren, Blackman, Souter (sp?), Kennedy.
But they have had good picks, too.
In each case, however, a lot of discussion, analysis and frank talk has gone into whether the potential nominees would make good Justices.
Christians in the SBC should be every bit as careful. Committee positions and trustee positions should not go to friends, nice guys, guys with big churches, guys who are timid or love position more than being right.
So, I am with you. Wrongfully attacking people is unnecessary. But there were a lot of fine people in those days who I am very glad were not selected to serve on committees or boards.
LOUIS,
your comment also provides insight for me into what happened and why, and thank you for sharing this, as I will add it to David’s post and Mr. Wallace’s comment as a source of what can help me to understand the events of those days,
and to provide insight into some of what followed that caused concern as well.
Thanks, Louis, for responding. I appreciate your perspective. Your experience seems to have been more positive than mine.
Thank you for acknowledging that lying about people should not have been tolerated. I agree. I didn’t witness much outright lying about people but saw plenty of innuendo.
And thank you also for pointing out that CR leaders needed to have frank discussions in an attempt to identify weak conservatives who would likely compromise under pressure for the sake of peace. That is fair.
In my experience, things went farther: As you say, some were marginalized because “they also had said some negative things about conservative leaders.” Wow.
In light of what you wrote, can you understand why some of us, regrettably, quietly kept our distance when we saw less-than-ethical tactics being employed by CR operatives? We weren’t afraid of the moderates; we weren’t hedging our bets; we were young men trying to keep our consciences clear without alienating ourselves from the people whose agenda we supported.
Can you understand Adrian Rogers’ warning about the “tire slashers…those who were more committed to the cause of the CR than the Lord of the CR.”? Those tire slashers were “movement conservatives”, as you call them (I don’t mean to characterize all movement conservatives as tire slashers.).
Should we not be concerned about the affect our past tactics are having on the ethos of our convention today? More than a few young pastors are now embracing authoritarian leadership models. They are surrounding themselves with loyalists and characterizing conscientious dissent as opposition to God. They say it is “necessary” to protect their DNA. Is it possible that our tactics have had a hand in generating this kind of thinking?
Louis, please take this in the generic sense and not as a direct response to your comment. Saying that tactics were necessary is not sufficient justification. Neither is saying that what we had tried in the past hadn’t worked. There are no godly ends that are accomplished through ungodly means. I think you would agree.
Peace.
I have read this thread several times over and cannot remain silent any longer.
I never attended a Baptist undergraduate institution, so I have no firsthand information about them. I went to a Methodist college, majored in Physics, and was not even a Christian then.
Did some moderates threaten conservatives? I have no personal knowledge of it one way or another, but when you consider that there are 16 million of us “more or less,” some are going to be emotionally and spiritually immature regardless of the theology they espouse. Plus, the sort of tactics that were being used at that time tends, human nature being fallen as it is, to spread to “tire slashers” regardless of their theology. Was there, pre-1979, a “good ole’ boys club” that essentially ran the SBC? I don’t know, possibly; but then again, my pastor at that time was as conservative as any I knew, and he was a trustee at NOBTS. Did some people in the SBC have truly liberal views on the Bible, or theology, or Jesus? None I ever knew, and that includes a lot of professors at the old SEBTS; but then “liberal” always depends on what yardstick you are using. I know there were a couple of churches in NC (Binkly Memorial in the Chapel Hill area and Wake Forest in Winston-Salem) that were truely liberal, but I never knew anyone there. I never heard anyone at SEBTS deny the inspiration of the Bible, though most did not subscribe to a verbal plenary theory. I never heard any deny the divinity of Christ. I never heard deny a bodily resurrection. I never heard any deny the power of the cross, though not all agreed with the theory of substitutionary atonement. Were there professors who graded by whether they agreed with you or not? If so, they should have been turned out of teaching!
That reminds me of a situation in a NT class I had at SEBTS. One assignment was to write a paper on who wrote the books attributed to Paul. As I recall it, myself and one other student took the position that Paul wrote most/all of them. His paper amounted to “The inerrant Bible says Paul wrote everything from Romans through Hebrews, and that settles it.” He got a D. I took an historical perspective appealing to various church fathers, ancient historians, and linguists, and even brought in the works of various “liberal” and non-SBC interpreters. And while I stopped short of attributing Hebrews to Paul, I got an A on my paper. I guess what I am saying is (1) that the professor respected actual hard work even if he disagreed with it while just claiming something was not sound academically regardless of one’s theology, and (2) as an old saying goes, you generally find what you are looking for. I went to SEBTS seeking an education, and people who would honestly seek truth and listen to me, and be fair, and I found exactly that. Others went looking for heresy, or for conflict, or for faults, and guess what? They found them!
OK, I have it out of my system. Go ahead and attack, and prove Dave right about the CR creating a “warrior class” that is always in attack mode.
John
Another helpful (and refreshing) comment . . . good to get recollections of that time from a variety of points of view
John,
There were true liberals, out there, back in the day. They did exist. Dave has told you about some of them that he, personally, dealt with…heard…and saw with his own eyes and ears. We had liberal Pastors and Profs, who believed in women Pastors….who denied that Jesus was the only way to Heaven….who believed that the Bible had errors in it; not translations-the Bible…..who denied the existence of the Devil and Hell; or who said that there were 2 Devils; that Satan and the Devil were 2 different beings….who denied the physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead….who said that God is our Mother…and a whole host of other things, which would be considered denying the faith. There were people steeped in doctrinal error. There were being spreading unsound doctrine. There really were heretics amongst us.
Also, when we see the CBF of today, and all the things, which they believe and take stands on…..THANK GOD FOR THE CR!
David
David, you said, “We had liberal Pastors and Profs, who believed in women Pastors,” OK, true enough; though I would argue that does not make one a “classic” liberal, or necessarily mean one denies the Bible, but only that one interprets it differently.
The you added, “We had liberal Pastors and Profs …. who denied that Jesus was the only way to Heaven….who believed that the Bible had errors in it; not translations-the Bible…..who denied the existence of the Devil and Hell; or who said that there were 2 Devils; that Satan and the Devil were 2 different beings….who denied the physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead….who said that God is our Mother.” Can you document and attribute such statements, or is it just hearsay?
In the years I spent at SEBTS, I never heard any professor spout nonsense like that. On the contrary, I recall one professor, I think it was Dr. John Eddins (nobody’s fundamentalist), ridicule the group of true liberals. in “The Jesus Seminar,” I think it was. I never heard any use the “God Mother” language, though I remember one expressing that children who had a sexually abusive (human) father had difficulty relating to the idea of God as “Father,” and perhaps other language might be better for them. I recall one professor (I cannot recall his name just now) who expressed doubts that that was ever one unified version of some Old Testament books, but that is a far cry from denying either its validity or its inspiration, though it does encroach on the verbal plenary or dictation theory. But again: I would maintain there is a difference in denying the Bible and disagreeing with a certain interpretation thereof.
Finally I go back to my main point: the matters brought up in the post were not my experience at SEBTS. That yours was different does not change what my experience was.
John
John,
The question is not whether it was possible to get an education at SEBTS or how anyone graded. The questions involved are simply these:
1. Was SEBTS pre-1979 funded by Cooperative Program dollars?
2. When raising Cooperative Program dollars pre-1979, did SBC leadership go to SBC churches and say, “Don’t worry, all of our professors believe that the Bible is inspired in at least some way or another, and that the cross has some sort of power in it,” or were they, instead, going around to the churches pointing to the wording of the Baptist Faith & Message and raising money on the basis that the convention’s ministries were being performed in accordance with and not contrary to the BF&M’s statement that the Bible is “truth, without any mixture of error”?
3. When the contributors to the Cooperative Program grew concerned about what was being taught in seminaries, were seminary professors and administrators honest and forthright with the people in the churches, or did they engage in “doublespeak” as Ralph Elliott has asserted? Is Ralph Elliott lying about his observations? What reason would Ralph Elliott have for lying? What reason would his colleagues and other academicians have for never having set the record straight about his lying, if he were lying?
4. Are the employees of Southern Baptist entities entitled to their continued employment as a fundamental human right, or do they conduct their jobs in accountability to the trustees of their agencies, who in turn have a fiduciary responsibility to the Southern Baptist Convention, who in turn has a moral responsibility to the churches who are funding the Cooperative Program ministries of the churches?
5. In what manner could the people of the SBC, if aggrieved about what was being taught at their seminaries, have fired the whole lot and replaced them with faculty and staff of their liking that would have met with your approval?
Yep, what Bart said.
You sound like a lawyer, Bart.
Most participants in the CR surely didn’t approach it in such an analytical way.
A really nasty decade-long battle. Frankly, the failure of moderates was that they were late responding, disorganized, at times their own worst enemy AND not nasty enough.
Fight fire with fire. And there was certainly no moderate equivalent of the Southern Baptist Journal or Southern Baptist Advocate. There was no moderate version of James Hefley. And there was no moderate Russ Kammerlings and Roger Morans.
And maybe all that was a good thing. Y’all just love a good fight. It’s a new lively story every couple of months. Louisiana College. Campbellsville. etc. I don’t see how any of those problems are going to disappear anytime soon….unless the Calvinists get raptured or something 🙂
Almost every one if the state papers was moderate controlled and often vitriolic. I lived in Texas and VA. Those papers made no attempt at balance.
And I think, from my observations, that the idea that the moderates were innocent, disorganized and that they were too nice strains credulity. Why would they need other papers when BP carried water for them?
The difference between the sides was not in tenor or tactics, but that conservatives were able to produce voting majorities at conventions
“And I think, from my observations, that the ideas that the moderates were innocent, disorganized and that they were too nice strains credulity.”
Frankly, to state the liberals and moderates (there were many liberals) “were innocent, disorganized and that they were too nice strains credulity” is far more than just a strain of credulity. It is completely false, especially if you were a conservative serving in NC or VA.
Also, the greatest “difference” was and still is; We conservatives were right and the moderates were wrong and the liberals were long gone and wickedly wrong.
The editors of the VA papers were liberal to the core of their being. They also had no great problem with putting things in print that were somewhat less than true. (my saying “somewhat less than true” is due to my being older and kinder in my old age so I don’t just call them lying dogs anymore.)
Was my comment deleted? Why?
I’m not the comment police, but there is a comment from you on up the thread at about the #19 spot. Is that the one to which you refer?
That was for BDW. Threading has collapsed.
No, I left another comment in reply to Bart. Dave clearly responded to that comment because he referenced my use of “disorganized.” That comment is gone.
I now suspect it got yanked for a reference to Calvinism.
I deleted no comments
I see it now. A technical glitch perhaps.
My gut reaction must make me more like a SBCer than I originally thought – #malware
🙂
No, moderator glitch
Evidently I did delete that comment. Unintended. Working on my phone leads to trouble.
Exactly, Dave. Also, the liberals controlled all the boards and committees…they controlled all the entities….and very few non liberals/moderates were ever asked to serve in these spots. They always made sure they had a vast majority…..to keep control.
And, it was the same way, here, in the TN Bapt. Conv. Thanks God, it’s not that way, anymore in TN.
David
“You sound like a lawyer, Bart.”
Just spent three months on the Constitution & Bylaws Review Committee for SBTC. Lots of work with lawyers. Perhaps it is rubbing off.
Taking off the lawyer hat and turning to things historical, BDW, what would you say was the average frequency of discordant disagreements in the SBC pre-1979, under the previous regime? Also, are you suggesting that the BGCT has been without controversy since 1998? The CBF?
Strife and contentiousness are definitely a problem. I think you err, though, in classifying as a “y’all” problem that which appears to me to be a “we” problem.
Sounds a lot like “pickle theology.” What is the responsibility of a professor toward God? Is his/her first allegiance to Christ, or to a human being? If things were left up to a majority vote of the constituents of the SBC, our churches and institutions (civic and religious as well) would still be segregated, based on the SBC of 1960. For that matter, go back to the SBC of 1860, and we’d still have slavery.
John
John, we have a confession that spells out what we believe. Someone is free to NOT believe what we believe. But if they do not believe as we believe, they ought not draw their salary from the offerings of those with whom they disagree, then try to convince the students from those churches that what we commonly believe is wrong.
I remember my liberal college professors essentially ridiculing Sunday school, telling us that we needed to leave behind what we were taught in Sunday School, etc.
Professors ought to challenge our thinking, but not undermine our confession. It is a fine line.
John,
People like Martin Luther demonstrate their first allegiance to Christ by taking a stand and risking persecution or death for their convictions. I can’t think of a single convictional Christian with integrity in the history of Christianity whose theory was that folks ought to be able to demonstrate their “first allegiance to Christ” by being pampered, unaccountable, and entitled to a paycheck with no questions asked.
Also, it is no demonstration of an allegiance to Christ to denounce His word as riddled with errors and unreliable.
To Dave, vol fan, & others: I said in my initial comment that I could not address what professors in any Baptist colleges said, because I never attended one. If they said/did any of the things you claim (such as forget everything you learned in Sunday school–though some Sunday School stuff should be forgotten, or agree with me or suffer a bad grade, etc.), then it is a sign of emotional and spiritual immaturity, and should have been discharged for it. But that hardly means every institution should be purged of everyone for the sin of a few.
Dave, you said, “But if (professors) do not believe as we believe, they ought not draw their salary from the offerings of those with whom they disagree, then try to convince the students from those churches that what we commonly believe is wrong.” You are making a lot of assumptions in this statement, notably that there is a discernable body of belief/doctrine in “what we commonly believe,” at least if by “we” you mean entire congregations and not just those relatively few pastors and messengers who come to the conventions. And if you mean the BF&M, then you have to concede it is a creed and not a confession/consensus of opinion document. And is this not uncomfortably close to creating a “magisterium of the mob”? Is it not saying that “The SBC would rather continue its course than be right? What if professors feel a great loyalty to the SBC and believe they should try to influence it from within with interpretations different from the “majority”?
And to Bart: not agreeing with either the doctrine of inerrancy or choosing not to use the word because to do so requires too many qualifications is NOT equivilent with saying that the Bible is, “riddled with errors and unreliable.” To make that claim may make for a good sound bite to play to the pews or the CR “faithful,” but it requires a leap of logic that goes beyond anything that the vast majority of so-called “moderates” and even many (if not most) of the few SBC “liberals” ever said.
John
To John Wallace: John I attended SEBTS from ’72-’76, taking the M.Div in ’74 and the D.Min. in ’76. I, too, wrote a paper, one that almost flunked me out of my doctoral program. It was in a class on Missions and Theology, and I wrote on the Billy Graham Evangelistic Organization’s Lausanne Covenant, specifically, the article on inspiration of Scripture, defending verbal inspiration (which is not a theory, but is actually taught by Jesus Himself, if we accept that the report of Him speaking in Matt. 22is accurate, along with Jn. 10:34-36, not to mention some other passages bearing on the issue or reliability and validity. The paper was footnoted, any discussion of anyone controversial was reserved for the footnotes. The professor was enraged; he actually pitched a fit and ranted and raved for about 15 minutes, something I had not seen in the colleges and universities that I had attended. I had even taught in one of the schools I attended, delivered a lecture in a ivy league university in Black History, and taught history for two years at SC State, ’70-72, as an Instructor in History. The professor gave me a C- in red without any marks. What he was upset with was the view point; I had done the paper according to the requirements. I passed the course with a B, after telling him I was sorry, when I had done nothing wrong in writing the paper. There were professors at SEBTS who used the so-called Higher Critical Approach, and the results of their use of that method raised serious doubts about the veracity of Scripture. When students questioned such approach, they were usually handled rather superficially according to my way of thinking. The professors I had were not quite sure what to do with me, however, due to the fact that Intellectualism (American, specifically) was my specialty in History and I had been an Atheist before my conversion. One professor during my M.Div., actually introduced an idea that I knew led to full blown Atheism so I thought I would demonstrate it. I began reasoning about the idea and came to the conclusion of such unbelief. The professor was shocked.
One professor I had apparently rejected the Virgin Birth, but I never engaged any of them on their own personal commitments. And one student who had attacked a resident German Theologue, I told him he owed the professor an apology as his attack was not on the idea but on the personality….The student set out to set right what he had done wrong. However, due to my advocacy of the validity and reliability of Holy Scripture and, specifically, the word inspiration of Scripture (Jesus built his doctrines of the resurrection and His deity upon the exact meaning of words in the Matt.22 verses and called the scripture the word of God in Jn.10., I paid a price in being stuck in small country or town churches. Imagine pastoring 40-50 people while having a doctorate and two (later three) masters and 18 hrs toward a Ph.D.(12 of it at an ivy league university where I wrote a prospectus for a doctoral dissertation and delivered a lecture. My doctor of ministry project was on Christian Love & Race Relations, done without the support or backing of the seminary when it was the most liberal in the SBC. In fact, my project director had the termerity to say to me, “You ought to have known better than to select a controversial topic like that. If that church fires you, I will be right there behind them, supporting them.” When I got the project done without getting fired, he started to nit picking my writing to death….until I blew up, called the President of the Seminary and threatened to go not to the Board of Trustees but straight to the floor of the Southern Baptist Convention and raise the biggest stink ever seen. That was on Friday. By Tuesday the project was approved, and the Friday after that Tuesday I attended the Baccalaureate and the next day received my doctoral degree.
A friend of mine, a real intellectual, had his grade drop in one class from an A to a B, when he asked one question. And this was a man who had worked at the National Institute of Health and had tea with his boss and Dr. Fleming, the discoverer of pencillin every afternoon, a fellow who had a Master of Liberal Studies from John’s College in Maryland. Such ways of teaching hardly reflected the healthy give and take of the usual university courses, at least, as I experienced such an education as a student in up to 8 colleges and universities (up to that point) and having taught in 2 and lectured in one. I understand that it is now changing, especially with humanism, secularism, and marxism becoming dominant and controlling in the Postmodern era. Neither the faculty nor the students allow for dissent now, it would seem.
Wow. When I did my PhD work at SWBTS, I got some pushback from the more moderate professors but nothing like this.
I’d argue that conservative college and seminary doctoral programs are way more tolerant of liberal approaches in academics than liberal colleges and seminaries are of conservative approaches. Want to get shouted down? Try speaking out in favor of some conservative topic on one of today’s college campuses. Want to have a discussion? Bring up a liberal topic in a conservative professor’s doctoral seminar.
You state the truth, Duckman Dale.
There is no meaner creature on earth than a liberal backed into a corner by irrefutable truth. They “can’t handle the truth!”
Duckman and CB are spot on. This has also been my experience, as well. Liberals turn mean and ugly and nasty when you disagree with them.
David
And they don’t even attempt to hide their intolerance of our “intolerance.” It’s amazing, illogical, and idiotic.
Dale, didn’t you and CB read all of my statement? That part where I spoke of the students and faculties of the Postmodern era not allow dissent?
I did indeed see that sir. Was simply adding my proverbial 2 pennies and agreement.
James,
I do read your comments. That is why I sometimes send you emails. Remember?
I think you both needed a nap before hand.
Well, I do sometimes like a nap, but I can’t see how it would have benefited my reading of your comment.
For anyone who wants to know what was happening, as it happened, I recommend “The Truth in Crisis: The Controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention (Vol. 1)” by James Hefley. It is a 5 volume set, but vol. 2-4 do get a bit tedious. Vol 1 is most interesting and was written pretty much as the events were taking place. This is a very fair and objective. His biases are admitted early.
A very interesting view from the other side of the CR:
“Once There Was a Camelot”: Women Doctoral Graduates of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1982-1992, Talk about the Seminary, the Fundamentalist Takeover, and Their Lives Since SBTS
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.rande.org/SHAW.doc&sa=U&ei=ED97UdbQEJOk8ASPk4C4AQ&ved=0CBoQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFSebBM06WQv3bdTMEPKU_vgXQ4eg
Interesting article.
Early on, the authors reveal that over 10% of the female PhD and EdD graduates of Southern Seminary during the period 1982-1992 are lesbians.
William Thornton,
SEBTS had similar issues back in the day.
I can vouch for the same problems in the student population at GGBTS during that time. Of course, San Francisco is just across the Bay….
To BDW: The Moderates did play nasty, too. with the Conservatives and with their own who got out of line. Too bad, my friend who was threatened with a mafia hit contract is deceased (of natural causes) and is not here to tell his story. Too bad, some conservatives do not believe the story of the dodekers (Greek for the Twelve, an organization that might have begun around the turn of 1900 to put libs in leading pulpits and positions throughout the convention. Too bad that not many believe the DOMS were set up to receive CP funds from the State Conventions so the Moderates could control the assns even down to who got what local church, not that it was all encompassing, but it sought to be. One fellow in the early 50s was setting on the platform at the state convention and over heard the Exec Sect. telling leading pastors as he passed out slips of papers with names to call this member of this pulpit committee and tell him that we want this fellow there…or tell that person of that committee that we don’t want that person there. And there were incidental coalitions to get rid of folks considered unwanted or undesirable, but that, I suppose, is rather natural. Or how about the official of the state convention calling a chairman of a pulpit committee in another state, when he heard from the DOM that such and such fellow had not told the committee that was without the chairman such and such info., and the chairman tells the committee, we don’t want this fellow cause…..The Moderates paid hard ball, down to the point of getting preachers fired from churches by any means available, by hook or crook. It is also true that conservatives, be they calvinists (really Sovereign Grace believers, and the original theology, and the perspective I hold) or traditionalists can and often do resort to the same base and evil tactics, to their own detriment and harm, to the damaging of the cause of the God, as far as He will allow it and for which He will hold all who do such things responsible.
The privilege of 51 years as an ordained Southern Baptist minister (it will be May 20) does give one the perspective of the long view. One thing that would be helpful to all of us is the fear of God, a reverence for our Lord and His cause, a fear to disobey, a fear of the consequences of doing evil, an awe of such being that makes one walk softly, speak carefully, and act submissively in a way that contributes to the building up of His cause. Like my grandfather’s brother who had served in four wars (Spanish American, Philippine, WWI, and WWII) and had been in hand to hand combat said, “I fear no man, but I do fear God. I do fear Him.”
Deleted comments??
There is an answer to this mystery. It was the CR Ghost. He also called out the Park Rangers to run Randall Lolley and company out of the Alamo in 1988.
John Wallace and John Farris thank you for your comments. I have had similar experiences to yours. I also have never heard a SB professor deny the virgin birth, deity of Christ, salvation by grace or the other core beliefs mentioned on this site. I am sorry for those who have experienced this. I and others I know wanted to believe that the CR was based on conservative theological principles but were disillusioned early in the process by the activities and the type of people put in places of leadership. I believe David Rogers called them tire-slashers.
For my old friend Dave Miller, I would agree with the sentiment and most of the content in your following statements, 2) The CR had too much collateral damage, 3) The CR created a warrior class, 4) CR Warriors sometimes fought with fleshly tactics, 5) The CR won the war, but did we lose the peace. Not long ago making those statements would have labeled you as a liberal by the CR supporters and you would have been one of those John Wallace referred to being called unreliable by the CR elite. I hope you will continue to repeat the following statement you made, “From my observations, the number of liberals in the SBC was relatively small.”
For the record, I am a theological conservative and an inerrantist. I have no problem supporting the CR when they are truly supporting conservative theology. I support the firing of people like Temp Sparkman, Ralph Elliot, Paul Simmons and other seminary professors that deny the truth of scripture and teach outside clear Southern Baptist doctrine. The problem is probably 95% of things done in the name of the CR have nothing to do with theology and are all about power and control. I will try to explain why as a theological conservative and an inerrantist I could not support the CR based on my firsthand knowledge and of the CR and its disregard for truth. I think CB can testify that even he lost a job because he spoke the truth about the actions of one of the CR leaders.
I am a fifth generation Arkansas Baptist. I attended a Southern Baptist College, Ouachita Baptist University. I graduated from Southwestern Seminary. I was appointed by the FMB in 1978 and retired from the IMB in 2010. None of these Southern Baptist entities have experienced a conservative resurgence but they have all been harmed by the CR political movement. Each one was solidly conservative before the resurgence started and has remained conservative but have been attacked and slandered by CR leaders. How can anyone say there has been a conservative resurgence in the SBC when its largest entity, the IMB, and its largest seminary, SWBTS, and most state conventions have not experienced a theological conservative resurgence?
In Arkansas, CR leaders Joe Atchison and Ronnie Floyd ran campaigns complete with highly organized district and associational leaders to get out the vote and report on who could be trusted. Mail outs were sent throughout the state attacking state convention leaders and anyone who was considered an opponent. They even labeled Mike Huckabee a moderate when he ran for convention president against their candidate. Thankfully theological conservatives rejected their candidates overwhelmingly. These same CR leaders tried to load the trustee board of Ouachita with their supporters and again theological conservatives rejected their nominations and protected the strong theologically sound reputation of our university from politically motivated CR leaders.
In 1986 the SBC peace committee visited Southwestern Seminary and said there were no serious deficiencies to address. In fact they wrote, “Our committee feels that Southwestern is solid in every area and at the heart of traditional Southern Baptist History.” The Peace Committee contained Jerry Vines, Ed Young and Adrian Rogers as its members. You would think that if there were theological problems at Southwestern Seminary they would have been brought up and addressed by these men at this time. In 1993, CR leader Damon Shook, as chairman of the SWBTS trustees issued the following suggestion to Russell Dilday. “While faculty recommendations have been conservative biblically and theologically, efforts should be made to recommend faculty who are also conservative politically.” In other words those who support the Patterson/Pressler takeover of the convention. To me this shows again that even their own leaders believe the CR is not theological but political. Shortly after this Russell Dilday was fired because refused to go along with the political activities of the trustees. Ken Hemphill was brought in but after a short time he was forced out because he refused to fire the theologically conservative faculty members and replace them with political appointees. They then brought in Paige Patterson as president because they knew he would have no problem firing anyone if it helped him politically.
David, did you notice a man named Ron Wilson who spoke several times at the SBC convention last year asking questions of the IMB and NAMB insinuating problems at those institutions. This is the same man Paul Pressler named a “hero of the CR” in his book. While serving as a trustee of the IMB in an infamous letter he stated that the IMB was controlled by liberals before the takeover and that we missionaries were neo-orthodox and had been exporting heresy all over the world for the last 25 years. When I told other trustees and other CR leaders this was false and asked for their comments they would not reply. They did not have the courage to say they agreed with Wilson because they knew it was a lie. They did not have the courage to say they disagreed with Wilson because they knew the CR leaders would punish them for telling the truth. Wilson was rewarded for this slander by CR leaders by being appointed to the NAMB for two terms where he could continue his politically motivated activities. The IMB was always solid theologically but that did not keep our missionaries and leaders from being attacked and slandered. We learned if we depended on the CR to support us and speak the truth we would be disappointed. If David Rogers reads this post, since he served with the IMB, perhaps he would comment on whether or not the attacks on our missionaries and Keith Parks and Jerry Rankin were theological or political. Were these trustees examples of the tire-slashers you mentioned?
Again why should I say the CR was needed or was a good thing when no SBC entity I am associated with experienced or needed a conservative theological resurgence and all have been harmed and attacked by CR leaders?
If David will allow I would like to posts two case studies later today on the CR and its influence get responses from CR supporters on what it says about the motivation of the CR.
Ron West
Ron,
First off, good to see you here. It’s been a while. Last I remember, it seems you were near retirement. Are you stateside now?
Now let me try to respond to your inquiries. With regard to my dad’s use of the term “tire-slashers,” I did not understand him to refer to the main leaders of the CR. He meant by “tire-slashers” something akin to what Dave Miller means by “foot-soldiers of the CR,” but not just any foot-soldier, but those who became consumed with their role as foot-soldiers. Another term my dad used in the same context was “Young Turks.” Wikipedia says this about “Young Turks”: “The term ‘Young Turks’ has since come to signify any groups or individuals inside an organization who aggressively pursue liberal or progressive policies, or advocate for reform.” Since the CR foot-soldiers we are talking about could not be called (at least in most senses of the term) “liberal” or “progressive,” perhaps this moniker is a bit misleading. What my dad meant by it, though, as he explained it to me, was the second generation of CR foot-soldiers who took the ideals and motives of the first generation and took them another step or two beyond that, and who did not truly understand the heart of the first generation.
With regard to IMB trustees, Parks, and Rankin, I want to be careful to not speak beyond that of which I am aware. When I joined the IMB, Rankin was already (though recently) in his post as president. It was not until the announcement regarding the new policies and Wade Burleson’s blogging that I began to pay any special attention to the actions of the Trustees.
It is hard for me to parse precisely the difference between political and theological concerns. It seems to me that many of the Trustees who may have had “political” concerns were also fueled (whether personally, or by those responsible for naming them to the post) by certain presuppositions concerning Baptist ecclesiology and a generally negative attitude toward anything that smacked of Charistmatic/Pentecostal emphases, while failing to take into consideration important nuances involved. So, in that sense, their motivations were, I suppose, theological, at least in part. It’s just, as I understand it, they were, in certain instances, theological concerns that went beyond the foundational issues of the CR, i.e. inerrancy, and biblical authority in general (and to some degree, as a subsidiary issue, gender roles and a biblical approach to sexuality in general). Whether certain Trustees were “tire-slashers” or not, I cannot say. I do know that, when I wrote all the Trustees a circular letter regarding the new guidelines, there were certain responses I received that were somewhat less than gracious.
Thank you, David.
In Texas, where I served at the time, there were pastors who were outraged at Rankin’s appointment. They maintained that it was because of his “charismatic” sympathies, though they were generally fuzzy on the specifics. I think it’s also fair to conclude that some who opposed Rankin had personal/political reasons for doing so.
A friend of mine—not a charismatic—heard another friend complain back when Rankin was appointed: “He’s a charismatic.”
My friend replied, “Considering where we’ve been [pre-CR], I’m thrilled we’re considering someone spiritual enough to be a charismatic.”
That’s a true story.
Actually, I kinda felt that way.
Ron West,
I have always admired your grit. There have also been issues on which we have agreed.
It is also true that I did lose a position in an SBC institution because a conservative leader threw me under the bus. (He took the word of liars for convenience sake) I think he may now realize his error (don’t know for sure). Yet, I must say, the Lord Jesus used the evil that some did for good in my life. Looking back, I hold no grudge and would stand by that conservative leader who threw me under the bus again today if he called on me to do so. (fat chance of that happening, I think)
However, I stand in diametric opposition to your statement below:
“Each one was solidly conservative before the resurgence started and has remained conservative but have been attacked and slandered by CR leaders. How can anyone say there has been a conservative resurgence in the SBC when its largest entity, the IMB, and its largest seminary, SWBTS, and most state conventions have not experienced a theological conservative resurgence?”
Ron, there is simply no way on earth that SBC boards, agencies, and institutions were “solidly conservative” before the CR. That is especially true of the seminaries and the two mission boards. Yet, I will admit that SEBTS was the most conservative. (SEBTS was the absolute worst)
That should be SWBTS was the most conservative. SEBTS was never conservative before the CR. Dr. Paige Patterson led SEBTS to be the Flagship of SBC seminaries during his tenure.
I think if you look at the direction those who left the SBC took, it is clear that there was a divergence there.
Precisely Dave. To deny the existence of actual liberalism is the height of absurdity.
Dave
I sometimes read this blog jus to see what the Calvinist think. I do enjoy your blog and much of the discussion within. I have a lot of respect for you. But this time I was offended. I did not sit on the side lines during the Conservative Resurgence; I was very involved and had to endure the criticism from the moderates and denominational worker who felt the need to attack or blackball anyone who was standing for the conservative cause. I know that you did not mean too, but it seems that your article missed many important points that are vital for younger pastor to know to truly understand what one of the denominational loyalist, Roy Honeycutt, who sided with the moderates labeled as the Holy War. The war-like language did not originate with the conservatives. Some fault the conservatives for not just setting down and allowing the leaders of the institutions to take care of the problem. The conservatives tried this at first. You failed to mention the Southern Baptist Convention meetings in the early sixties that addressed the concerns of the pastors in the pew with the liberalism in the SBC. This resulted in the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message. The problem afterward was that the SBC institutes still did nothing about liberalism and many of the professors within the seminary interpret the article concerning the inspiration of the Word in a Neo-orthodox fashion. Southern Seminary used Kimmel and Clives book, Dimension of Faith, which presented the works of about a dozen of the most known liberal and Neo-orthodox theologians up to that time. Conservatives saw this as a cancer that would spread from the seminaries to the convention’s institutions to the churches. When Elliott wrote his book on Genesis and later when the first volume of the Broadman Commentary was presented, it resulted with outcry at the Conventions. The Sunday School Board revised it using an author who presented the same liberal ideas. When ever the members would vote to rectify the liberal persuasions within the institutions the trustees ignored the will of the people. Therefore, after failing to change thing through the trustee system the conservatives had no options but to change the trustees. The problem was that many liberal pastors were not successful in their churches and people within the convention would place them in leadership position either in the Southern Baptist Convention, State Conventions, or recommend them to association as their Directors. The other problem was that elected official often only presented nomination for the institutions that were recommended by the presidents of such institutions. I also notice that you make comments how some conservative misbehaved (this you stated in general with no examples). You failed to say the same about the moderates. Dave, when ever you have millions of people involved on both sides I guess there will be some who would be guilty as such. The problem I have with the blog is that you seem to me to be on a campaign to put pressure on some college that is not in your state because they no longer employ some Calvinist leaning professors. Since so many ministers are not 5 point Calvinist it would be fruitless to attack the school for that reason. However, if you keep telling people that you are not making it a Calvinist thing, as you did in a previous blog, and imply that it has to do with conservatism, then you might be able to rally some on this blog. I apologize if I have read you wrong. But please do not give the younger ministers the wrong impression about the motives and work of the conservatives during the CR and us it to further your own cause. It is a slap in the face to those who sacrificed and work so hard during that time in Southern Baptist History. Although there is an implication that we had done something wrong or maybe to a political correct group did not handle everything in what they perceive as the right way, we who did not stay on the side line are not sorry for what was done. The person who stated arrogantly, “The means justified the ends” only comes from someone who has never research what happened and who only bases their statement upon the incomplete information that they have heard from others, or those who had preferred that the conservatives had never gotten involved, or from someone only presenting certain aspects to advanced their own cause.
“The problem was that many liberal pastors were not successful in their churches and people within the convention would place them in leadership position either in the Southern Baptist Convention, State Conventions, or recommend them to association as their Directors.”
. . . . and some of them are still in position today, but they now call themselves conservatives. However, in some cases, conservatives have dropped the ball and put some of these “Chameleon Baptists” in leadership roles in recent years.
Then, of course, there was and still is another problem with baloney-eatin’-boot-strappin’ trustees who became trustees of SBC entities claiming to be theological conservatives.
However, it quickly became apparent that they were actually theological dwarves who knew so little of true Baptist theology they thought “Ecclesiology” was the name of a Cadillac SUV. Here is a hint: Think IMB, 2005-06.
cb
I agree with you. Today it is more of who you know rather than what you know. It seems to me that one has to either know Al Mohler or support his theology to be recommended to a board or position within the Southern Baptist Convention.
Say that this is true, although I have a hard time believing this since others who are not Calvinists have been appointed to committees and areas of position in the SBC. But….say it is true, where is that any different than the Patterson regime where no Calvinists were appointed for the last 6 or more years? I didn’t hear you crying then.
And the CR certainly used Calvinists in the fight. Calvinists were side by side with non-Calvinists in the fight to gain control from the liberals. So they don’t deserve respect and a place at the table now?
I serve on the board at the seminary over which Paige Patterson presides. Falsely and slanderously the allegation was made that he was firing all of the Calvinists…wouldn’t hire any more Calvinists. I chair the subcommittee that votes on the hiring of all new faculty. So far, just in my brief tenure, I count five Calvinists whom the administration has brought to us and whom we have approved for faculty service.
I count zero apologies from people who have made this false and slanderous allegation.
“I count zero apologies from people who have made this false and slanderous allegation.”
I wouldn’t hold your breath…
That was one of the sadder episodes in our recent history, Bart. And, Donald is right. Do not wait for an apology for that public allegation.
Hello, Debbie.
I am getting old, I guess. Sometimes I forget how bitter you can be.
First, I do not know if you are in reference to me or someone else when you made the, “I didn’t hear you crying then” comment. However, if you were in reference to me, let me state that I am not crying about anything. I was just addressing the topic of the post according to my personal experiences, having been involved in the CR even before its “acclaimed” birthdate in 1979.
Second, If you remember, I have stated many times that numerous Calvinists were highly involved in the CR. However, those Calvinists were true Baptist statesmen and not the new breed of crazy that some Calvinists are today. (please notice the word “some.”)
Third, How on earth did you see anything in this post that necessitated making it another Calvinism fight? The CR was not in any way about Calvinism. It was about the inerrancy of Scripture.
Fourth, I worked for Dr. Patterson a long time and I know he hired those who embraced Calvinism and those who did not embrace Calvinism during my years working for him. However, he did make every effort not to hire liberals or those who called themselves moderates. Nonetheless, he did hire a few weak-kneed sissies during my time working for him. That is about as bad as hiring a liberal.
Fifth, A Chameleon is a lizard who has the ability to change colors. When I mentioned “Chameleon Baptists,” I was in reference to Baptists who could change “colors” when necessary to gain what they desired positionally. There are many of them now working in various positions of leadership in SBC life. Any conservative (true conservative) who reads this blog can name a dozen or more from his own experience with them. There is no need for me to name one or two to satisfy you. If you don’t know any, that is just additional evidence that you have very little experience in SBc life other than attending a Southern Baptist church and what you read on blogs. (much of which is very lacking in truth at times)
Sixth, I just read Bart Barber’s comment. I hope you read it and publicly apologize for slamming Dr. Patterson once again by declaring as fact that of which you have no evidence and very little understanding.
Seventh, Debbie, you really need to lay down the sword and shield. Your particular personality traits are just not conducive being armed with dangerous weapons.
“…those Calvinists were true Baptist statesmen and not the new breed of crazy that some Calvinists are today.”
New breed of crazy? CB, I’ve always been my own kind of crazy.
AMEN!
Name some names CB, these “Chameleon Baptists” in leadership roles now. Name one, two would be even better. It would give us (me ) and idea of what you think a “Chameleon Baptist is.
Joe, I’m not completely sure how you got what you got out of what I said. But I’m not in the mood to argue.
I do not think I mentioned Calvinism in the post or in my comments (that I remember) so I’m not sure why you make it about that.
Louis,
Your comment (as of now, #67) is exactly right. Few understand the issues you explain.
In the Conservative Resurgence there were basically three groups.
Conservatives – believed inerrancy was a hill on which to die. To them they not only believed in inerrancy, they considered it a non-negotiable. The SBC must have employees, missionaries, professors who believe the Bible is completely true and trustworthy.
Liberals – those who may be wonderful people, but they believe the Bible does, or may contain, errors.
Moderates – those who may be theologically conservative and believe in inerrancy. The difference, and it is a huge one, is that to them inerrancy is a negotiable. They were willing to protect liberals and could be happy with a conservative or a liberal serving as our missionaries, professors, etc.
To bring about substantial, needed change, the conservatives had to get trustees who could be counted on to stand for inerrancy. A moderate might personally believe in inerrancy, but he would not take a stand for it in our convention.
I too, was personally involved in the CR and fully support it. More need to study this issue and the importance of standing for the inerrancy of God’s Word.
Thank God for men like Paige Patterson, Paul Pressler, Adrian Rogers, Jimmy Draper, Jerry Vines, Morris Chapman and so many others who stood for the truth. And I believe they were right and honorable in what they did.
More on this subject at:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2009/08/brief-history-of-sbc-conservative.html
David R. Brumbelow
Thanks. Agree on all points.
John and Ron:
Thanks for your thoughts. I do not disagree that there are some people who had good experiences, particularly at Southwestern, and that their service in SBC life did not expose them to the problems that others saw. My father in law, who served with the IMB for 25 or so years, had a similar experience.
I think it is fair to say that not all people in the SBC had the same experiences. And there were apparently enough who had bad experiences who were motivated to come to the Convention meetings and vote.
I do have some questions for both of you. You don’t have to answer, but I am interested in your perspective.
Cecil Sherman, one of the Moderate leaders, once told Christianity Today that in his view belief in the Virgin Birth was not a requirement for service as a missionary or in the agencies of the SBC.
Do you guys agree with that perspective?
Also, what are your thoughts about the CBF? They do not have a doctrinal confession for their work. Do you agree with that approach?
The Moderate leaders who left the SBC and founded the CBF apparently created an association of churches with the philosophy and emphasis that they preferred. It differs from the structure and theology of the SBC for that reason.
Do you believe the CBF is a conservative Baptist organization, like the SBC, or do you believe it is more liberal in its orientation? If you believe it to be more liberal, would that not indicate the theological perspective (or the level of theological diversity which they are willing to accommodate) of those who left the SBC to found this organization?
Do you believe that the MacAfee (sp?) Divinity School at Mercer or Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond are conservative, confessional theological institutions?
If not, do you believe that reflects at all on the theology of the former SBC leaders who lead the CBF?
And Ron, especially for you, do you think that Keith Parks going to the CBF to found their missions agency was a good and right thing to do?
I am really interested in your thoughts on this.
Thanks Ron,
I’ve never been involved with the CBF so I can’t answer all of your questions intelligently.
I disagree with Cecil Sherman. I would disqualify a missionary candidate who did not affirm the virgin birth.
I have two friends who pastor CBF affiliated churches. One calls himself an inerrantist and one does not (for epistemological reasons, he would say). Both affirm historic Nicene and Baptist doctrine. Both are evangelistic. As it stands today, I would have problems cooperating with the CBF because of their lack of theological definition.
I’ve always referred to myself an inerrantist and am comfortable with the term. In my experience, however, many pastors have wanted to define “true inerrantists” with a list of test cases (this was especially true in Texas) going well beyond the parameters of the Chicago Statement. It was sort of like the “You know you’re really a redneck if…” lines. This turned a lot of people off, especially academics (and a few Calvinists).
In order to get into “the club” you typically had to espouse:
Young earth creationism.
Complimentarian gender roles.
Dispensational eschatology.
No hyper-Calvinistic soteriology.
2nd Amendment (keep in mind, it was TX : )
My point is that not everyone left the SBC because they were moderate or liberal. Perhaps some landed in the CBF because they felt they had no other place to go (keep in mind, not all of us had the same experiences).
BTW: I totally agree with those who are saying that moderate leaders used well coordinated and often unscrupulous tactics to keep the CR at bay. I saw this myself. The mods didn’t need to start newspapers; they already had the whole denominational machinery at their disposal.
Louis, my apologies. I assumed (and yes, I know how to spell that word) your questions were for another John, so being busy, I did not respond. I will try to do so now.
1) Virgin birth: yes, were it up to me, belief in the virgin birth would be a requirement for missionaries and agency employees. On the other hand, I heard Cecil Sherman discuss this once (not denying what you say he said in this instance, by the way), and I find that the rumors about it are much worse than what he actually said. What I heard him say was that since the virgin birth is mentioned in only three verses of only two New Testament books, it did not seem to as important Biblically as we (meaning conservative evangelicals of the 20th-21st centuries) ) make it out to be. I am not sure I agree with him, but I do see his point.
2) The lack of a “doctrinal approach” by the CBF is one way to look at it. Another way is that the CBF approaches doctrine as the SBC did from its inception until at least 1925, and arguably until 2000: that doctrine, rather than being a top-down approach, is a matter for the local church, and that under the umbrella of being Baptist, the things we do together are things for mutual benefit (literature for instance) and a pooling of resources to accomplish more collectively than we can accomplish individually (missions for instance). If what one church believes under this Baptist umbrella is too far from what another individual church believes, that church is free to move away, or to work to alter the course. But the CBF, not being a denomination in a formal sense at least (and maybe more) does not try to dictate theology to those affiliated with it. Then too while the CBF does not have a creed, there are operating parameters. For instance, it is the CBF’s policy not to support or employ those who advocate homosexuality, or knowingly employ any so inclined; but it is somewhere between hard and impossible to convince some people of that.
3) Whether or not the CBF is “conservative” depends entirely on whose measuring stick you are using. Compared to most “mainline Protestant denominations,” it absolutely is conservative, though not fundamentalist. Using the current leadership of the SBC as a guide, however, it is somewhere between moderate and liberal. Before anyone can say where on this continuum it falls, it is first necessary to establish what one means by “liberal” or “conservative.” Does this reflect the theological perspective of its constituents (not really sure what to call them/us)? My perception is that perspective is too diverse for any answer to be meaningful. For instance, I knew of conservative pastors/churches in North Carolina (conservative by SBC standards) who relate to the CBF because they were tired of the fighting in the SBC, and of that class of “warriors” Dave brought up who are always seeking a new enemy to fight. And yes, I agree that this situation does indicate a level of diversity that the organization is willing to accommodate. I am not sure this is a bad thing though.
4) I know nothing about McAfee and little about BTSR. As far as I know, they reflect the CBF’s approach to not being “confessional,” at least if by that you mean creedal, such as the BF&MY2K. Beyond that, however, you would have to ask someone more familiar with them. I do know Mark Olson (and count him as a friend), who is President of the John Leland Center for Theological Studies, a small seminary in Arlington, VA which is supported by the CBF. They have a “Statement of Beliefs.” Of course, it makes no mention of inerrancy or gender in the pastorate, but it seems quite conservative to me. Google them and check it out, why don’t you?
Hope this answers your questions. I have always found your entries to be thoughtful and well reasoned, even the ones I disagreed with.
John
Ultimately, any who doubt the need for the CR need only look at the CBF to see the direction we would have taken.
Precisely.
CB I did not say all were solidly conservative. I said the ones I was associated with were. Those were the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, Ouachita Baptist University, SWBTS and the IMB. I was deeply involved with each one and challenge anyone to prove they were not. The Peace Committee found no theological problems with the IMB and SWBTS. That did not keep CR leaders from slandering them. Perhaps that is where you get your misinformation from since you were not personally involved with any of these. If you doubt my word on the Arkansas Baptist State Convention and Ouachita, ask my friend Andy W. He will agree with me. Tell him I said hello.
David Rogers, yes I am retired and living in Arkansas.
Louis,
I do not believe a person should serve as an IMB missionary and deny the virgin birth. This has been IMB policy from the beginning despite what you may hear from CR propagandist. If any missionary denies the virgin birth they either hid this fact during their appointment or reached this belief after appointment and would be fired.
The CBF is irrelevant to me so I do not know their theological stances. I have friends that are theologically conservative and involved with CBF mainly because they were forced out of positions in the SBC.
I have no problem with Keith Parks helping found the CBF missions program. He is a missiologist. This is his life. He is a theological conservative who was force out of his role in the SBC because he dared to challenge the CR leaders who slandered and lied about our missionaries. How could he do anything else and maintain the respect of our missionaries?
When Charles Stanley was president of the SBC he often had mission conferences in his church with most of the funds and support going to non-SBC mission groups. Some of these I know to not be in line with traditional SBC doctrine. Other CR leaders have done the same. Louis is this wrong?
David Miller said “Ultimately, any who doubt the need for the CR need only look at the CBF to see the direction we would have taken.” David, that is not a true test. You have no proof of that statement. Few if any leaders in the CBF today would have had a role in the leadership of the SBC today if the CR did not occur. You cannot know the direction the SBC would have taken. I believe conservatives such as Richard Jackson, Winfred Moore, Russell Dilday, Keith Parks and others would have kept us theologically conservative without the carnal political activity we have become known for.
Sorry Ron but no they wouldn’t have kept us conservative. You cannot rub elbows with apostates and keep us conservative.
Also I do think that all one has to do is look at the CBF to see what direction we would have went. First of all almost all CBF members were former SBs. As SBs their churches’ votes impacted the convention. They helped vote moderates into SB office and thus would have contributed to the continuance of liberal professors and other officers being appointed to key positions in the convention.
Most of the guys who took part in the CR and have some regrets would still say that it absolutely had to be done and given the same circumstances they would do it again. My only fear is that some of the younger guys on here who have obvious disdain for the CR wisen up because if this sort of thing ever happens again they will be the ones who have to carry the torch.
It seems one only need to look to seminaries in Europe during Keith Parks reign to see where we would be today following his lead.
Of course, I respect his right to believe anything, everything or nothing. I just don’t want to join him in promoting any said beliefs.
I am pleased we went in a different direction from the theology and practice of those you list. That does not mean in any way I wish them ill. Change happens. Sometimes it helps.
CASE STUDY 1
I was appointed by the IMB in 1978 and served for 32 years through some of the most difficult days of attacks on our integrity, honesty and theological orthodoxy by leaders of the CR.
H was a CR leader and chairman of the trustees of the IMB at a critical point in our history. We know now that the entire time he was serving as a trustee he was having an adulterous affair with a member of his church. He was instrumental in forcing Keith Parks to resign as our president. He along with Ron Wilson were two primary sources of slanderous attacks on our missionaries during those days. Henry Blackaby told me he felt Satan used the sin in his life to influence him to lead our trustees in their actions.
C was a CR leader, chairman of the SWBTS trustees and was one of the leaders in the firing of Russell Dilday as president. After the firing, CR leaders and SBC presidents Jerry Vines, Charles Stanley and Adrian Rogers released a statement through BP stating they had supported and encouraged C and the other trustees to fire Dilday. We know now that the entire time he was serving as a trustee and carrying out the wishes of these CR SBC presidents he was having multiple adulterous affairs with members of his church.
F was chairman of the Peace Committee back in the 80s. It was supposed to investigate the charges of liberalism in the SBC and the political activity taking place. His bias for the CR resulted in the failure of this committee in finding a solution to the political fighting in our convention. We know now that he was having an adulterous affair with a woman in his church the entire time he was serving as chairman.
A was chairman of the trustees of the NAMB in 2002 when it was controlled by the CR. He was forced to resign when he admitted an adulterous affair. He his chairmanship was the beginning of a period of chaos at the NAMB with conservative resurgence leaders serving as president and being fired in quick succession. The NAMB has not recovered from this leadership debacle.
I believe at critical times in the history of each of these SBC entities the CR placed men in positions of leadership with moral and ethical deficiencies that Satan was able to use to harm and damage the IMB, NAMB, SWBTS and the SBC. Those of you who support the CR please share with me your comments on the role of the CR in each of these situations. Do you believe the CR should be proud of their actions or should they apologized to the SBC for their role? It is because of situations such as these that I do not support the CR or believe it has been good for the SBC.
I have not used the names of these men. Most of you probably know their names. If you do not and wish to know their names, you can search the BP archives or email me at ronw@pobox.com and I will give you their names.
Ron West
Ron West,
In any of your case studies, once an adulterous affair came to light, did conservatives in any way try to ignore the issue, rather than dealing with it? Immorality is a sin that can affect anyone, conservative, moderate, or liberal. Something tells me case studies could also be found in which some moderates proved unfaithful.
By it’s nature, immorality is usually committed in secret. We can’t see in someone’s heart, but we can deal with the issue when it is found out. I believe that is what happened in the cases you mention.
Just because you can find a sinner in the midst, does not necessarily invalidate the cause.
Jesus had one among His disciples who was a devil and a betrayer. Judas Iscariot in no way invalidated what Jesus was doing.
David R. Brumbelow
Great coment David. I really appreciated your last sentence.
Again, anyone who claims that every person in the CR was pristine or every action by the CR was holy and good is deluding himself.
But I think that anyone who ignores the danger that liberalism posed (which I saw firsthand) to the life and health of our denomination was foolish.
I did not write this to pick old scabs, but because I see too many people who enjoy the blessings of a conservative denomination criticizing freely the struggle that preserved us as a conservative denomination.
There was much wrong with the CR. But is was, in my estimation, a noble goal with a positive effect.
We need not condemn the CR, but build on it. We must confront the warrior-tendencies that remain among us, that give us a fighting spirit over issues that do not require such, but we must also remember whence we came and how we got here.
Oh, and well said, David.
“””He along with Ron Wilson were two primary sources of slanderous attacks on our missionaries during those days.”””
Using words like, “slander,” demonstrates the problematic attitudes of the Keith Park reign. Seminaries were out of control and sucking money like a giant vacuum.
The work of Ron Wilson is well documented and vindicated by history. I know Ron very well. I don’t always agree with his point of view, but “slander” is not even in his vocabulary.
I think in Debate 101 your argument is referred to as “ad hominem.” It is a particularly weak argument in secular debate but downright ugly in Christian discussions.
Personally, I liked a lot of what Dr. Parks did in the early years, but it turned sour very quickly. Again, just look at the CBF as Dave said and you can see where the SBC would be in following the way of the ones you mention in your list.
I will say, I have no ax to grind since I stood on the side of those that won the heart of the Convention. As I said, I do not bear any ill will to the side that lost. Change happens. Sometimes it helps.
Ron West,
Other fellows have responded to your case studies. I think they did well.
I will simply speak from what I know and as did you in specific instances, not present names. Although, I am sure that Louis the Lawyer and David R. Brumbelow could name every person you mentioned, as can I and do so with heavy hearts.
I concede those things as true. Yet, how do the failures of those specific men negate the CR as a just cause?
Ron, you have been around awhile, as have I and David R. Brumbelow and Louis the Lawyer. Therefore, I am sure that if I made known similar failures of men (and women) prior to the CR who were in leadership positions at the BSSB, FMB, HMB, SEBTS, SBTS, and SWBTS, you along with David R. Burmbelow and Louis the Lawyer would know the names of each and every one of those people.
Yet, those failures alone would not give credible evidence as to the necessity of the CR. Ron, your case studies prove only one thing and that is that human beings are sinners and prone to stray.
Actually your case studies and those I could present are evidence that the SBC needed to be brought back to a place wherein the truth of Scripture is recognized as completely authoritative, to be obeyed as God’s Word in all things in the human experience, and yes, inerrant.
Ron, you have the right to believe as you desire. Nonetheless, the CR was about the inerrancy of Scripture and it was completely necessary or the SBC would have, as Larry Holly stated, “Gone the way of the Methodists and the sodomites.”
CB,
Brother I think that Ron is going to continue to engage in these drive by comments and not enter into a serious dialogue about the CR.
John Wylie,
I believe Ron West is a man who has taken up the cross and followed Jesus, serving sacrificially for many years and he has my respect for that.
I also believe he is wrong, completely wrong, about the CR not being a positive directional change for the SBC.
However, I must confess, through the years of looking back through the rearview mirror, the CR was and continues to be a complicated experience in its aftermath and all true warriors of that cause, as with any other, live with regrets.
John Wallace, thanks for your comments. I directed my questions to John Fairris, whom I think was the person who had talked about an SBC experience that did not expose him to liberal expressions or influences.
Louis,
I did not realize your questions were directed at me, which is why I did not answer sooner. I have now done so after your entry. BTW, I did not mean that I had no “exposure” to liberal thinking. In Systematic Theology (a required course) were were “exposed” through written sources though without being required to either deny or accept them. The educational philosophy at SEBTS back then was to give the student the tools to find his own perspective.
John
Ron,
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
No one is really taking issue with your strongly held belief that Richard Jackson, Keith Parks, Winfred Moore and Russell Dilday were theologically conservative.
Also, no one is taking issue with your assertion that there were Moderates and Moderate leaders who were theologically conservative.
I believe that where we part company is, in my view, your inability to really address or come to terms with the other half of the Moderate leadership that was so prominent.
I do not disagree with your assertion that if an IMB missionary had espoused that he/she did not believe in the Virgin Birth that missionary would have been terminated.
But Cecil Sherman was not a nobody in SBC life. I believe that historians who write about the CR will acknowledge him to be one of the Moderate leaders. He, Bill Sherman, Welton Gaddy (sp?) and Ken Chaffin were the first to call for organizing against Conservatives after Adrian Rogers’ election in 1979. I believe they met in Gatlinburg.
Cecil Sherman loomed large in denominational life. That’s one of the reasons he ended up on the Peace Committee.
When the CBF was founded, Cecil Sherman was elected/appointed as their first Director or Coordinator (whatever the title is.)
I can’t really tell from your response, but are you unaware of Cecil’s interview with CT where he made the famous statement about the Virgin Birth or do you think it is a lie or something?
Many Conservatives believe (and therefore voted to do something) that Sherman’s perspective was widely shared by enough Southern Baptists who either were trustees in the SBC institutions or worked in them that it had an effect on the doctrinal integrity of those institutions.
I do see a distinction between some churches having missions support of non-SBC agencies and what Dr. Parks did in founding the CBF’s missions program.
First, I do not think that we ever want to get to the place where in the SBC we have mandatory, one track program. That is, all churches must support only SBC agencies, or they are disloyal. I trust that you agree with that. My own church gives a majority of our money to the SBC, but we support and think highly of other endeavors. I believe that has been the case for years, and should remain so.
But there is a distinction between that and what Dr. Parks did.
The CBF was founded as an alternative to the SBC. The plan was to encourage churches to leave the SBC and join the CBF, if not altogether, at lease split the funding that those churches gave to the SBC such that some of it would be sent to the CBF. In the early days, the CBF had 3 giving plans. One was dubbed the “Transition Plan” and it was for churches that could not outright move to the CBF, but for those who might transition in that direction.
Dr. Parks had given a lifetime to SBC missions, and proclaimed his love for the SBC missionaries and the SBC program. He worked there beyond age 65 (maybe to 67 or so?) (I am just going on memory here.)
So when Dr. Parks agreed to help found and direct the CBF’s missions program, it was more than just a retired missiologist looking for work.
Dr. Parks was a prominent figure, and it was hoped that his agreeing to found and direct CBF missions would cause a swing of support in the SBC toward the CBF and its missions program. Ultimately, it did not work. And today I don’t know how CBF missions has faired. I also don’t know if Cecil Sherman’s philosophy about the doctrinal beliefs of denominational employees is the directive in CBF missions (i.e. there is no doctrinal directive for CBF employee), or if the CBF has a doctrinal standard for its missionaries. If it does, I don’t know what it is.
Finally, you list several people (by letter, not name) who were in positions during the CR at various times and talk about their affairs. All of us believe that extramarital affairs are terrible things and should not be done, and that those things reflect negatively upon those persons, especially people who are in a position of spiritual responsibility and leadership.
But all of the committees and boards where these people served were made up of dozens and scores of people who had been elected by their brothers and sisters in Christ, and those committees and boards made the decisions that they thought were best and they did so representing what they believed to be the sentiment of those who elected them.
I could not attribute a decision of a board regarding a doctrinal or personnel matter to Satan or the work of Satan because the chairman of the board or committee was later found out to be having an affair unbeknownst to the committee or board. While that is tragic for the person and his family, and sinful, it seems appropriate and fair to put that in context.
If Winfred Moore, Keith Parks, Russell Dilday or Richard Jackson are discovered at some future point to have had an affair or other secret sinful behavior in their lives during the days of the CR, unless the matter related directly to the issue that was being decided (e.g. a closeted homosexual making a decision to relax doctrinal standards relating to homosexuality), I would find that to be sad, but I would not conflate that to cover and tarnish everything they were doing in their lives, nor would I extend it to the actions of boards on which they may have been serving or the other members of those boards.
I really do appreciate your taking the time to respond to my questions. I wish you a continued good retirement in Arkansas (where both of my paternal grandparents were reared – Mineral Springs and Texarkana).
And despite our differing feelings about the CR, I am glad to know that you are active in SBC life. Your presence and participating can be of great benefit to God’s continued use of the SBC for the advancement of His Kingdom.
CASE STUDY 2
Before his recent retirement Richard Land was head of the ERLC. The ERLC is the SBC agency that speaks for the SBC on ethical, moral and race related issues. I was living in Texas when Land was on the staff of Governor Clements of Texas. Land’s main responsibility was to explain to Southern Baptists of Texas why they should vote for Clements even though he had secretly approved payoffs to SMU football players and told Texas legislatures he would publicly oppose gambling racetrack gambling but would privately support their desire to pass gambling legislation. In other words, Land’s job was to excuse hypocrisy.
I attended the 1990 Southern Baptist Convention where Jesse Helms during a reelection campaign was given the Religious Liberty Award. This was a new award created to help Helm’s political campaign. Two of Helm’s protégés, Sam Currin and Coy Privette had been members of the CLC and ERLC. Currin was the chairman at the time and along with Richard Land over saw this use of Cooperative Program funds to aid Helm’s political campaign. Since then Sam Currin has pled guilty to conspiring to use his law firm’s client trust account to launder money that he had obtained as the result of a securities fraud scheme and obstruction of the investigation by a grand jury. He later served in prison for this.
Coy Privette is famous for attacking theological conservatives and proclaiming himself as a spokesman for moral and ethical issues on the CLC and ERLC. He has also pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting prostitution when he was caught paying a prostitute.
We also remember trustee Curtis Caine who embarrassed the Southern Baptist Convention’s Christian Life Commission in 1989, when he said apartheid in South Africa was a good thing and Martin Luther King was a fraud. His pastor, told me Caine was a racist, John Birch Society member whose own church would not give him a position of authority. However, the conservative resurgence leaders chose him to serve on the arm of the SBC that speaks for Southern Baptists on race relations. Even after these statements they appointed him for another term.
The CLC/ERLC is supposed to speak for Southern Baptist on ethical (Sam Currin), moral (Coy Privette) and race issue (Curtis Caine).
I would like for some CR supporters to comment on what these appointments say about the CR legacy on ethical, moral and race related issues. What does this say about the use of CP funds by the CR? Should we who support traditional moral values be upset by the CR betrayal of our values?
Ron West
Where can these particulars be confirmed? Because, quite frankly, I don’t think your anecdotes should be taken at face value as you have an admitted bias.
We all have bias, of course, but Ron’s view of the CR is pretty relentlessly negative, that is for sure.
I would offer an illustration from personal experience which indicates why the CR had to occur. Back when I was a student at SEBTS (’72-’74), and I think it occurred short after or just before I entered the doctoral program. I was talking one day with Dean Brown and Dr. Pruden (Baptist History and former pastor to Harry Truman), and I said, “If you fellows had some verbal inspirationists on the faculty, you would not have all this fussin’.” “Oh, No, ” they said, “we can’t have them.” My thought was, “Well, if you can’t have them, you can’t have me.” The Moderates were adamant: they could not have verbal inspirationists on the faculty of the most liberal seminary in the SBC. The Baccalaureate Speaker for the graduation in 1974 (when I received my M.Div.), Dr. R. Hayne Rivers, Pastor of the First Baptist Church, Union, SC, complained about hearing his seminary called “the most liberal in the convention,” by some woman at one of the Conventions. Dr. Rivers was a conservative, and he had a preacher boy from his church who entered seminary, when I did. In fact, he and his wife joined the Wake Forest Church on the same day that my wife and i did in the Summer of ’72. Before he graduated and after he had taken the clinical pastoral course, in particular, that young man had moved away from a view of the Bible as the word of God. In my OT class, the only conservative Introduction to the Old Testament on the recommended reading list in the library was an excellent one by E.J. Young. The regular text, however, along with the reserved readings was liberal stuff.
Now I will recite a story about one student who decided to blind-side his professor. In that day, the Moderates did not want you to go all the way. Just use the liberal methods and come to some conservative conclusions with a few liberal issues raised for good measure. This fellow was a moon shooter from Va. (use to drive down the streets of Beckley and do moon shots out the window of a car (I’ll leave that to your imagination), but the Lord had saved him and called him to preach. Any way, he had our resident German theologue, and he took the redaction critical and some others, I think, and wrote an evaluation of the model prayer, coming to the conclusion that was electric. “We may suppose that we have nothing in this pericope from Jesus except the word, ‘Father,’ and even that is questionable.” The professor’s response was where the fun erupted. The student was running around and showing it to his friends (which included me), “Look!” he said, “The professor is quoting the Bible to me, and he even wrote it in red.” There in red the professor had written, “Matthew and Luke believed it. Why can’t you?”
I must admit to having a case of the enviews. I wished I had thought of that. But, being rather straightforward, that was not my style. Instead, I get the professor who gives me a C- in red on a paper on verbal inspiration from Billy Graham’s Lausanne Covenant which almost got me booted out of the doctoral program, a C- minus without a single mark on the paper which meant he could not find any, which meant a no, no for a professor, giving a grade based only on dislike for the viewpoint presented and defended. To whoever is fussing about the CR not being needed, what I have mentioned is mild, compared to what could be told.
Ron:
Did I miss something?
This is Case Study #1, act 2.
I would be sincerely interested to see if you have any thoughts to the questions in my response. The comments are kind of out of order, so maybe you did not see them.
Please tell me we aren’t going to be hearing about the Council for National Policy and the eminent takeover of the United States or Case Studies 3, 4, 5 et al.
It seems to me that the issue over calvinism is resolved, if Bart Barber is to be believed about the appointing of Calvinists and if CB is to be believed about Dr. Patterson and the appointments when he was there.
I have looked at the issue in Louisiana and find that that report from the Law Firm suggests that the Board there had better go slow cause the President of LC is treading on ground that could get the Federal Government involved as well as the state government, violating instructions on the use of funds is a big no-no in those realms. The Feds don’t just slap your hands; they stomp you into the ground. A juggernaut.
I try and try to get a grasp on this but I’m at a loss and I don’t want to be perceived as someone trying to start a fight. Lord knows, sometimes I want to throw down the gauntlet, but not tonight.
I can only recall in the past few years that the spotlight has been cast towards Calvinists as either a threat, detriment, or enemy to Southern Baptist life. Obviously, there are some who view Calvinists with varying degrees of contempt ranging from apathetic to outright hatred.
My only question is this: Why? Why would a group with a litany of beliefs be welcome in the fight against liberalism but now is being cast in some circles as liberals themselves? Is this a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
I really never gave calvinism much thought until the past couple of years and I know for a fact that from my vantage point in laity, I’m not alone.
John Wylie if you were knowledgeable about the SBC you would already know each of these statements were true. I am sure CB and David Miller are aware of each one. They were each reported in Baptist Press. If you want verification, all you have to do is google each name and you can read about each one for yourself.
You said, “I think that Ron is going to continue to engage in these drive by comments and not enter into a serious dialogue about the CR.” These are not drive by. I am here. I have entered serious dialogue with most of these guys for years. Just ask CB and Louis and David Miller. Where did you come from and where how did you arrive at your expertise on the SBC?
Ron,
I have been posting comments on here for years as well. Maybe not quite as long as you but long enough. The reason I said that about you is that you have been posting these Case 1 and Case 2 comments and not engaging the questions Louis asked.
My expertise has come from having the ability to read and watching the direction that those who left the SBC for the CBF have gone. In 2000 when the issue of homosexual missionaries and employees came up in the CBF a full 40% voted to allow homosexuals. No liberals in the SBC? Really? I’m sorry that’s just nonsense.
Frank L. said, “The work of Ron Wilson is well documented and vindicated by history. I know Ron very well. I don’t always agree with his point of view, but “slander” is not even in his vocabulary.”
Frank did not you know that Ron Wilson was not allowed to be seated by his state convention because of his slander and untrue statements about others.” These are the people who knew him best.
Frank do you agree with Ron Wilson that the IMB was controlled by liberals and the missionaries were neo-orthodox and we were spreading heresy for the 25 years before the takeover? What do you think David Miller. Your father and I were serving with the FMB during the time referred to by Ron Wilson. Would you side with Ron Wilson and Frank L. or with missionaries such as myself. What about you David Rogers? Do you agree with Ron Wilson?
I think reason has begun to fade from this discussion, and we would do well to drop it.
Ron, I have stated that I do not think that all of the deeds of the warriors of the CR were right and good. I think the cause was just and and necessary.
But, you simply focus on, perhaps, a few bad apples. There were a lot of honorable Baptists who believed in and supported the CR.
Could you not ever find it in your heart to say one nice thing about CR warriors. We were not all like the people against whom your ire has been directed through the years. We were not all villains and war criminals.
I think, Ron, you need some balance in your view of the CR.
And that is my last word on the subject. I’m headed to Virginia.
Ron,
I do not really have personal knowledge of the theological views of FMB/IMB missionaries before my wife and I were appointed in 1994. I do know of one missionary who was appointed after me, who, from what I was able to gather, did have neo-orthodox views, and was subsequently terminated from service. Other than that, I don’t know of other examples of liberal/neo-orthodox theology on the part of IMB missionaries, including among the old-timers we did know on the field who began their ministry during the period you mention. Other than that, from what I have been able to gather, there did appear to be some theological problems at Ruschlikon, which have progressed even further since the time the FMB/IMB was involved. But all my knowledge of that is second-hand (and I am rusty on a lot of the details), as the IMB had already cut ties with Ruschlikon before our appointment in 1994.
Thank you David Rogers. You were with the IMB for I think about 10 or 15 years. The only neo-orthodox missionary you seem to have run into was someone who was appointed well after the CR had complete control of the IMB and he was terminated. If someone had theological views that were out of bounds before the CR they would have been handled the same way. Nothing changed. If Ron Wilson was speaking the truth there would have been plenty of evidence of liberalism among the missionaries you served with when you were appointed. I appreciate your saying you know of no evidence of liberal/neo-orthodox theology among the missionaries who were serving during the time David’s father and I served. There were plenty of them still around. We were conservative theological before you served and when you served. I think your testimony is further confirmation of my statement that there has been no conservative resurgence at the IMB. We were always conservative theologically. It is hard for the hard line CR supporters on here to admit it but it is true.
Ron: Liberals could be found. Especially in the European theatre. One of my fellow students who got an appointment to that area was a radical Bultmannian. He didn’t even buy the resurrection. That was in the 70s. And back in the 60s I had two fellows, Midwestern alumni in one instance and a year and a half there in another, sneer at me and say, “You are ignorant for believing in the Virgin Birth.” Then there was the prof at SEBTS who wrote a one page reply to a paper I had written, not one of my better performances for some odd reason, and accused me of an egregious logical error, while making an error of a like nature himself. His problem was being upset that I should have attacked the lib. view of inspiration: It just contains the word of the Lord.
Ran into a Moderate on the mission field who treated the visiting party like a bunch of pariahs, when they were all pastors of cp giving churches and gung ho mission supporters. One pastor of a FBC finally got the word to the fellow. Man what a change in a behavior, from darkness to broad daylight. Another missionary on a neighboring field was a fine man, a tribute to Southern Baptists. What the Moderate believed, I don’t know. Didn’t ask, but he was a jerk…and admittedly there are some Conservatives just like that, too. Jerks know no theological boundaries, witness Judas, but, then, ne one knew it except the Lord. Of course, every one knew it in the end. Jerks can hide themselves. Consider this: If there was a single member of the faculty at SEBTS that was a verbal inspiraqtion, not to mention inerrantist and infalliblity believer, he never revealed it so that any one could know.
David Miller said, “Could you not ever find it in your heart to say one nice thing about CR warriors. We were not all like the people against whom your ire has been directed through the years. We were not all villains and war criminals.”
David I said I will support the CR when they work to rid our convention of liberals such as Paul Simmons, Ralph Elliot and others. That is good. But you yourself said the number of liberals in the SBC was relatively small. 95% or more of the things done in the name of the CR have nothing to do with theology but have everything to do with power and control.
CB and Volfan said that liberals controlled all theSBC boards and entities before the CR. It seems to upset you when I try to add some balance to this board and disagree with that. How did these relatively few liberals obtain so much power?
Why is it that if I point out theological and ethical problems taking place today, I am criticized but CB and Volfan can make any pejorative statement about the SBC and it is accepted by you and others?
I remember at the old SB Impact Mike Rassberry made the statement that Sunday School Board leaders had been arrested for public drunkenness on the parking lot of the board HQ. It was accepted as true without question by that board. I happened to be old enough to remember the actual incident that he was talking about. It wasn’t leaders. It was one employee who was not a leader. He wasn’t drunk and he wasn’t arrested. He was taken by the police for a mental evaluation because of what some leaders felt was erratic behavior brought on by medicine he was taking. In other words every statement by Mike was wrong. When I confronted him he admitted it. He knew it was wrong when he wrote it. However I was still attacked for that and told I was being unfair. I have seen this type of exaggeration and twisting of facts happen over and over by CR supporters. When I mention the incidents in my CASE 1 and 2 it is brushed aside as not important and no big deal by you and others even though they are true. You don’t want to talk about it. Frank L said I didn’t want to engage in serious dialogue. Who really doesn’t want to engage?
Ron,
I think that people could give you example after example after example….and some already have…more than several times….and, you would not believe what’s said.
So, what’s the point of you and me and CB and Dave continuing this conversation? We know what we saw and heard back then. We know what was going on….and where the SBC was heading. And, you deny it. So, what’s the point? I could tell you again of the Prof. at Southern, who wrote that anyone believing in the literal, physical resurrection of the dead was crass. Or, the Prof. who was for women Pastors, and who prayed to “Our Mother” in class. We could tell you of the Prof’s, who didnt believe that Jesus was the ONLY way to Heaven. And, there’s more…..but, apparently you just throw all that to side….I’ve seen people give you examples, and you just shrug them off. So again, what’s the point?
We know what direction the SBC was heading, and the CBF of today is a great example of where we were going.
David
Ron: At SEBTS between three of us who were students, we knew of 6 or 7 students who did not believe in the deity of Christ, etc. One student with whom I had a discussion got very upset at the idea of salvation and Hell, and he wanted me to know that his view was as accepted on campus as mine (not altogether, even some of the Moderates could win a soul as one did in one class that I heard about). Another student admitted to a friend of mine that he did not have much to preach, since he did not believe in the deity of Christ. The fact that they could not have any verbal inspirationists teaching at SEBTS tells me that something was seriously flawed, some bad wrong with the set up. And their treatment (not all, of course) of the farm boys and young college grads was not very nice. They just had a problem, however, when they ran into one with my training and back ground. And I wasn’t by myself. There were five students in my theology class, four had Masters and one had a Ph.D. Imagine what that did to the curve, and the professors were not quite ready for intellectuals with rigorous training and the will to debate the issues. But the folks to be grieved over were those who came in naive, superficial in knowledge, etc., only to encounter a wave of acidic skepticism of all things supernatural (I mean Harry Emerson Fosdick being a saint, Give me a break). However, even so, I never approved of the firings of liberals, knowing the harm they would do, and manay Conservatives to this day do not realize the harm done…..Better to give them severance pay for life than to have one whose children would be devastated by Daddy being fired…as Elliott’s was back in the 60s…and I did hear of that. There are also those lib/mods who hurt their own families as have some Conservatives.
I want to answer Louis but it will have to wait until tomorrow. I will state one more time why I don’t support the CR and my challenge to all you CR supporters.
There has been no conservative resurgence at any SBC entity I have been associated with because they were already conservative and are no more theologically conservative today that they were in 1979. This includes my home church, association, the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, Ouachita Baptist University, Southwestern Seminary and the IMB. However they have all been attacked by CR leaders. Like John Fariss, I have heard no SBC professor or pastor make the statements others have mentioned on this site denying the virgin birth, deity of Christ, and other liberal statements. I was fortunate to work at the IMB for 32 years with some of the most dedicated, theologically sound men and women I have ever known who want nothing more than to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the entire world. We have been attacked repeatedly by CR warriors like Ron Wilson and other CR warriors haven’t the courage to defend us. I have experienced many cases since the CR began of unethically, ungodly, ego centered, slanderous behavior and as David Miller stated, “CR warriors using fleshly tactics.” Therefore, why should I support the CR or not defend the SBC when it is attacked by CR warriors.
Ron. I respect your opinion but you are simply wrong. You may simply be ignorant of the liberal elements at our seminaries or you define liberalism differently.
I had liberal professors at Golden Gate. I was ridiculed by moderate professors at SWBTS.
I have a very close friend that was in Austria when liberal professors were hired regularly. Of course that does not mean all missionaries and professors were liberal.
There was definitely liberal problems. To deny this is simply to deny history. In regard to Parks, I think he has shown clearly where his theology lies.
I respectfully disagree with your mischaracterization of the CR.
Like Frank L, I had Liberal professors, but they did little ridicule of me. Mostly they just got angry or upset. That was at SWBTS. I also attended 3 Baptist colleges, two of which had liberals.
Ron:
Thanks.
I hope that you will acknowledge that I have not challenged your personal experiences or your service at the IMB or other missionaries at the IMB.
I have merely brought up some aspects of Moderate leadership and direction and asked if you wanted to comment on that.
All I keep hearing is the restatement that you did not personally experience any liberalism, that the IMB missionaries were conservative, and that some conservative people have done bad things. I believe most of us on here have conceded those things.
The question, however, has to do with the parts of the SBC that you did not personally experience, but others did, and those who lead the Moderate movement who later lead the CBF and what all of that indicates to you.
I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on that, but as Dave has noted there is more heat on this topic now than light, so it might be best to call this one quits.
For Louis.
First I want to say that to me the number one proof that the CR was about power and control and not theology is that if it had been about theology it would have united us instead of divided us. We conservatives would have joined you in making stands for conservative theology. We could no join you in carnal political activity such as the attacks on our missionaries and our conservative seminaries such as SWBTS and the appointment of people like Sam Currin, Curtis Caine and many others to influential positions.
Louis you said the following up above when talking about the CR political appointment process. “But the meetings that I have been in had similar discussions, but they were not for the purpose of maligning people. The purpose was to try and determine with the collective knowledge of the group whether they had heard anything that would cause them to believe that this person, though conservative, might get on a committee or a board and have allegiances or feelings that might cause them to go weak if the time came to act.”
Listen to what you are saying. You are actually confirming what I am saying. Being a conservative isn’t the main thing. It is whether or not they will go weak if the time comes to act. To me that means in the early days of the CR were they willing to attack our missionaries and seminary professors when CR leaders wanted them to. In the later days that meant will they continue the patronage system we have in place to put only CR supporters in places of employment and influence.
You have an obsession with CBF. To me they are irrelevant in the SBC. I am talking about actual people and events taking place in the SBC. You just want to talk about people in CBF who have no influence. I also do not believe any or certainly very few of these people would be relevant today even if the CR had not taken place. You greatly exaggerate Cecil Sherman’s importance in the SBC in the 70s. I was there. He was a pastor of a church in TN I believe where you live so that may be why you talk about him so much. I don’t think he was ever employed by an SBC entity such as a seminary or mission board. I don’t know if he ever served as a trustee or not. It was the CR political conservatives who appointed the Peace Committee not us theological conservatives.
Here is a list of some who actually were serving before 1979.
A partial list of CR supporters and leaders who in significant positions of leadership in the years leading up to the CR in 1979.
Adrian Rogers, Bailey Smith Committee on Committees 1975
Tom Elliff Committee on Boards 1975
Ralph Smith FMB Board 1978-82
Ed Young Southeastern Seminary 1975-80
Jerry Vines Committee on Boards 1976
Nelson Price New Orleans Seminary 1969-79
Morris Chapman FMB Board 1978-82
Jim Henry Sunday School Board 1968-76
Fred Wolfe, Billy Weber HMB 1977-81
Ralph Pulley Southwestern 1977-82
It is a myth that theological conservatives were not allowed to serve before 1979. I could list other CR leaders if I had time. Are these the liberals serving on boards that volfan and cb keep talking about? No one was keeping these men from places of influence in the SBC before 1979. However as you said above, these men worked hard to keep theological conservatives who would not support their political activity from serving on boards or places of influence.
Louis we will probably never agree on this but I appreciate you listening to me and being civil in your response.
The SBC Conservative Resurgence was about the inerrancy of the Bible. But you have to have power, authority to make changes.
Again, the definitions I listed above are very important. Those on the moderate side would often bring up the fact that some of their moderates believed in inerrancy, therefore the battle was not about inerrancy. That is wrong. Many moderates personally believed in inerrancy but they protected and excused liberals. Moderates saw no compelling reason why all SBC missionaries, professors, leaders must believe in inerrancy. Instead, they would often tell what a wonderful person a suspected liberal was, while ignoring his theology.
So conservatives could have appointed moderate inerrantists to committees and other places of leadership, and nothing would have been done. The moderates were happy with the way things were. There were definite cases of liberalism and weak theology yet the moderates defended and covered it up.
Conservatives had served in places of leadership prior to 1979. But I would argue it was as token conservatives and moderates made sure conservatives were not in majorities where they could bring about substantial change. Conservatives were often passed over for leadership positions and for teaching in SBC seminaries. Conservatives had tried to effect change in favor of inerrancy before 1979 – and had to deal with unresponsive SBC leaders and trustees. That was finally changed beginning in 1979.
Not every conservative did right; some got a little too exuberant. Of course you can find an unworthy conservative here and there. You can do the same with moderates. And I’ve seen moderates attack the character of conservative leaders time and time again, rather than dealing with the issues; kind of like some have done here.
History will vindicate that conservative leaders (Paige Patterson, Paul Pressler, Adrian Rogers, Bailey Smith, Jimmy Draper, Ed Young, Charles Stanley, Jerry Vines, Tom Elliff, Morris Chapman) were right, and honorable in the Conservative Resurgence.
David R. Brumbelow
volfan I never denied what you say you saw. Why do you deny what I say I experienced at the IMB and SWBTS and in Arkansas.
One last post for David Miller. In the nomination speech for you at the convention last year it was mentioned that you are an MK. I think that might have gotten you a few votes because of the creditability the IMB has with grassroots Southern Baptists. That creditability was earned by missionaries such as your father and me and thousands of others who have served through the years. I hope you will pay us back by defending us against those who attack our theology and integrity.
I was also at the 1979 and 1990 convention you said you attended. Let me share my experience. On the last day of the 1979 convention the FMB report was given at the Astrodome. Thousands of people filled one side of the stadium. I was with a group of several hundred missionaries who walked out on the floor of the astrodome and were applauded by the crowd. Baker James Cauthen and Billy Graham spoke and gave a great message supporting missions and Bold Mission Thrust. It was an inspirational night. In 1990 on the last day the FMB report was in the Superdome. We missionaries again walked out on the floor of the superdome to polite applause. There were only a few hundred people in attendance. Not even a quorum to conduct the business of the day. The delegates all left as soon as the elections were over. That told me much about the change in direction of the convention under CR leadership.
David in October we are going to have a reunion in Little Rock of the missionaries, journeyman and MKs from Taiwan. I am in charge of organizing it. If you will email me, I will send you the registration information. I don’t know your father’s situation or how his health is but it would be great if he could attend also. I have never heard anyone from Taiwan say anything but good things about him and his time there.
If I said nothing when Ron Wilson, voflan, cb and others call them liberals and heretics, I could not in good conscious stand before them. It would be a betrayal. If I said nothing when these same people attack the theology of my professors at SWBTS like Jack Gray, Russ Bush and others it would be a betrayal of them also. You can attack me all you want but that is where I stand and I will remain.
I am leaving for the day and will post nothing else unless you leave it open and someone asks me a direct question.
I was also at the Astrodome and the SBC in 1979. To argue because not enough people showed up later (1990) to hear the IMB (FMB) report is a weak indictment against conservatives and the CR. I’m pretty confident a multitude of moderates did not show up either.
1979 also was a special, well-publicized event with Billy Graham on the program. No one can expect that kind of crowd at every IMB event.
Should we recognize and praise our missionaries? Of course, and we do, though often not enough. Pastors and seminary students often feel a little lonely and left out too. That is just life. It’s nice to have recognition, but our main goal is to please God. Much we do for God is not recognized in this life.
The attendance at each of the SBC agency reports does not necessarily reflect how much they are appreciated. Sometimes it is more a reflection of when it was scheduled. And frankly, a lot of conservatives, moderates, Calvinists, non-Calvinists, Traditionalists, Seeker Friendly, missional, small church pastors, large church pastors, music and youth ministers enjoy fellowshipping with their friends in the hallways. That fellowship does them a lot of good.
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/07/q-on-sbc-conservative-resurgence-part-1.html
David R. Brumbelow
Dave Miller,
It seems to me that the point of this exercise was to demonstrate that the CR was necessary despite the collateral damage. I think you made your point.
(1) There were liberals/moderates within the leadership ranks of the SBC who needed to be removed. From my experience, granted.
(2) There were solid conservatives who were maligned and/or marginalized by CR operatives whose primary purpose was to gain power for themselves. From my experience, also granted.
The real question is what to do now?
There are still solid, mainstream conservatives out there who remain relatively sidelined because of the lingering effects of decades-old gossip.
It’s become harder to find opportunities within the current SBC unless you’re willing to identify with one of the subgroups (the Calvinists, the Traditionalists, the Missionals, Purpose-Driven, etc.). Just being a plain old Southern Baptist won’t win you any advocates these days.
As I see it, we have successfully removed the moderates from the SBC but we have not successfully rebuilt trust. How do we do that?
I am late getting into this, so no one may even see my thoughts, which is fine. My experiences lie with the thoughts of several others. Bold Mission Thrust was going to be a reality….the CR killed it. I experienced none of the alleged liberalism when I was at Southwestern in the 60’s. I was taught there to think things through and to live my theology—systematic theology and Old and New Testament profs were major influencers. One of them gave me my first taste of Calvinism, but it was informative and compassionate, and never threatening. There were a host of music ministers and pastors like me who were alienated by the CR, because we could not accept the vicious acts of firing of Presidents and other Baptist personnel. When we speak of a resurgence, the word “takeover” is still a bit more accurate to us. Burdened pastors, over time, decided to focus their lives on the home church, rather than being critical of a tide that they could not stem. Many of them gathered in prayer groups and together asked for guidance as they plied those uncertain waters. For all kinds of reasons, they decided it would be better to not discuss their concerns with their churches, but simply to march on, if a bit hesitantly. Some church members who wised up to all that was happening often joined other denominations. Some local congregations worked with their pastors in joining the CBF. These congregations have maintained some affiliation with both units, but have gradually become more identified with CBF. Some predicted that the SBC would eventually split again over differing ideas of Biblical interpretation and faithfulness. Sadly, the Calvinism dispute is a bitter manifestation of the fact that the stress on “inerrancy” will always give us differing camps of thought who believe their interpretation is the only correct way. While I remain relatively conservative to moderate in my beliefs, my CBF church home offers much more freedom to follow my Lord and minister with the gifts God has given me. We disagree in my church, but we disagree in love, and we still serve together. My observations are that the CR has resulted in two main groups of believers, neither of which is as focused and united as the SBC of the 1950’s. While some kind of turn may have been needed, and was certainly possible, but the final result, instead, was devastating to who we were. Both SBC and CBF now must restructure their identities, and it seems to be taking a long long time.
Thought I would add to Richard’s comments my experience of being criticized and accused of being a Communist, because the folks fired the President of SWBTS, something as Conservative I did not approve and, of course, could do nothing about other than never -participate and let the Liberals just roll right over all the Conservatives like they were nothing which was something I did see happening at SEBTS. A member of my own church blamed me for voting Conservative as the cause for the President being fired, the hand of the Moderates in BSCNC were evidently present, operating real freely in my church. I said I did not approve of the firing and would not have done it, but that did not matter…and within a year, using various tactics I was fired from my church. Just consider the ballot, Mark the following, No, for the pastor to stay. Yes, for the pastor to go. the moderator said, “We had a unanimous vote,” A lady asked my wife, “What does unanimous mean?” She said, “I voted for my pastor.” I told the deacons that night, “Well, you did not have a unanimous vote. At least one person said she voted for her pastor. That enraged them folks who had set that vote up. All I did was say to the perpetrators, “Well, gentlemen, we will meet in eternity.” And all of them, present and voting, three men in particular, have been in eternity. The last one died in ’06, the Moderator of the meeting died 10 mos. after the vote, and another deacon died in 12 mos. (’97). The latter told me, “We did this for your own good.” Since that date, with the exception of one 3 month interim, I have never had another church. And with the exception of a few temp jobs, I have never had another full time job. The forces that work to destroy are very real and powerful. We were reduced to poverty and are still just as poor, social security (at the low end of the scare) being our only means of survival and a charity check from Guidestone. Try that on for size, brethren.
Several comments have been made implying Dr. Russell Dilday, president of SWBTS during the Conservative Resurgence, was innocent of denominational politics and unjustly fired.
It should be remembered Dr. Dilday was very, very involved in SBC politics as a moderate. He traveled the convention for a year to try to get an incumbent conservative SBC president defeated. He was directly going against his conservative board of trustees. I’m sure his firing could have been handled better, but he was not an innocent bystander.
David R. Brumbelow
Dr. James,
But my previous comment in no way means I approve of the way your church treated you. I am sorry for it. Christians can act very ungodly. I wish you the best.
David R. Brumbelow
David, I did not say Dilday was altogether innocent. I just said there could have been another way of handline, and that it did effect at least one preacher in a local church. There is great anger in such events, and people have a tendency to lash out at anyone around, as a focus of their anger, a place to lay the blame. I was supporting the Conservative cause from 1959-61 onward, voting at the ’63 convention, etc. The Moderates, contrary to what some seem to think, played hard ball, even dirty ball, but, I have to add, the Conservatives did the same. Let me add, not all Moderates and not all Conservatives acted wrongly.
But suffering is a part of the business of being a servant of Christ in this world. Even so, it is still a miserable experience, no getting around that reality.
It is at this stage a bit of exaggeration to call the CBF a “main group” of Baptists. The organization has been in decline for years and their national body is about the size of a singe one of the SBC’s 177 megachurches. They fund zero missions personnel, I think, and
While I am for anyone who preaches Christ, and understanding that there are some very innovative people involved in the CBF, it is not a major player in Baptist life. They must restructure, reinvent themselves in order to survive while the SBC lumbers along with diminished but still enormous resources.
Ron:
Thanks for the response.
There is obviously a lot of uncovered, fertile ground for discussion, but I believe that such differing experiences make it very difficult to go much further in this format.
Cecil Sherman, by the way, was a Texas pastor during most of the years of the CR. I believe he pastored Broadway Baptist in Fort Worth, but I could be wrong about that. He later pastored in Asheville, NC, and then was the first leader of the CBF in Atlanta.
Your not knowing of Cecil Sherman or his leadership in the Moderate cause really explains our disconnect. It’s as if you had asked me about Paul Pressler and Paige Patterson and I said that I did not really know who they are.
This just underscores that it is entirely possible for people to have lived in the SBC during those years and to have seen completely different worlds.
Cecil Sherman’s brother, Bill Sherman, still pastors in Middle Tennessee. That is probably who you are thinking of.
As far as listening to you and being civil, you are welcome. I, also, appreciate your reciprocating.
I actually believe that we have so much in common that the future is very bright.
My wife was raised on the mission field. My father in law and mother in law served from about 1964 to 1990 or so. They had to come home when my mother in law was stricken with Parkinson’s disease.
When you speak of the SBC missionaries, I want you to know that I (a fully involved CR supporter) ALWAYS speak highly of the missionaries. And I have never been in a meeting or room where that was not the case.
The CR ended in 1990 – 23 years ago.
I am almost 52. I was 18 in 1979, and 29 in 1990. If a person is any younger than I, chances are they have very little actual experience with the CR years other than what they read in books.
The younger crowd today – the future of the SBC, is not interested in the CR other than a 2 to 3 minute talk. They simply want to make disciples.
The names you mentioned, the events and such, they do not know about.
The challenge for us today is to be willing to work together for the Lord’s kingdom.
I plan to be in Houston. Will you be there? If so, I will scan for you in the crowd. I do see people from time to time. I met Bob Cleveland a year or so ago. I have never met CB or Dave Miller. Bart Barber is ubiquitous, so I have met him there.
Maybe we will see one another.
Take care.
The ubiquity of Bart Barber. If I could make a case for my perpetual suffering, I might be able to get our Roman Catholic friends to transubstantiate me into something!
Louis,
You are right Cecil Sherman was pastor of Broadway Baptist Church in Ft. Worth. That church was recently dismissed from the BGCT for their pro homosexual policies. Dr. Sherman was a member of the Peace Committee and resigned in 1986 because he felt the moderates had “sold the store” in their concessions to the conservatives.
Albert Mohler wrote an excellent article on his blog the week of Dr. Sherman’s death. The article is dated April, 23, 2010. In the article he outlines a few of Dr. Sherman’s disturbing theological positions. I highly recommend that people go and read that article.
Cecil Sherman was a good man who heroically cared for his wife in her final days with Alzheimer’s.
He was definitely a leader on the moderate side in the Conservative Resurgence.
And, according to the standard definition used by conservatives in the CR (Liberal, in the context of the SBC – one who believes there are errors, or could be errors in the Bible.) he was a liberal.
Paige Patterson has an excellent review of Cecil Sherman’s book, “By My Own Reckoning.” Everyone should read it:
http://www.baptisttheology.org/ByMyOwnReckoning.cfm
David R. Brumbelow
Thanks David Brumbelow,
For sharing that link. That article was inspirational and it was certainly gracious.
Thanks, John.
Bart, I am sure that I will see you at the Convention, and hope that I get to see your wife and father in law again. Sweet people.
David:
Thanks for sharing the link of Dr. Patterson’s review of Cecil Sherman’s memoir.
Dr. Patterson is quite gracious here.
If frank talk and graciousness govern into the future, we’ll have a bright one.
I have been attending SBC churches since I was five years old (56 years). I did my under graduate work at Liberty University. I completed my M.Div. at Golden Gate Seminary. Finally I completed my MBA at Corban University (formerly Western Baptist College).
While at GGBTS I did a paper on the CR. I will admit I was rather naive. I never realized any of this type thing was going on. My home church was Central Heights Baptist Church in Phoenix and attended North Phoenix Baptist Church for a few years before moving to Dallas. I really enjoyed the sermons by Dr. Richard Jackson. I never heard a message on these type things. These two churches focused on telling the lost about the freedom found in Jesus. Dr. Richard Jackson was pastor at NPBC from 1964-1989. Took the church from attendance of 400 to over 10,000 with over 20,000 baptized during his tenure as pastor.
While at GGBTS I did a paper on CR. I was appalled and ashamed when I learned what SBCers were saying and doing to other SBCers. My paper included a thirty minute interview with Dr. Richard Jackson. What I learned about that time still causes me to be ashamed of those who call themselves leaders of the SBC.
So here is my ending question, “During all that time when all the fighting was going on how many people died and went to Hell because SBCers chose to put their energy fighting with each other rather than telling them about Jesus?”
Your question is only apt if the fight was about nothing of substance. It sounds very noble, and all, but if the issues of the CR mattered, then the battle had to be fought.
How many people died and went to hell because many Methodist and Presbyterian churches and other mainline denominational entitis abandoned the basic truths of the faith and stopped proclaiming the biblical gospel of salvation?
How many people would have died and gone to hell if Southern Baptists had followed that march into liberalism that blunts the gospel and produces the kinds of things you see in some of the groups that split from Southern Baptists.
So, your question only works if the CR was a tempest in a teapot, a battle over nothing. I believe that many of our modern brouhahas fall into that category. That is a judgment on your part – to say that the CR was not an important fight over crucial issues.
Because of my college and seminary experiences, I believe the fight actually mattered. I think it was a struggle worth engaging. So, in all, I think the Kingdom of God was aided, not hindered (in spite of all the collateral stuff) by the CR.
David: I agree with you. I think there is no doubt that something had to be done. All one had to do was to look at the other denominations and see what the so-called liberalism (really modern skepticism) had done to them, taking away their biblical faith, their trust in God, their evangelistic appeals, their missionary zeal, their constructive contributions to civilization, all realities that were really positive despite shortcomings and failures. In the struggles some great scholars were raised up. The denomination that was before Southern Baptists in the struggle was the Missouri Synod Lutheran. All before them seem to have failed. Northern Baptist went down long ago, and the separations by the GARB and CBC were always wanting and lacking in something. After the MSL, the SBC became embroiled, though it had been bubbling below the surface, so to speak, all along, since about 1925, when the control group got a resolution on creation adopted at the 1925 SBC in order to keep it out of the BFM of that year (resolutions are a dime a dozen), and it explains why evolution has had little serious opposition in SBC ranks. It also explains why the skeptical approach, in part, had become so appealing. Admittedly, understanding the Scripture in any part is difficult due to the fact that even clarity is a problem, because depth and subtlety can and do exist even in the simplest of terms. The depth is an issue, fraught with problems like stepping off into clear water that one is sure is only a few feet deep and finding out it is18-20 feet deep. I can never forget the arrogance of the two men who called me ignorant for believing in the virgin birth. There is either supernaturalism or there is not. Either one follows Atheism as I did at one time, or one is found of the Lord as I was and discovers that the Supernatural, the God who is above, beyond, and behind nature does exist and that He has revealed Himself in the person of His Son in history, that this revelation is revealed in the world of facts, of reality, of truths, teachings, and a record that can be examined and investigated, that actually makes a contribution to civilization by providing an intellectual framework that enables and empowers the development of the scientific method (which by the way is scheduled for more development, needing as it does to escape from an analytical dead end, needing to be more synthetical in order to consider facts that are seemingly antithetical but are in truth complementary, when understood fully and properly.).
The skeptical methods originated, in part, at least, from professors of Christianity who had moral problems and were really hunting excuses for their sins and sinful practices in some cases. And there is the reality that there are teachings in Scripture which seemingly demand the impossible (and, indeed, do), because we have such things as therapeutic paradoxes and there are scholars who write of cognitive dissonance and the theory of creative dissonance. Now if we allow for such in scholarly and scientific fields, what shall we say about the profound Book of the ages, the Bible. I have a picture of my grandfather holding his Bible as if he is reading it, a posed picture for the camera with even a shadow of his face on the wall behind him, a picture of sanity and wholeness, of humanity, like the demonic of the Gadarenes sitting at the feet of Jesus, fully clothed, and in his right mind. We all know from Scripture what he was like a short while before, and I know what my Grandfather had been like a few years before that picture was taken (like some 12-15 years earlier), like the Demoniac in many respects. Then the Lord came into his life, and he started reading his Bible and praying at least three times a day. Sanity replaced madness, humanity replaced inhumanity. We all have that madness in us, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the person and the circumstances of his or her life.(Eccles.9:3). Sin is no pleasant, easy matter to be tossed off as a trifle. God thought it was so serious that He sent His Son to die for our sins, and anything or anyone who distracts or detracts from that truth does self and mankind the most severe disservice. Whereas, he or she who promotes God’s truth intends the best and highest for all concerned. Even so in the midst of our doing good, evil can exist and do its deadly work. Many a time have we spoken unadvisedly with our lips to the detriment of our own cause and even to real harm to ourselves as well as others. We really do require grace that is greater than our sins, and that is what we have in Christ Jesus.
Hi John,
My question would be what if the SBC had failed to run the liberals out and like most liberal mainline denominations the Gospel was lost how many people would be going to hell then?
John Lawless,
You ask,
“During all that time when all the fighting was going on how many people died and went to Hell because SBCers chose to put their energy fighting with each other rather than telling them about Jesus?”
To begin with, that is an unfair attitude and question. You could ask the same of the Apostle Paul.
“Instead of writing 1 Corinthians and reproving and correcting the church, why didn’t you spend that time telling people about Jesus?”
There are certainly times we are to be telling others about Jesus. But there are other things we are to do as well. “Teaching them all things I’ve commanded you” would include a correct view of the inspiration and inerrancy of Holy Scripture.
The Conservative Resurgence dealt with things that are vital to evangelism and missions. If the Bible cannot be trusted, then do we really have a Gospel to proclaim? One reason I was involved in the CR is because of evangelism. When a denomination goes liberal, evangelism slows and finally comes to an end.
No one was more passionate about pointing the lost to Jesus as Patterson, Pressler, Rogers, Vines, Draper, and other conservative leaders.
My brother recently had a lawyer join his church. He asked the lawyer about his salvation. The lawyer said you wouldn’t know him, but years ago there was a judge that led me to Jesus; then said his name was Judge Paul Pressler.
Ever heard of the evangelistic efforts of Paige Patterson at SWBTS? They evangelize in the immediate community around Southwestern, each year send out students as revival preachers around the country; missions and evangelism are a very prominent part of Southwestern.
Conservatives began the Crossover efforts to win the lost in each city that hosts the SBC. Conservatives urged that LifeWay and other denominational publications print the plan of salvation in their literature. Conservative leaders pastored very evangelistic churches. They were winning multitudes to the Lord before, during, and after the Conservative Resurgence.
Because we got our theology straight (inerrancy), multitudes will come to know Christ as their Savior in the years to come. We do not have an uncertain message, but a certain message to the lost because we stand on the truthfulness of God’s Word.
If you think the SBC Conservative Resurgence harmed evangelism, just compare the evangelism of the SBC today and the evangelism of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. You will see a stark difference.
David R. Brumbelow
And amen to the comments by Dave and John.
David R. Brumbelow
No one EVER died and went to hell because of church controversies.
Christians, churches and denominations can be bad examples. But the salvation of souls is not thwarted by Christians behaving badly.
I have enjoyed reading this post and the comments very much. One thing is certain about the CR, one group has moved on and the other is stilled filled with anger and hatred. My juices got flowing again for the CR. I got online and read many articles concerning the “fundamental takeover of the SBC.” Many of the group that lost are still bitter and angry. We are talking 23 years after victory was declared and some who profess Christ are still carrying resentment. I honestly hate that for them. I can’t imagine what it would be like to minister in the name of Jesus carrying that around. I wish we could help them in some way!
Because one side is bitter they are still telling their story and as I have been reading some are reinventing their story. I read where the CR was not a grass roots movement. That is laughable. All one needs to do is look up the numbers – the more people that attended the convention the greater the margin of victory for the conservative. The only close vote at all after 1979 was when Dr. Vines and Dr. Jackson ran in San Antonio in 1988. Over 30,000 messengers attended and Dr. Vines won with 50.5 percent.
I have lost little sleep over the fact that Winfred Moore, Daniel Vestal, Ralph Elliot, Molly Marshall Green, Cecil Sherman, etc.. felt they could not support the direction the SBC was going. What did break my heart and still does is the fact, out of necessity, some who were theological conservatives but would not support the change of direction of the convention were hurt. For that, I am forever sorry. In my opinion, this list would contain guys like, Frank Pollard, Landrum Leavell, Richard Jackson, Perry Sanders and others. I know what I heard and read and was taught. No one can tell me liberalism did not have a stranglehold on the SBC. It was a part of all of our entities. Its all documented. I’m glad that the side of truth won. I am proud I worked as an underling to help in the smallest of ways. However, the older I get the more I feel for the brethren and I am not satisfied with how everything turned out.
Louis I thought I ought to respond to your friendly comments. I remember Cecil Sherman and his brother Bill. I do recall now that he was formerly in North Carolina and it was Bill that was in Tennessee. I have given very little thought to Cecil Sherman in the last 25 years or so. Why should I? He was never the major player you have tried to make him out to be. When those on this site make statements like look at the CBF today and you can see what the SBC would look like if the CR had not taken place, they show how little they know about the SBC before the CR.
The two major denominational leaders serving as presidents of CP supported entities in the 70s were Baker James Cauthen of the FMB and Robert Naylor of SWBTS. The FMB was by far our largest entity and SWBTS was the largest seminary. Both men and their organizations were solid theologically conservative. I am not aware of Cecil Sherman having any influence on any entity. Some of the most influential pastors would be W. A. Criswell, Hershel Hobbs and Frank Pollard. If these men were the major leaguers, then Cecil Sherman would be a class A or AA minor leaguer. To try and portray Cecil Sherman as somehow representative of those who opposed the CR is like saying Wiley Drake is a major representative of the CR and what it represents. It is political conservatives in the CR who keep bringing up Cecil Sherman’s name and legacy in order to dishonestly attach him to us. We theological conservatives who oppose the CR have never given him any position of authority or influence.
I remember before, you mentioned your in-laws were formerly with the IMB. Do me a favor. I don’t know their situation now but if you were to talk to them read Ron Wilson’s words that the IMB was controlled by liberals and we were spreading heresy all over the world for 25 years and we were neo-orthodox. Ask if they believe that is true. And then explain to them why you give support to an organization whose leaders put Ron Wilson and hundreds of others just like him on the IMB board of trustees and as well as all the other trustee boards. Explain to them how this has been good for the SBC and you support this group without question. Read to them statements by volfan and cb and others who say the IMB was liberal before the CR took control and tell them why you and David Miller and others never question or object to those statements. If fact, I would like to understand that myself.
You were concerned that Keith Parks helped start a mission agency that would draw money and support away from the IMB. I didn’t like that much either. Those of us who know the history of the SBC would also remember that Paige Patterson and some of his friends anxious about how long it was taking to take over the IMB started a mission organization called the Genesis Commission. They were going to go into places where our missionaries were working and offer money to churches there to cooperative with them. They were also asking people and churches to take money from the IMB to give to them. It was so missiologically unsound that it collapsed quickly but it was still an attempt by CR leaders to undermine the FMB. Do you think Patterson was wrong to do that?
I would love to sit down face to face with you sometime and discuss these things without having to use a computer. I don’t know if I will be in Houston or not. We are going to be moving to Little Rock in June and we are expecting our 7th grandchild in June. If you are ever passing through Arkansas sometime on Interstate 40, let me know and I will buy you a meal.
The point about the Shermans is that they became the early leaders of the SBC status quo, perhaps by default, but leaders nonetheless. My view at the time was that Dilday, Chafin, and the Shermans were not well suited for the task of persuading ordinary SBCers to follow them and not Rogers et al. They were good in appealing to the small cadre of self-described moderates who were accustomed to having their way.
Does anyone who lived through that think that more conservative baptists were systematically, though tacitly, excluded from trusteeships, administrative, and faculty positions?
We can indeed find egregious acts in that period but it is reasonable to view the present CBF and the array of their partner seminaries and houses of study as the trajectory on which the SBC was headed.
Was Cecil Sherman a moderate leader in the CR? Of course he was. I remember it well. But you don’t have to take a conservative’s word for it.
Listen to what other moderate SBC leaders said about Cecil Sherman:
“A Baptist prophet who challenged…fundamentalism in the ‘80s.” -R. Keith Parks, World Missions leader in the SBC, and later in the CBF.
“The most important white, moderate Baptist in the South in the last two decades of the twentieth century.” -Walter B. Shurden, Mercer University.
“A man who arguably has been the most important Baptist of his generation.” -W. Randall Lolley, former president of SEBTS, and moderate leader.
“A towering figure in Baptist life.” -Daniel Vestal, Executive Coordinator, CBF.
David R. Brumbelow
David Brumbelow,
Southern Baptist baptized more in the 70s than they did in the 80s or 90s or the 00s when the CR was in control. Do you ever read where even the CR leaders are concerned over the drop in baptisms in recent years? We were much more concerned about evangelism in the 70s.
No we weren’t. Demographics have changed. Everyone is baptizing less than in the 1950s or 1970s. What you will not find is any statistic for baptisms by CBF churches. If you do then perhaps is could be used for comparison and subsequent discussion.
William,
I am not sure what you are talking about. My statement has nothing to do with the CBF. I am just saying in the SBC that we are baptizing fewer today than in the 60s and 70s before the CR. There is no way to say that the CR has helped evangelism in the SBC.
Your statement was that “We were much more concerned about evangelism in the 70s” and I disagreed. If your measurement of ‘concern’ is in numbers of folks baptized then you have stated your metric and the conclusion that you draw from it. I don’t think that baptismal numbers are necessarily a measure of concern. If it were, we would be criticizing most all of our World A missionaries, not to mention Adoniram Judson et al.
I see no less concern for evangelism on the part of the SBC entities and leaders. Clearly, there are less baptisms.
Dean,
I am not sure who you are talking about but I am not angry or bitter. David Miller started this post. He enjoys bringing this all up to discuss fairly often. I don’t dwell on these things but I am glad to share my experience if David and volfan and cb and others here like to discuss it.
I often speak in churches and urge them to continue to support the cooperative program and our mission organizations. The SBC is still the best organization for evangelizing the world in existence today. That was true before 1979 and it is true today. It is because of our churches and thousands of pastors who serve because they love the Lord and without a desire for personal prestige or honor.
You talk about others being bitter or having resentment and then say you “honestly hate them”. Who is being bitter and has resentment?
You said, “No one can tell me liberalism did not have a stranglehold on the SBC.” Yes they can. In fact, I am telling you right now, “liberalism did not have a stranglehold on the SBC!”
You said, “It was a part of all of our entities. Its all documented. I’m glad that the side of truth won.” Show me where is was documented that the IMB and SWBTS were liberal. The Peace Committee documented there were no theological problems with these two entities. Was it the side of truth that put Ron Wilson, Bill Hancock, Russell Kammerling and other slanderers on our boards?
Ron, would you please reread my comments once more? I did not say you were bitter but that it is apparent in the articles I have read online the last couple of days that some are. It is evident that if a person is still speaking of an issue and writing continual articles 23 years after their side lost in a landslide that person is bitter. I even found a website given to 30 people who screwed up the SBC. All were conservatives. Such a site is the work of an angry person.
You said that I made a statement, “I hate them.” What I actually said was, “I honestly hate that for them.” It troubles me to think of some of God’s children living in bitterness. That was sincere sympathy.
As for as you no one being able to tell me that liberalism didn’t have a stranglehold on the SBC, I was wrong, you told me. You just don’t know what your talking about. You are not objective – that is apparent. I have quotes from every one of our seminaries that espouse liberalism and hold Scripture in less than high esteem. That includes SWBTS.
You named two entities and request I show they were liberal. Once again, you misquote me, I said liberalism was part of all of our entities. I never said any entity was liberal. Now as for your request: The seminary at Ruschlikon was the pride and joy of the FMB back in the day and it was full of liberal theology. As for as SWBTS, we are grateful that seminary remained conservative through the years. All I have heard are grateful for men like Robert Naylor and Roy Fish. I would also say that maybe even that strange man from the past, J Frank Norris may have something to do with SWBTS being conservative through the years. I do have statements from some professors that do not paint the Bible in high esteem. However, this is on record in hundreds of places, SWBTS was involved in liberalism because Russell Dilday placed that great seminary on the side of liberalism in the fight. I have read “Higher Ground” and Dr. Dilday chose to put his seminary on the side of liberalism.
Southeastern under Lolley and Southern under Honeycutt were completely controlled by liberals before the CR. The ERLC(Christian Life Commission) was liberal under Valentine. And, many other entities, boards, and committees were completely controlled by liberals and moderates. Oh, they would let the token Conservative be elected to a board, every now and then….to keep the wolves from howling so loud, or to try to give some appearance of being fair….but, they made sure that the vast majority on these boards and committees were liberals and moderates. And, they made sure that the majority of Seminary Profs were liberals and moderates. And, no matter how much you dont “remember,” Ron; and no matter how much you didnt “see,” you cant rewrite history. We all know better.
Thank God for the CR. Thank God that our discussions in SBC life, today, are about Calvinism, and dispensationalism; instead of being about whether Jesus literally, physically resurrected from the dead, or not. Thank God that we’re discussing things like the proper, Scriptural mode of baptism, instead of fighting over whether to allow Churches which ordain homosexuals as Pastors to remain in the SBC, or not. Thank God that we’re discussing things like the adhering to the BFM2K, or allowing entities to be more narrow than the BFM2K; rather than seeing radical, feminist women being ordained Pastors, and leading thier SBC Churches to worship Sophia, the goddess of wisdom.
Thank God for the CR……I’m sorry for the truly conservative Pastors and Churches, which got hurt in the process…..but, thank God all the liberals were shown the door.
David
William, I lived through that and it is not true that the trajectory of the CBF has any relationship to the direction the SBC would have taken without the CR. You can’t give any logical or rational proof of your statement. That is just a propaganda statement the CR apologist like to throw out to try and justify the ethical and moral failures of the CR.
Sure I can: Bill Leonard welcoming lesbians to his theological school; a past moderator of the national CBF saying it is time the organization removed its ban on hiring homosexuals; full acceptance (in principle though not in practice) of women as senior pastors.
It is not propaganda, a snarl word if there is one in this discussion, but I freely admit that saying what might have happened is hypothetical. I say ‘yea’ and you say ‘nay’; we both have noses and opinions.
I don’t recall anyone here, Ron, certainly not me, justifying the ethical and moral failures of the CR. Please point me to either my own words or someone elses’.
Amen, William….you have spoken truly.
David
Thanks, Ron.
My father in law was very afraid of the CR at first. When he met me in 1985 and learned that I was connected to the CR, he expressed concern.
He had a good experience at Baylor in the 50s and at Southwestern in the late 50s, early 60s, and then was on the mission field. He had no experience with the issues being discussed in the CR.
He did not like what he read about Adrian Rogers during those years, even though his wife was from Memphis and had good feelings about him.
But over the years he began to clearly understand why the CR happened. He attended the SBC where the Peace Committee report was adopted. That was his first personal, state-side observation of what was going on.
He and I are on great terms.
Memphis is probably like many large Southern cities. There a Baptist churches of almost every stripe.
In Memphis today most of the SBC churches are theologically conservative.
There are some Baptist churches there, and in most Southern towns, that are either not theologically orthodox or they are open to a mixture of orthodoxy and various strains of other thought. These churches are often not evangelistic due to their theology and prefer interfaith dialogue. They are often pretty open about not adhering to a biblical sexual ethic. Some are even what are called “open and affirming” toward homosexuals and homosexual acts.
Most of us, including my father in law, take note of that.
These churches’ connection to the Moderate cause during the CR is obvious, and a well known fact. Some are still in the SBC. Some are CBF. Some are dually aligned.
If I thought that the CBF was something that had no connection to the Moderate cause in the SBC, I would not be interested in it. But the CBF is the SBC Moderates’ new denomination. It is, therefore, very instructive.
I actually applaud them for their efforts. They were not at home in the SBC. They needed to create a place for themselves and their beliefs.
It is simply instructive how far apart the SBC and the CBF are. The biggest difference is that the CBF believes the key Baptist distinctive is freedom of conscience, the right to decide to believe whatever that person thinks is right – and at the same time, still call themselves a Baptist. It is for that reason that the CBF has no doctrinal confession.
The SBC, on the other hand, is a confessional denomination. There are a set of commonly shared beliefs among the member churches that govern their cooperative efforts.
I am not sure that any of this is making sense to you. I hope that it is.
Some SBC conservatives actually linked up with the CBF. Dr. Parks, Dan Vestal and others. Since Cecil Sherman was the coordinator of the CBF when Dr. Parks went to lead the CBF missions efforts, I cannot imagine how that went. It makes no sense to me for a theological conservative (which Dr. Parks was) to go start a missions program with a nascent denomination that had no doctrinal confession. Maybe he was thinking that since all of the folks in the CBF were “Baptists” that they must be on the same page, or something like that. At any rate, I don’t know.
I don’t have any problem with Dr. Parks going to the CBF to start its missions program. I do not think it was designed to be helpful to SBC missions and it is disingenuous to claim that people thought it would have no impact. But I am all for people doing what they want to do. I just want there to be straight talk about what is being done and why.
If I were guessing, I would say that Dr. Parks was really angry about the CR, and that he wanted to continue working, and that it just did not bother him that if his efforts in starting the CBF missions program was designed to be harmful to the SBC and its missions program.
The same thing is true about Dr. Patterson. I really do not know the details of what you are speaking about here. If I were guessing, I would say that Dr. Patterson was hedging his bets that the Convention might not go the way he liked and that he may have been starting some sort of network to have in place if the CR was unsuccessful. And like Dr. Parks, at that point, he was not worried if it hurt the ongoing SBC efforts.
I have been clear about my feelings related to the IMB on this post. Sometimes I don’t read all of the comments, so I must have missed statements that the IMB was liberal before the CR. I certainly do not agree with that.
I am glad that you are now able to remember now who Cecil Sherman was. History records that Cecil Sherman was one of the Moderate leaders. I believe any book on the subject recognize that. You may be the first person I have met who is familiar with the CR and not only has a hard time remembering Cecil Sherman, but also doesn’t really consider him to have been a leader of Moderate Baptists opposed to the Conservatives.
As has been stated many times here, the Moderates were a collection of really different people. There were conservatives like Richard Jackson, Winfred Moore and others you have named. And there were others who were not Conservative.
Anyway, I am played out here.
Congrats on grandchild #7.
I had a friend, who went to Southern, when Honeycutt was the President. He left there after a semester. He told me that they talked about Dr. Adrian Rogers like he was the Devil incarnate. He told me of many other things, which made him leave….none were good.
David
Dean,
Sorry I did read your quote about hating wrong.
You talk about people writing articles 23 years after a cause was lost. It is David Miller, volfan and others on this site that keep writing about this. I just sometimes respond to what they write sometimes I ignore it. They feel need to repeat these things over and over in order keep from thinking about the issues I raised in case study 1 and 2. I could give a hundred more similar case studies but they would ignore them also. I haven’t even mentioned Roger Moran, Russell Kammerling, Darrell Gilyard and a host of others.
I asked for documentation. I see none. Liberalism is part of them or they are liberal. Either way prove it. You say Ruschlikon was the darling of the FMB and was full of liberalism. I know Ron Wilson said a professor denied the virgin birth. It was proven that was a false charge. When the president stood in front of the trustees and asked them to prove their charges of liberalism. They couldn’t do it. Regardless, it was a European seminary. They would probably have theological beliefs that may not line up with ours and some may call liberal, such as allowing women pastors.
Russell Dilday did not place the seminary on the side of liberalism. That is ridiculous. I read the book Higher Ground. I challenge you to read his book Columns and tell me the CR is about theology and not power and control.
Ron, no need to apologize for an honest mistake. Let me see if I can be more clear Ron. From 1975 until 1990 our convention was in a battle between a group labeled the conservative and a group labeled the moderates. Leaders in our convention had no choice, they were forced to be on one side or the other. Dilday and SWBTS were theologically conservative. However, Dilday chose to enter the fight on the side of the liberals. His “Higher Ground” sermon at the convention in 1984 is considered by many to be the time the conflict escalated. He was reprimanded loudly and continually for doing this to SWBTS when he and the seminary were considered to be the best seminary and president in the convention. He was asked again and again, why did you put SWBTS on the side of the liberalism. He continued to defend the liberals and attack the conservatives even though he was a conservative himself. He openly campaigned against Charles Stanley when he was president. It was at this time that the presidents of our institutions were told to stay out of politics. Southern Baptist did not want to hire someone, pay someone and then have that person condemn our convictions. It was either 84 or 85 that Dr. Dilday preached his “Holy War” sermon at the seminary. He titled it something else but all know it as the “Holy War” sermon. He called the conservative unholy in that sermon. His fate was sealed in 1985. The SBC will not pay presidents of seminaries to chide the people and churches who founded those seminaries and fund them. It took ten years to change the board of trustees but once the numbers were changed Dilday, a theological conservative who led a great conservative seminary, would be fired. He and the seminary were conservative but they positioned themselves on the side with liberals and lost.
Brother as for the FMB/IMB, I have three resources documenting Edward Taylor, FMB missionary, stated at Louisiana College in front of the student body that we do not need to evangelize Brazil because of the Brazilian Catholic faith leave us without a rational for doing so. Michael Willet, FMB missionary,was removed as missionary by a unanimous vote of the board when it was apparent he denied a bodily resurrection of Jesus. Brother, I have at least 25 other cases I could list but I do not like doing so. Thank God for trustees willing to remove such heresy when Keith Parks was not willing to do so.
Ron, I spent over 10 years reading and researching the controversy in the SBC. I was part of the resurgence. I love talking about it and would do so all day the rest of the week. I know that no one else is interested in us entering into a long conversation about this matter in a public forum. What is apparent Ron is one of us is delusional and has no touch with reality when it comes to what happen in the SBC in the 80’s. Either you or I have lost touch with reality. Seeing how that is the case I hope both of us have good people around us to care for us as our condition worsens.
Dean,
Thank you for sharing the “facts” with everyone, here. Maybe Ron will listen. I doubt it, but maybe he will. But, I appreciate you taking the time to research this, and sharing it with us. It always amazes me when someone tries to rewrite history just becaue they don’t like the way it was, as some liberals/moderates like to do. Thanks for sharing the “FACTS.”
David
The last two pastors that I had felt that they (while theologically conservative) had been “sucked into the CR” through misrepresentations of the goals of the CR. Generally they seemed disgusted with how the SBC was being controlled.
But that was a few years ago.
History is written by the winners and is generally based on FACTS rather than what actually was said and done.
So, Bennett, I guess we can mark you down as one, who didnt like the CR….and, who is saying that every, conservative in the SBC is lying, or misrepresenting the truths of what happened in the CR? Does that about sum it up?
For the record, I was involved in it to STOP the liberalism that was controlling the SBC before the CR. I wasnt in it for power, or to be mean, or to just stick it in the face of liberals. I was in it to turn the SBC back to the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ…with the help of God, which we got. Hallelujah!
David
This is why my pastor stayed completely on the sidelines. He is a conservative line by line expository preacher who is consumed by missions, both individually and corporately.
He went to SWBTS and was there when some of the conservative faculty was purged for political reasons alone. It disgusted him and confirmed in his mind that he needed to eschew politics and concentrate on what is important.
Our church remained in the BGCT and works with the BGCT on church plants in our area
So, Eric, when you read the things that Dave describes in the OP, and you see the things that Dean talks about in the comment above, and you read about all the liberalism that abounded in the SBC prior to the CR; you’re okay with it? You think we should’ve just let it go….done nothing? Do these things not bother you? If you truly are a Bible Believing, truth seeking, Believer? that it’d be okay for people, who are denying the virgin birth, or who are saying that there’s errors in the Bible, or who are saying that believing in the physical resurrection of Jesus is crass, or who say that there’s more than one way to Heaven, to remain in the SBC….to be funded by SBC dollars….to be spread to others?????
Wow.
David
Bennett, I am sorry your previous pastors felt they were duped. I have no interest in fighting a battle that was settled 23 years ago after 12 straight conservative candidates won in landslide elections – only one was close. However, I hear what you are saying and may be able to add something of value. First of all, the liberalism was real and widespread, especially in our seminaries. Brother, just research the Elliot controversy. Many of our professors thought that any moment the missing link was going to be found and evolution proved and we would look like idiots. Higher criticism was a tool to aid any portion of Scripture that may make us look foolish in the eyes of the academic and scientific world. Dr. Fred Fisher of Golden Gate Seminary wrote in an article in 1985 that the Bible is not the revelation of God but contains the revelation. Scientific and historical statements reflect the knowledge that men had of the world in that day; such statements may be in error.” Bennett, we could list thousands of such statements. Liberalism was real and the goal of the CR was to rid the convention of the liberalism.
Now for the valuable statement, your previous pastors may be right. They probably felt duped about the goals. I can tell that the further we went down the line the more I saw the goals changing. Once liberalism was exposed to the people in the pew it had no chance of surviving in the SBC. The authors of the CR led us to victory and paid a price. Later appointments and even presidencies were given as a reward for those who helped in the heat of the battle. In the later days of the resurgence some were still looking for battles when the war was over. I remember watching as Fred Wolfe and Jim Henry were both nominated for the presidency in Orlando. Some tried to make Jim Henry out as a liberal in order to reward Fred Wolfe for his faithfulness. Dr. Wolf to my knowledge would never speak ill of anyone, especially Jim Henry. Dr. Wolfe would have been a great president. Jim Henry was a great president and has always been theologically conservative. The second generation of CR leaders were not of the same caliber as the first and to me the goals did change around 1990 and being in control just for the sake of being in control seemed to be the goal. Many were still being recruited when the battle for the SBC was already won. I am sorry that happen. However, if a person believes liberalism was orchestrated in order to take control you cannot reason with such a person. Liberalism was real and is documented.
Louis,
I am glad you and your father-in-law are on good terms. I still wonder what his response would be if you read him Ron Wilson’s quotes and told him you support the organization that put this man and others with his views on the IMB trustee board and others. I suspect if you pin your father-in-law down he would not be nearly as understanding about the CR as you think. Even so, I don’t think he would agree with you about the degree of liberalism in the SBC before 1979.
I still do not understand your obsession with the CBF. I have been to Memphis but I am not sure what that proves. Does your father-in-law live in Memphis? I repeat CBF has no relevance to the SBC today.
I did not forget who Cecil Sherman was. If I thought a little longer I would have remembered he pastored in NC and not TN. But if you read what I said, Cecil was never the influential source in the SBC you seem to think he was.
Louis, I believe you said you were 18 in 1979. That means you were in high school during much of the 70s when you seem to feel the SBC was so influenced by liberals. I was 32 in 1979. I was active in my state convention, I attended SWBTS, I went through the appointment process and orientation with the FMB and arrived on the mission field to work with the missionaries our CR supported trustees said were spreading heresy around the world. I think I have an understanding of the SBC and CR that may be different than yours and possibly a little more informed. I don’t have to rely on second hand gossip.
Instead of continually talking about the CBF why are you not willing to answer my questions in case study 1 or 2 instead of ignoring them and implying they are not important. The CR is all about the type of people they put in leadership positions. If they can’t do that right they are a failure. I can repeat case study 1 and 2 for every entity and many other situations. We could discuss Roger Moran, T.C. Pinkney, Russell Kammerling and many, many more. You can tell much about an organization by the type of people it exalts.
Ron,
Sorry, like I said, I am played out on this one.
I hope that things go really well for you in all that you are doing.
For those interested in more information about the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention, I’d recommend you read:
1. “The Baptist Reformation” by Jerry Sutton, B&H (Broadman & Holman)
2. “The Truth in Crises” by James Hefley, hannibalbooks.com (several volumes). This series has been recommended by both sides.
3. “A Hill on Which to Die” by Judge Paul Pressler, B&H.
4. “Baptists and the Bible” by Bush & Nettles; Moody Press; B&H.
5. “Anatomy of a Reformation: The Southern Baptist Convention, 1978-2004” by Paige Patterson, SWBTS (baptisttheology.org).
David R. Brumbelow
Excellent post Dave! I agree with this analysis. My opinions aren’t always strange. 😉
Louis,
Me too.
I will make one last comment to Dean and volfan and then I will stop.
Dean,
I am glad you were willing to admit the follow which I quote from you in #215 above. “Dilday and SWBTS were theologically conservative.” I hope volfan and others read this and accept your verdict. You then go on to say that Dilday went on to fight on the side of the liberals. That is not true. He went on to fight on the side TRUTH. I know that is a strange concept to many on this site. Leaders of the CR and some of the trustees were saying the he and the seminary were liberal. You admit they were wrong. Should he just sit and be quiet and not defend his teachers. You seem to be saying it iis more important to go along and try to save your job that to stand up of the truth. SWBTS was never put on the side of liberalism. Where do you get such a statement? You said he defended liberals and attacked conservatives. Since you admit he and the seminary were conservative it must be true that those who were attacking him were attacking conservatives. Why is it okay for CR leaders to attack conservatives?
Honeycutt at Southern was the one who preached the Holy War Sermon. Dilday never used that term. You are mistaken on your facts again.
If he did attack Charles Stanley which I am not sure he did, it was only because Charles Stanley for years had attacked the conservatives and the missionaries in our convention. The only time I know of Dilday saying anything about a presidential election was when he said he was going to vote for Jim Henry, a conservative, but he didn’t tell others how to vote. If I remember right Paige Patterson and maybe Al Mohler publicly endorsed one of the candidates running against Frank Page a few years ago. Is it okay for CR seminary presidents to endorse presidential candidates?
I have never heard of Edward Taylor but I would have to read the exact quote to believe he said that. If he did, it would be wrong and I know of no missionary to Brazil that would agree with him. If Michael Willett denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus he should have been fired. I have never heard of him but again I would need to hear exactly what he said he believed. Keith Parks was very willing to remove missionaries who had heretical beliefs. He did it on more than one occasion. We appoint hundreds of missionaries each year so it is possible someone occasionally gets through by misrepresenting his beliefs. The missionaries on the field usually can quickly recognize if that has happened and they will not allow them to remain. That would be disastrous for our work. As you recall, David Rogers above said that he remembered one missionary while he was serving that had neo-orthodox beliefs and he was fired. This occurred long after the CR was in control of the FMB so by your reasoning we could say the CR was supporting liberalism.
Your writing contains many contradictions and unsubstantiated statements. I don’t know if I am delusional or not but if I am I think David Rogers, Louis and John Farriss and others must be too. They said the IMB and SWBTS were conservative theologically. What I can’t understand is how someone can claim to be a theological conservative and ignore the carnal political practices I have documented in my case studies above and other instances.
Volfan,
Bennett is NOT saying that every, conservative in the SBC is lying, or misrepresenting the truths of what happened in the CR. We would be saying that about ourselves because we are conservatives. Are you saying there are NO conservatives in the SBC who are lying or misrepresenting the truths of what happened in the CR? I have given many examples. Can you admit as David Miller said that some fleshly tactics were used. Why should we not condemn them and seek to keep that from happening again.
We will join you in seeking to remove those who deny the virgin birth or say there are errors in the Bible or the other issues you mentioned. That does not mean we have to join you in supporting people like Sam Currin, Russell Kammerling, Ron Wilson, Curtis Caine and others who are not true conservatives and bring shame on our convention or support ungodly political activity or support those who associate with the Moonies and the reconstructionist and other right wing nuts at the CNP.
I was rereading Oswald Chambers recently and April 29 devotional had the following quote.
When we become simply a promoter or a defender of a particular belief, something within us dies. This is not believing God – it is only believing our belief about Him. …. If our certainty is only in our beliefs, we develop a sense of self-righteousness, become overly critical, and are limited by the view that our beliefs are complete and settled. But when we have the right relationship with God , life is full of spontaneous, joyful uncertainty and expectancy. Jesus said, “… believe also in Me” John 14:1, not “Believe certain things about Me.”
Before you misquote me I believe doctrine is important but these words are food for thought.
This comment stream lost any redemptive value a few days ago, but I was tied up elsewhere and didn’t do what I should have done. I’m going to correct that now.
I think there is a lot of delusion out there about the CR. That’s why I wrote this article.
Those who assert that aberrant theology was not present in the 1970s in the Southern Baptist Convention are deluding themselves. The evidence for the presence of liberalism in many colleges, certain seminaries and other places is substantial.
Those who think everyone in power in the SBC was liberal, or that everyone who opposed the CR was liberal are just as deluded.
Those who think that everyone in leadership in the CR was pristine in character and acted out of a pure heart are deluded. A lot of bad stuff happened in those days.
Those who think that the bad actions of a few men mean the whole CR was as corrupt as those few men were – they are also deluded. To say, “these men acted badly, therefore the whole movement was ungodly” – that is nonsense. Every human movement is imperfect, no matter how righteous it is (or isn’t).
I see little to gain from the continuing of the mud-slinging here, so I’m shutting it down.
I received this from Dean after comments closed. Since it is a correction from a previous comment, I am adding it on his behalf:
Ron, I am sorry for attributing the Holy War sermon to Dr. Dilday. It was indeed Dr. Honeycutt who preached it. I apologize to all for my mistake, especially to you and Dr. Dilday. Blessings, Dean