The Conservative Resurgence: Reflections of a Foot Soldier

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?

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?”

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.