I eagerly attended my first SBC Meeting in Houston in 2013. It was the closest it had ever been to me and the church had the money to help me. I signed up for every breakout and meeting I could find, and I sat through much of the business sessions and reports. I wanted to soak it all in. I finally got to see and listen to in person many of the names and faces I had only seen from a distance over the years.
At one breakout, I don’t remember which one, Danny Akin, president of SEBTS referred to himself as a “child” of the Conservative Resurgence. By this, I took him to mean that he had been around the for CR, but wasn’t mature enough to play a major role in it like others. It got me thinking, if Dr. Akin is a child of the CR, then that makes me a grandchild of it, at best.
Anyone who has studied genealogy knows that the further you get away from the source, the muddier the relationships get. There are cousins twice removed and families who split up or remarry. You might find people that you are related to in some way, but you don’t feel like you have much in common with them. When you study Baptist history you get much of the same thing, people who have common ancestors but feel like they are worlds apart otherwise.
Much of the conflict we face today can be framed in an understanding of who are the proper heirs of the CR. Who are the theological grandchildren of those who fought for the inerrancy of God’s word and against encroaching liberalism? Is it the conservatives who took over the SBC institutions and produced like-minded disciples, or is it the other conservatives who also took over SBC institutions and produced like-minded disciples? They are both conservatives, you notice, but to put it in today’s terms it comes down to this: Are the Calvinists or Traditionalists the heirs of the CR?
Historically speaking, both can lay claim to it. Paige Patterson was one of the chief architects of the CR with Judge Pressler, and since then has continued to be faithful to God’s word and to the SBC. Al Mohler was a young man during the main battles of the CR, but was entrusted with the flagship institution of the SBC and returned it to its conservative moorings. Many other current SBC leaders served under him, like Dr. Allen, Dr. Akin, Dr. Moore, and Dr. Rainer.
Traditionalists believe their claim as rightful heirs of the CR goes back to the fact that many that they would claim as traditionalists were principal figures in it. Adrian Rogers, Patterson, Jimmy Draper, Jerry Vines, Bailey Smith, John Bisagno, Ed Young, and others are all claimed under the banner of traditionalism. Who better to shape and control the future of the SBC than the theological descendants of those who fought for its soul?
Calvinists might feel that their claims to the SBC and the CR go back further than that, pointing to SBC founders like Boyce, Broadus, Manly, and Dagg. Who better to shape and control the future of the SBC than the spiritual heirs of the ones who founded it?
It’s my contention that both groups are proper heirs to the CR.
The battle to take the Bible as inspired by God, without error, and inspired by God has led some to fully examine the tenets of their soteriology and led them to a reformed understanding of salvation. We should not question their commitment to the Bible and their desire to take it’s claims seriously. The majority of these desire for the SBC to continue to take God’s word as inerrant and have worked and sacrificed over the past 20-30 years to do so.
On the same hand, others who sought to take the Bible seriously, without error, and inspired by God were led to embrace an understanding of salvation that puts the emphasis on man’s choice. We should not question their commitment to the Bible and their desire to take it’s claims seriously. The majority of these desire for the SBC to continue to take God’s word as inerrant and have worked and sacrificed over the past 20-30 years to do so.
Who are the proper heirs of the CR? Anyone who takes God’s word seriously, and who works to put God’s word over man’s opinion. Finding the proper heirs to the CR has less to do with our understanding of salvation, and more to do with our willingness to stand against the sweeping tide of liberalism that continues to beat at the doors of the SBC. Both Calvinists and Traditionalists are willing to make that stand. The belief that the Bible is God’s word is the true legacy of the CR, not a particular interpretation of salvation. Both of these groups must unite for the sake of the gospel, for the sake of the SBC, and take the truth that men and women fought for a generation ago out into the world. A convention that has compromised on God’s word will fail, no matter what it’s understanding of how salvation works is.
The SBC is in little danger of being crushed by outside liberal forces. Those who battled in the CR worked hard to ensure that the SBC stood on the foundation of the inerrant word of God. The SBC is in danger of being crushed from the inside out, of being torn apart by internal forces. Conservative Southern Baptist’s united around the Bible a generation ago and stood firm. Now those who are the children, grandchildren, maybe even great-grandchildren of those faithful servants of God must unite on the importance of the Gospel being taken to all the nations.
Luke is pastor at FBC Tishomingo, OK for the last 7 years. He has written for Facts and Trends, LifeWay Pastors, and writes at lukeaholmes.com. Find him at @lukeholmes and @sbchistory.
Very good article.
Dr. Akin was a student at Criswell College during the beginning years of the CR. Many of us students were very close to the CR news and happenings due to Dr.Patterson being at the helm during those years. There are a few Criswell guys who drive through here. Barrett Duke was there at that same time period. As children of the CR, we were front line soldiers in many ways.
For me, Inerrantists are the heirs of the convention (in speaking directly to your question). The problem it seems now is that some Traditionalists have no problem thinking and saying Calvinists are heretics… Therefore they are not true inerrantists and they need to be removed from the SBC portrait to keep the SBC the worlds denominational spotless lamb.
No need for me to drag this any further… for now. 😉
I first read that Dr Akin was a student at Criswell in “Too Great A Temprarion@ by Joel Gregory. I think Dr Akin might be modest in his description of himself. I know the Criswell College played a large role in the CR.
I agree that inerrantists are the the true heirs. Two inerrantists might differ in soteriology, but they both still believe the Bible is Gods Word. We must all learn to work together.
Very good article, Luke. Very good indeed.
So, why do we have a group who feels the need for another CR-type of denominational war involving a stated plan of year-after-year-after-year of contested elections, replacement of trustees, and a quota for a certain type of entity leaders? Because Trads believe the Gospel of Cals is inferior and perverted, no matter that Cals and Trads baptize at roughly the same rates and that leading Cals pastor churches that send folks to NA nd international fields in great numbers. Because Trads created the political movement and a kitchen table theologian statement to supplant the BFM in evaluating denominational employees and candidates for office, that statement having been adopted by not one official SBC group or entity.
If you like what we have seen in the past month or so, the use of state convention resources to pump one candidate, the creation of tendentious voter guides, and the trashing of thousands of SBC churches as being not fully cooperative, then the future should look bright.
But…lets be optimistic that things will unfold differently.
Bro. William, I assume the “kitchen table theologian statement” refers to is the Connect316 statement on salvation. FTR, I think Vines, Smith, Draper, and Patterson have all signed the statement. Since all of these were prominent in the CR, there is come continuity between the CR and the Trad movement.
I wonder if those you name support the actions of those who drafted the statement.
I don’t think Patterson would condone the slander pointed at JD, or at Akin and Mohler.
He has shared some great testimonies of himself witnessing along side AM, while in New Orleans. I can safely say that PP has no problem with the gospel AM shares with lost humanity.
I’m definitely interested in hearing how the prominent SB’s who have signed the statement, whose images are being used to promote C316, feel about the militant wing of the organization.
I’d also be interested in hearing how Paige Patterson justifies signing both the Abstract of Principles AND the Traditionalist Statement.
That was Eric Hankins’ statement which may currently be posted at C316, but that group did not write the documemt
“The SBC is in little danger of being crushed by outside liberal forces. Those who battled in the CR worked hard to ensure that the SBC stood on the foundation of the inerrant word of God. The SBC is in danger of being crushed from the inside out, of being torn apart by internal forces. Conservative Southern Baptist’s united around the Bible a generation ago and stood firm. Now those who are the children, grandchildren, maybe even great-grandchildren of those faithful servants of God must unite on the importance of the Gospel being taken to all the nations.”
And not only is this a well worded and true depiction, the battle is based on fear that has not happened in all the years Trads have been writing on this subject, having meetings on this subject, but it is based on fear that is based on false stories. I can’t even use the words facts because they are not based on facts, but on gossip, untruth, and that is the opposite of who we are in Christ.
Not all of the CR was right and had innocent victims. But at the least it was based on preserving the scriptures as the inerrant word of God. It was needed. This is just certain people with a streak of meanness who are even willing to drag Dr. Hammond through situations that have somewhat hurt his reputation. The untruths being told are gaining momentum and being passed off as truth. That should be unacceptable to every Bible believing Southern Baptist.
You are definitely right that not all of the the CR was right. In reading the histories written by both sides, it’s easy to see how both try to paint themselves in a positive light. But, as you said, it was with the noble intention of preserving God’s word. This time around people are just looking for stuff to fight about, in part I think because they feel the power slipping from them.
“The SBC is in danger of being crushed from the inside out, of being torn apart by internal forces.” So, what’s new? It’s been that way for 173 years. We’re a sinful lot. “It is of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.”
The “so what” is that we should cut it out and realize we are all on the same team. The desire of some to only point out differences will not bring unity. I’m all for honest acknowledgement of differences, but we all serve the same Lord, all believe in Gods inspired word, and long to take Christ to the nations.
Mine wasn’t a “so what” comment. It was a “nothing new under the sun” comment. We may be on the same team but we have different ideas on how to advance the ball. We’re sinners, this is us being sinners. We’re Christians, this is us being Christians. And we’re Baptists, this is definitely us being Baptists. Before there was a national body of Baptist Christians known as the Southern Baptist Convention there was the original national body of Baptist Christians known as the Triennial Convention. I assume you are familiar with the internal conflict that precipitated the split? Since the split the SBC has moved from one internal conflict to the next all the while preaching repentance for the forgiveness of sins in Jesus name. This is how it was when the Convention began and this is how it shall be till the Lord returns or the Convention ceases to exist. Personally, I find it quite heartening that the Lord would condescend so as to receive glory from such a motley crew of Baptist misfits.
In the early 90s, I told a friend once that Calvinism would not become a contentious issue within the Convention. I am all for the unity spoken of, however, I just read elsewhere, from a Southern Baptist, that the God worshipped by Calvinists is the devil himself. I think we are not on the pathway to unity with that kind of thinking.
Very well put, brother. Thank you for sharing.
It seems a little strange to speak of the denomination in terms of “heirs” to a movement, and in partisan language, separating “Calvinists” from “Traditionalists.” The SBC is made up of what I would consider a fairly broad variety of theological perspectives with roots in all of the various strains of Reformation influences, and a lot of blending. Most of the SBC churches where I’ve served on staff, or was a member had groups of people representing several different theological traditions.
My own experience serving in SBC congregations would lead me to conclude that most church members beyond the inner circle of leadership have little awareness or interest in denominational affairs, and that includes the conservative resurgence. At the last SBC church I served in Texas, out of a congregation of 300, there probably weren’t 20 members who would recognize their fellow Texan Paige Patterson, and the only reason some of them recognized Paul Pressler was from his name on the ballot when he was up for re-election as a judge.
In any given year, 90% of SBC churches don’t send a messenger to the convention, and over the course of a decade, 70% don’t. So the core group of denominationally interested and involved individuals is small, compared to the whole base of membership. Sixty five percent of the members on the roll of SBC churches don’t even attend their churches, and in less than a decade, the membership has fallen by a million, and attendance by half a million. It might be better to focus on what is happening, than to argue over Reformation theology or who is really the most loyal Southern Baptist.
That’s what I was trying to say. We have bigger fish to fry than to fight internally. We are all heirs, in that we stand for Gods Word. There are some, though, who have said they are ready to fight their fellow SBC’ers over Calvinism. I’m not willing to do that. We need to focus on what unites us, not what separates us, and go do the work of God.