Introduction by Dr. James G. Shoopman, Editor of the Third Edition
The
purpose of this book is to inform readers about the history of important
changes that have occurred in the Southern Baptist Convention since 1979.
The thesis of this work is that Fundamentalist leaders in the Southern
Baptist Convention organized and carried out a political campaign that has
changed the character of the Southern Baptist Convention, and not for the
better. It is our conviction that many good and well-intentioned
conservatives were misled by this political activity. The goal of this
misleading campaign was to place extreme Fundamentalists in the seat of
power and to drive from the Convention those who think differently from
Fundamentalists. The writers and editors of this volume believe:
1.
That this campaign has changed
the character of our Convention, from one of openness to one of restricted
thought, from one of spiritual liberty to one of fear to differ from the
leadership.
2.
That the political campaign has
been carried out in a sinful and mean-spirited fashion, using innuendo,
glittering generalities, and exaggerations (all the usual tools of worldly
politics) to achieve the ends of power.
3.
That resulting changes have
defied the perfect will of God, while hurting fellow Christians and
defaming the noble tradition of what it means to be Baptist.
The reader
should know that this work has been written and edited by traditional
Baptists who accept Jesus Christ as personal Lord and savior. We honor the
Holy Bible as the sacred and divinely inspired word of God, and we believe
in the priesthood of all believers: meaning that all Christians are free
under God to interpret the scripture according to their conscience and
according to the best insights of biblical scholarship.
The
political campaign described in this book was launched by Fundamentalists
with the charge that the seminaries and denominational agencies were
dominated by liberals. Fundamentalist leaders often implied a meaning for
the term “liberal” that far exceeded the truth about seminary
professors and denominational executives. For some, the term “liberal”
is intended to describe an individual who:
1.
Does not believe in the divine inspiration or spiritual
truth value of the Bible.
2.
Does not believe in the divinity of Jesus.
3.
Does not believe in salvation by grace through faith in
Christ.
Given such
a definition of liberal, it can be firmly asserted that there were never
many true liberals in the Southern Baptist Convention. To put it another
way, if a liberal-eating lion were set loose in Southern Baptist
institutions prior to the Fundamentalist Takeover, he would soon have
starved to death.
Yes,
there were serious disagreements between some seminary professors and some
Fundamentalist leaders, disagreements that Fundamentalists saw as
dangerous. It is, however, another thesis of this booklet that in the
larger context of all Christian churches, the theological differences
between Baptists were never so great that all Baptists could not have
continued working together. Fundamentalist leaders in the Southern Baptist
Convention forced the issue, demanding a fight, but not as a matter of
theological debate. Rather, they turned their disagreements into a
political conflict for power. I have said there were few real liberals in
the SBC prior to the Takeover. This does not mean that there weren’t
some Baptists who were more liberal than others. Of course there were.
However, most of those who are more liberal than the Fundamentalists would
not call themselves liberals because in Baptist life the use of that word
conjures up the unbelieving bogeyman described above. Rather, the persons
responsible for this booklet prefer to refer to themselves as moderates.
It is impossible to give the following account without using such terms,
so it would be wise for the reader to know how we are using these words
from the start.
First,
it’s important to know what we are being conservative, moderate, or
liberal about. We are not talking about the politics of Republicans and
Democrats. Perhaps the most useful way to define our disagreement would be
to say that conservatives, moderates, and liberals disagree on how much
change there should be in traditional church teachings. The church teaches
on a wide variety of subjects. Among them are the following:
-
The nature of God, the person of Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit;
-
The nature of the Bible — its authorship, styles of study, and interpretation;
-
Marriage, divorce, sexuality, abortion, prayer in public schools, and separation of church and state; and
-
The place of women in the workplace and the church.
Conservatives
maintain that there should be little or no change in how the church
teaches on these subjects, unless it is to make that teaching even more
strict.
Liberals
maintain there should be a great deal of flexibility in how the church
teaches on these subjects, usually in the direction of greater liberty
(thus connecting with the other definition of liberality, which is
generosity).
Moderates
prefer a middle way, taking a more liberal approach to some things and a
more conservative approach to others — that some teachings should change
and some teachings should stay the same. Moderates assume that newness or
oldness does not make an idea good or bad. Instead, an idea is good or bad
depending on whether it is consistent with the Bible, our conscience, and
sound study. If an idea is truthful and useful, it may lead to change, but
not all “modern” ideas are sound, and not all “traditional” ideas
are sound either.
This,
of course, still leaves us with the term, “Fundamentalist.” The most
useful definition of a Fundamentalist is a person who is angered by any
changes in the world or in church teaching. A Fundamentalist is a person
of very strict belief and behavior who requires absolute certainty about
his or her beliefs and is willing to fight for that certainty.
Fundamentalists
cannot abide any challenge to their beliefs through either the behavior or
the beliefs of others. They tend to regard any deviation from their norm
as dangerous. There are Fundamentalists in all of the major world
religions that have been affected by modernity, and they are characterized
by anger at modernity, strict legalism, and a desire to fight for more
control of their environment.
This
book tells the story of how Fundamentalists in the Southern Baptist
Convention carried out a fight for control of the denomination. Although
they claimed this was a fight against dangerous “liberals,” it was
actually a fight to disenfranchise the moderates who later formed the
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. There were no unbelieving bogeymen hidden
in the closet of Southern Baptist leadership. Unfortunately, however, many
good and effective Christian leaders have been driven from the
institutions they loved and served with distinction because of the
irrational and fanatical hatred set loose in the Fundamentalist holy war.
This book is the story of how that happened.
For
that reason I have included in this introduction a chronology of some of
the major events. To understand this chronology and the ensuing story, it
is helpful to review a short glossary of names and abbreviations:
SBC:
The Southern Baptist Convention. When referring to the annual meeting
which determines denominational policy I will spell out the word, or refer
to “the Convention.” When referring to it as a denominational entity,
I will usually use the abbreviation.
SBC Executive Board:
Between annual meetings of the Southern Baptist Convention, necessary
denominational business is carried on through occasional meetings of
elected representatives to the Executive Board.
CBF: The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship:
The second nationwide splinter group to organize moderate and
conservative Baptists to do missions and ministry outside the SBC. It
first met in 1990 and organized as the CBF in 1991.
HMB:
The Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, now called
the North American Mission Board (NAMB).
FMB:
The Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, now called
the International Mission Board (IMB).
The six Southern Baptist Seminaries owned and operated by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1979 were:
-
Southern, in
-
Southeastern, in
-
Southwestern, in
-
Midwestern, in
-
-
Golden Gate, in
Baptist Press: The
Southern Baptist Convention’s official news agency funded by the SBC
Executive Committee.