Southern Baptists, an Unregenerate Denomination

Thomas, there's an odd double standard here, and I think it's because the laity have a greater investment in their state colleges than they do in their seminaries.

The fundamentalists control the political machinery, but I don't think that they truly represent the beliefs of Joe Churchmember (as the Barna studies would seem to indicate). If the fundamentalists start to defund the state schools, they'll lose a lot of support from people who have been otherwise ambivalent about the takeover.

Case in point, the Executive Director of the fundamentalist-controlled Georgia Baptist Convention called (in writing) the support of women as senior pastors a "frontal attack" on the GBC. Nevertheless, students in the M.Div. program at Mercer receive a subsidy from the GBC, even though the school is explicit about training women and men to be senior pastors. The E.D. has the power to shoot off his mouth, but if he took money away from the beloved state baptist school, he would face a veritable mutiny.

Joshua

To sum up what Josh has very correctly stated, the reason is because the state conventions and the local Baptist Chruches basically fund and run the local colleges whereas the seminaries are now run by the national dictators of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Joseph Botwinick

Good evening -

I'm very surprised that nobody jumped on you for using the term "dictators", Mr. Botwinick. I think that there has been an attempt in the last 30 years or so to impose authority on the member churches of the SBC by certain leaders in the organization but, thankfully, there were enough members left with good, solid Baptist doctrine behind them to overturn such movements.
I also find it interesting that ALREADY people refer to the CBF as a seperate organization, even though they are still associated with Nashville. I think we all sense the split that is coming.
It wouldn't be the worst thing that ever happened by any means. The rest of the nation associates us with the extreme right-wing movement that makes the presses and is exploited on the TV. Telling other people how to live and run their churches is NOT a Baptist distinctive. It actually runs counter to the traditional faith.
I noticed in another posting by Mr. Wells that our sister state of North Carolina has elected "conservative" leaders to their state delegation. Does this term mean right wing or traditionalist? The "conservative" movement is relatively young within the SBC. Conservatives in politics are slow to accept change. I wonder how the terms got reversed?
As for the education aspect mentioned by Mr. Temple, this gets a hearty Amen from this Southern Baptist. We have forgotten our roots and our predecessor's fervent clinging to individual rights and personal accountability, and with it has gone the sense of true church autonomy.
I look forward to more postings on this thread. Please continue with your varied insights.

May God bless all of you

- Clint

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
I have a question about the "Conservative" takeover of the SBC. Agreed, the 5 Seminaries are now, for the most part, lead by Conservatives, but what about the 58 SBC Colleges receiving funds from the CP? I have looked at all 58 of them and they seem to be, 100%, in the hands of the Liberals. How can there be a "Conservative" takeover when only 1 in 12 of the schools is in conservative hands?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have six seminaries Dr. Thomas. Sheesh

Seriously, there are more state colleges that are conservative than you give credit for. Union in Tennessee, Liberty in Virginia, Clear Creek in Kentucky are just three. The state conventions have been slower to see the change because the liberals had such a deeply ingrained power control of their political machinery and have used politics to fight off the will of the rank and file Southern Baptist. By most accounts, this became their strategy after the SBC was retained by conservatives. That is why you see seperate Conservative state conventions sprouting up in places like Texas, Virginia, and splinter groups like Kentucky and Tennessee, and perhaps Missouri. I personally believe that the people of the SBC will have their day and will see the conservative resurgence even sweep the state conventions. But due to the political tactics of the liberals, it will just take more time.

I received a copy of this article about a year ago. Every time someone new joins our church I think about this article. I wonder, "are they really a christian?" Maybe that seems judgemental but it has always seemed odd to me that all ya have to do is walk an aisle and say the right words and whether you really understand what you're talkin about or if you just know the lingo there really aren't too many questions asked. What would be a really good way of digging into the issue with new professions? Maybe a bit of discipling!!!

How many of your churches have an active discipling program? I'm not talkin about an hour on Sunday evening where there is only actually 20-30 minutes of teaching goin on. I'm talking about a program where new Christians/members are placed in a group with one or two other new christians and they are taught and led and mentored by a more mature christian? My church doesn't, I'd be willing to bet that most don't. This to me is where we are lacking. Most of the problems that have been discussed here could be curtailed by doing this.

In my opinion

Deanna

From the perspective of a life-long NON-SBC'er, I see the reclaiming of the leadership of the Convention and its schools by conservatives as a GREAT VICTORY for the cause of Christ.

If I were a liberal (oops, they call themselves moderate because compared to liberal Episcopals or Lutherans, they ARE moderate) SBC'er and saw my power base eroding, I would be hoping mad.

Probably start a rump organization of disgruntled churches.

Just glad that is not what all the conservatives did in the past 30 years, but stuck with it and worked with it to return to Biblical values.

[Am I thinking this through correctly? Any input from those involved IN the SBC would be appreciated. I see JBot as a true Moderate who is upset, and Joshua as a true liberal who is livid. Others?]

Tom, I'm surprised to hear you maligning the political tactics of the moderate-conservatives. The fundamentalist takeover of the SBC, masterminded by a politician, involved more dirty politics than I've heard of even in the secular world. Children sitting in their parents' laps (if the parents voted correctly) being counted as 2 votes, busloads of folks brought in solely for the purpose of "the" vote, and leaving immediately thereafter, going out to local churches and lying just to when their support ("Our candidtate is the only one who believed the Bible"), appointing people to boards based solely on their political affiliation, and blatant yellow journalism.

With all that on the fundamentalists' side, what dirty politics do you know of on the conservatives' side?

Joshua

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Just glad that is not what all the conservatives did in the past 30 years, but stuck with it and worked with it to return to Biblical values.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really only 22 years, and a few fanatics dragging an entire denomination into an ultra-right-wing understanding of "biblical values" would certainly be another perspective. Despite all of their rhetoric to the contrary, my experience as a rural church pastor was that the SBC leadership does not represent the "people in the pew."

Joshua

Joshua,

I've pastored in rural churches for years and have never met a person in the pew who denied inerrancy of scriptures. I know many "Moderate"/Liberal pastors when preaching at their churches conceal their views on the scriptures and their other liberal beliefs but at state conventions change their tune. That is the real deceit by that wing. They teach one thing at home and another at Conventions.

The underhanded tactics and personal attacks I've seen at conventions is always done by the Liberal wing. You just demonstrated how it's Liberals who make the personal attacks on the opposition in yor last post and by making unverified statements of voter fraud.

The SBC leadership now does represent the theological beliefs of the mainstream of SBC life. Your smaller rural churches are the mainstream of the SBC in that they are the most numerous and hold to inerrancy while some of your Larger urban churches which are not mainstream are the ones being left out in the cold because of their openness to theological liberalism.

[ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

Kiffin,

I agree that there are a lot of clergy who believe one thing and say another from the pulpit or to the newspaper. I find that deeply offensive.

On the otherhand, as the much cited recent Barna study would seem to indicate, the people in the pews are not on board with what the new leadership of the SBC claims is "orthodox" Christianity. If you ask the average pew-sitter, they may say "yes" when you ask them if they believe in the inerrancy of scripture, but their answers to more specific theological questions (do good Muslims go to heaven?) can be quite surprising.

As to the despicable tactics of the fundamentalists, they've been well-documented by Shurden and other baptist historians.

Joshua

Joshua,
I received some "education" under many of the elite in the liberal political machinery in the old SBC, and have known and ministered with others. I was not maligning their political activity; I was simply stating what the objective was of the left wing as told to me by many in the left wing: namely, to go ahead and give up the national convention in order to maintain an iron fist around the state conventions. I have seen Godly men who dared not to march in lock step with the powers of the liberal left wing crushed and shut out of college positions and other ministry posts in states where the left reigns. The caricature of the left wing just minding their own business and getting blindsided by conservative politicos bent on domination is not accurate at all.

I have a couple of questions about some of the statements here in this thread. I attended, and graduated from, a Southern Baptist university supported by the SBC state convention in Arizona, Grand Canyon University. My perception of the school's Bible department is that it is conservative, but not fundamentalist. I believe there are major differences between those who are labelled by those two terms. I'm curious to know if there are others who feel the same, and why.

Also, Grand Canyon recently declared itself to have a "self-perpetuating" board of trustees. It did this, officially at least, to separate itself from the state convention which was embroiled in trouble over a major scandal in its foundation. The school was owned by the convention, making its endowment and other assets open to being tapped to settle the foundation's debts. However, many alumni and others associated with the school believe that it also went to a self-perpetuating board to avoid difficulties that other SBC schools have encountered as a result of "fundamentalist takeovers" in their state conventions. I've noticed that there are a number of other schools in the past two or three years that have done the same. How can a school, owned by one of the Southern Baptist state bodies, just up and declare itself to be self-perpetuating? Grand Canyon is still pretty distinctively Southern Baptist in governance and among the faculty and their charter still requires that 80 percent of the board members be active members of Arizona Southern Baptist churches, it just no longer receives funding from the state or has its trustees elected by that body. Is this a trend among SBC colleges?

Also, a friend of mine who attends a local SBC church says that a lot of churches are leaving the national SBC, either by formally dropping out, or by simply choosing not to send "messengers" to the convention any more. He says that about 10 percent have formally severed ties, but about 85 percent have not sent messengers to the SBC annual convention in the past four or five years. How is it that this can take place? In the founding documents of my church, if our church ever ceases to belong to our regional State association, the property of the church becomes the property of the association, since they are the ones who originally borrowed the money, purchased the land and built the facility. Is this not the case in the SBC? I would think that it would at least take a formal vote of a congregation to sever ties with a denomination, even a Baptist one. Can you just "quit" belonging by not sending delegates to a convention?

Ellis,

First of all, a school supported by a state convention is not an SBC school. The conventions are not owned by the SBC. They are separate, autonomous organization. A church can be a member of the SBC but not the state convention (or vis versa, with some exceptions).

The SBC is not really a denomination in the way that mainstream Christian bodies use the term. It is a voluntary, cooperative membership organization intended to allow autonomous churches to share resources for missions, education, and publishing. Consequently, a church can just quit sending messengers (although the SBC will still count them in their inflated membership numbers unless they formally withdraw).

Joshua

Ellis,
1. The labels used to describe folks are both theological and political. They are not exact. What is liberal to one might be conservative to another. I can name friends who would call me fundamentalist and I can name ones who would call me liberal. I must be somewhere near the truth then. Sometimes the label can be pejorative, which I believe is the case in “Fundamentalist.” From what I have been told by folks on the left, there was a concerted effort on the left to label folks with this term in order to paint people in a negative light. Some may even use the term “liberal” in the same way. I believe there are conservative folks theologically who were deluded into joining liberals in the political fight. So, the terminology is difficult at best. I know how I use the terms. You know how you use the terms. The two perspectives can be diametrically opposite, so the problem continues.
2. Again, from what I know of the left, when the left lost control of the national SBC, they decided to try to tighten the reign around the state conventions. In order to try to stave off the grass-roots efforts of the churches to gain a voice again in state convention activities, some schools (still being stocked with moderate-liberal trustees) decided to break ties with the local state conventions and elect the trustees themselves in order to keep the "good old boy" system going and to stifle the voice of the local churches. This can be done when the state convention has no ownership of properties, which is the case most of the time. (Joshua mentioned the reasons for this). It has worked in the case of some states with some schools (Furman in SC, Wake Forest in NC, et.al.) and backfired in others (Carson-Newman in TN).
3. On a good year, only about 20-25% of the churches will send messengers to the SBC. The reason is simple. Most SBC churches are small. Roughly half are served by bi-vocational pastors who cannot attend the conventions. The recent trend towards going to cities where the Baptist population is small has hurt convention attendance, since Southern Baptists are concentrated in the Southeast and South Central. Last year, weather was a huge factor in the low attendance in New Orleans. I think it was a Hurricane or Tropical Storm that really hammered the area.
4. Many churches have the arrangement you mention (the church I pastor is one, and it saved the church when the independent Baptists tried to take over the church a few years back). But also, one trend keeping churches among the SBC fold is the fact that you have more leaders who are unsympathetic to the conservative resurgence than you have whole churches that are unsympathetic. Many churches that are conservative are pastored by “closet” moderates who are active in politics but do not publicly espouse their theological views because they know they’d be fired.
5. Churches cannot “join” or “quit” the SBC. That is not how our polity works (Again, Joshua has provided helpful information above). If you want to no longer be considered in friendly cooperation with the SBC, you have to stop sending money and stop lettering in with the Annual Church Profile. Again, due to point 4, this is not happening all that much. But all you have to do to “withdraw” is not send in your ACP next year. That will take care of that. Every year there are small churches that forget to mail in the ACP and they get dropped from the rolls. Happens among smaller churches where the clerk is a volunteer (or the clerk asks the pastor to mail it in and as usual, the pastor forgets)

Actually, the perception that I have as an outsider (not Southern Baptist) here in the west is that the vast majority of whole churches, at least in this part of the country, are unsympathetic to the current leadership in the SBC, but are kept in by pastors that are sympathetic.

You'll have to pardon my continued state of confusion. I thank you for the explanations, but I'm still fuzzy on a few points. The people I went to school with at Grand Canyon constantly referred to the school as "Southern Baptist", but what you guys are telling me is that it really wasn't Southern Baptist, it was "Arizona Southern Baptist". That is, until it separated itself from the state convention. So, technically it is now an independent (small "i") Baptist college.

O.K. One more question. My home church is affiliated with the ABC-USA and the Arizona Baptist Association. We send money directly to both. So, if we as a congregation decided to send money to the Arizona Southern Baptist Convention, and sent in an "annual church letter" of statistical information, we would then be considered "Southern Baptist"? Or would we have to send the money and the letter directly to the SBC? What is there, then, to prevent a whole bunch of churches of a particular theological bent which may not be in line with traditional, historic Baptist theology from sending in money and church letters and gaining control of millions of dollars worth of resources and property? Not to mention influence over a huge denomination with thousands of churches?

Ellis -

I will leave the questions of the inner workings of joining the SBC to the other more knowledgable members of this discussion, but I did want to say that your observation of the churches being unsympathetic and the pastors being in favor of the SBC are accurate in my experience.
Again, I think the weakness of the current SBC is the lack of regard for church autonomy. The fundamentalist will cite specific instances of specific individuals and label the entire moderate movement on such, in other words, grouping WHOLE sets of persons rather than taking each individual on his/her own merit. I think that some of the sympathetic pastors swallow all of the party line rhetoric that comes out of Nashville without ever looking for a first-hand source.
I will also say again, the doctrine and beliefs of the fundamentalist is very in line with my own personal way of thinking. However, I would never try to cram my way of thinking down some other soul's throat. It's just not condusive to Baptist thought. I had said in another thread that the SBC originally split from the Triennial Convention in the 1850's over a very similar dictatorial approach toward Southern churches from churches in the North. The current SBC leadership is winning their battles but they are losing the war. These fundamentalist would have us believe that any pastor who tried siding with the CBF would be fired. I don't think it's true. I know of churches here in VA that have already stopped funding the SBC and gone over to CBF literature in Sunday School. Granted these were never unanimous votes, but none the less, they reflected the church's will.
In the end, Baptist just don't adhere to any person or group telling them how to think, worship, or set policies. I still don't understand how an organization that was established as an institution for supporting foreign missions grew into such a oppressive political machine.

May God bless you

- Clint

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
Ellis -

In the end, Baptist just don't adhere to any person or group telling them how to think, worship, or set policies. I still don't understand how an organization that was established as an institution for supporting foreign missions grew into such a oppressive political machine.

May God bless you

- Clint<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clint,
This really is the bottom line. Conservatives claiming the moderates don't believe in the Bible, moderates claiming conservatives are trying to "steal the convention". There seems to be tremendous amounts of misunderstanding and mislabling in this debate. I agree with you that most Baptists simply don't want "edicts from on high" crammed down their throats. Is there an answer? I think it lies in an end to name calling and negative personifications on both sides. As was stated in a previous post, the names fundamentalist and liberal have negative connotations. We should at least try to define the terms we are throwing about.

Thanks for letting me put in my 2cents worth.

buster

Christianity Today did an article both in 1991 and around 1996 that supports the point I made about the scarcity of moderate-liberal churches as a whole in SBC life. This also seems to be supported in other research.

Ellis asked: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What is there, then, to prevent a whole bunch of churches of a particular theological bent which may not be in line with traditional, historic Baptist theology from sending in money and church letters and gaining control of millions of dollars worth of resources and property? Not to mention influence over a huge denomination with thousands of churches?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One, such a thing could not happen overnight unless you're talking about thousands of churches with billions of dollars. That's what the moderate-liberal folks don't seem to understand. The conservative resurgence in the SBC is broad-based and grass roots in origination. Second, the SBC does not control congregations in the way other denominations do. It does influence churches, however.

Has anyone else noticed we're about eight miles off topic?

Ellis asked: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The people I went to school with at Grand Canyon constantly referred to the school as "Southern Baptist", but what you guys are telling me is that it really wasn't Southern Baptist, it was "Arizona Southern Baptist". That is, until it separated itself from the state convention. So, technically it is now an independent (small "i") Baptist college.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was probably "Southern Baptist" in theology, but control and governance was vested in the trustees elected by and accountable to the state convention. This is a major reason why many colleges have pulled away from state conventions. They did not like nor want the accountability to the will of the local churches. It's also the reason why seminaries like Mid-American and Luther Rice Seminary sprouted up when the liberals were in control of the national convention. Conservatives started their own seminaries in order to maintain trustworthy scholarship, which until recent changes was lacking in our SBC seminaries.

Your question does bring up a good point, and one typically responded to in misguided and incorrect fashions. Namely, what makes a church or institution "Southern Baptist?" Moderates and liberals incorrectly state that Southern Baptists have never been confessional and argue that the present state of the convention is a creedal one. This is simply not the case. SBs have always held to certain confessions of faith which marked the theological distinctives of Southern Baptists. These distinctives have never been, nor are they now, creedal. This is an important fact to remember and one that is obfuscated by those on the left.

Okay, now we're nine miles off topic

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]