Bro.Cloud on Southern Baptist Theological Seminary & New Evangelicalism

Aw, Tom, don't cut it off when we have the opportunity for some good substantive discussion. Heretofore, the thread got sidetracked to roasting David Cloud. Now, there are some serious questions on the floor. I would like to hear some good answers to them. I really don't see what is so bad about being called a New Evangelical unless you are flying the colors of separatist Fundamentalism. I don't think Al Mohler and Southern Seminary are separatists. They don't claim to be. The SBC conservatives' strategy was to reform the convention from within, not leave it. The separatists left. So, give us a chance to thrash out some ideas instead of burning old David.

 

I pity you. Anyone with this much venom is bound to poison himself. This rant, unfortunately, is not about ideas but it is an ad hominem attack against David Cloud. I thought this was what we were cussing David Cloud about. Jesus said: " Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)" </font>[/QUOTE]I woould use these same arguments if I talked to the internet bum

 

Yeah, it makes my heart sad too to hear all independent Baptists caricatured by this stereotype. Independent Baptists as a whole do not hold to a Baptist Bride theology. Many people have found sarcasm and ridicule to be a potent weapon against the opponent whose arguments they cannot refute. I, for one, cannot see the difference between the things of which David Cloud is accused and the posts berating him.

 

I pity you. Anyone with this much venom is bound to poison himself. This rant, unfortunately, is not about ideas but it is an ad hominem attack against David Cloud. I thought this was what we were cussing David Cloud about. Jesus said: " Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)" </font>[/QUOTE]I woould use these same arguments if I talked to the internet bum </font>[/QUOTE]So, are you like unto him? Have you no shame or manners?

 

Agreed. But to suggest that SBTS and/or Al Moehler are compromising the gospel is ludicrous. </font>[/QUOTE]Did Cloud say this?

Defending against whom and in what sense? Can you say this from a Fundamentalist perspective?

What is a New Evangelical? Please tell me the difference between a New Evangelical and a Fundmentalist. Do you think Al Mohler is a Fundamentalist? (Please note that I am not questioning Al's doctrinal beliefs or his believing the Bible. IMHO, he just doesn't belong to this group. The SBC, although conservative and Bible-believing, is not part of historic Fundamentalism.) How so?

 

To respond to some of Paid's comments (the same Paid whom I am waiting to visit me!):

To paint all Independent Baptists as militant Fundamentalists (which I don't consider redundant) is overwrought. As I alluded to in one of the post above, if memory serves, I was in PhD seminars with several independent Baptists. There is a major difference, IMO, between certain groups of independent Baptists: some are so hyper-separatist that blatant trivialities become the hallmark of orthodoxy (remember, I went to Hyles-Anderson once upon a time). Others are reasonable and thinking, following in the footsteps of the fundamentalism of the early 20th century.

The is a New Evangelical tendency among many conservative Southern Baptists, and I think it can lead to compromise. As I stated above, many of us are particularly disturbed by Dr. Mohler's and many high-profile Southern Baptists' participation and support for Billy Graham crusades. However, it is interesting that there were no Roman Catholics or liberals involved in the Louisville crusade a few years ago that Dr. Mohler served as chairman (or one of them), if I was correctly informed. I was at SBTS and in Louisville at the time but did not attend any of the crusade meetings.

However, I think that Dr. Mohler, as well as Carl Henry, would be more aligned with the historic fundamentalism of the early 20th century than Fundamentalists represented by Cloud. I also suspect that Cloud would be particularly incensed by the amiable independent Baptist fundamentalism which Paid and other would represent. I know that Peter Ruckman would.

The SBC is not separatistic in the Cloudian manner, obviously. However, as I noted above, the SBC did withdraw from the Baptist World Alliance because of the Alliance's coddling and even embracing of theological liberals.

I had hoped that someone would engage in my numbered criticisms of Cloud's allegations. He reveals an unwarranted ignorance of Baptist polity in particular.

Bill

 

I am going to grant a slight bit of lattitude if we stay on topic.

Let me warn those who are getting a little "chippy": take a deep breath and cool it. Read the Baptist Board posting rules. OBSERVE THEM! Rule violations will not be tolerated. Christian demeanor should be modeled at all times.

Carry on, but tread carefully.

 

Why don't you address the substantive questions I posed? Tom's right; there's enough of this drivel and bickering about inanities or personalities.
1. What is New Evanglicalism? Is Cloud's definition correct?
2. Why is it offensive to identify Southern Seminary with New Evangelicalism?
3. Why do SBC'ers want to be identified with Fundamentalism anyway? Many good conservative SBC'ers will plainly tell you that they are not Fundamentalists. I think they are correct. One can be Bible-believing, orthodox in doctrine and accept all fundamental doctrines of the faith without being a Fundamentalist. So, why are you a wannabe?
4, Does separatism draw the line between Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism. IMHO, it does. It not a doctrinal difference but a matter of praxis.

So, don't try to pyschoanalyze me or David Cloud but please address the questions. Okay? </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for your kindness. I am not psychoanalyzing anyone. My concern was with the attitude of the writer. Everyone has a different view of new evangelicalism, etc. My concern was with predetermined opinions of the visit to SBTS. Get a clue.

 

SBTS is an SBC institution. Paid is not SBC.

Therefore, Paid will probably not agree with everything going on at SBTS -- but at least he/Cloud could try to be more honest about the facts -- some of which have been corrected by Broadus and others.

SBTS is regularly criticized by the fundamentalists (yes, even members of Founders) as not being conservative enough and also by those that would consider themselves mainstream conservative Southern Baptists as being too conservative.

Most likely Southern is probably pretty healthy since it is being criticized from both directions. One thing Southern is not -- It is not ambiguous. The Abstract and other documents state honest and well communicated positions.

 

Well, you may have seen Luther used to refute Luther—Luther’s views changed from the early Luther to the middle Luther to the late Luther. A parallel may be made to the SBC. Whereas it is true that I am not a member of a local congregation belonging to the SBC, I have deep historical and ideological roots in the SBC. One of the reasons that I left the SBC was over a major Baptist distinctive—the autonomy of the local church. You may remember a couple of court battles in the 1970’s over whether the church property belonged to the convention or the local congregation. At that time, some in the convention were saying that local church property belonged to the convention. This violated everything I believed about local church autonomy and association as a Southern Baptist. When the SBC changed, I held to the principle and ideas of an earlier time. What I am saying is simply that I am more like the SBC of an earlier time than similar to the Fundamentalists and Baptists of the north.

I think you need to restate the above. Since you include the pronoun he with Paidagogos as the antecedent, you will need to show any statement of mine that is less than honest with the facts or recant the statement. I did not give a blanket endorsement of Cloud’s statements or facts. I am accountable for only what I said. Now, please show me anything that I said, other than opinion which is subject to disagreement, that is not honest.

Yes, this is interesting. The moderates label the SBC conservatives as Fundamentalists and the Fundamentalists call them New Evangelicals. I’m not sure that either term fits well. As I suggested earlier, the SBC was on a separate road from the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy.

I would agree that they are progressing but like all movements and groups, the challenge is eternal vigilance to keep from falling. Like riding a bicycle, one must continually work to maintain balance. Life is a dynamic and changing situation so that we never arrive at a safe place where all is fixed and static.

 

I disagree with all three possibilities; IMHO, there is a fourth option. I think he is coming a different worldview, a different paradigm of thought.

I concur—a few hours visit is not enough to make a solid investigation and assessment.

Again, you are correct.

To Cloud’s thinking, any connection with the BGEA is compromise.

BJU puts a disclaimer in its books. So, the BJU bookstore sells the same books with a disclaimer.

This is a dispute of where to draw the lines of separation. Cloud’s are obviously much more stringent.

No, I don’t think Drinkard is a danger. The danger will lie in the choice of young guys to replace the aging professor. However, the separatist Fundamentalist mindset is that a little liberalism corrupts the whole bunch.

Bro. Cloud was not happy about Dr. Bob either, I think. Also, he was less happy about his speaking at Furman.

Again, we are debating what constitutes Biblical separation. There’s no reconciliation between the two opposing views. We’ll just have to live with it.

I was once a Lewis devotee; I am no longer a fan. What bothers me most is his acceptance and enthusiastic promotion of Charles Williams’s theology. Lewis is still an enigma in my book.

Good web sites. IMHO, Cloud has his place. I do wish that he would show more discernment and discretion in his critiques. Our critics can save us a lot of hurt and heartache if we will listen to them. I have learned to listen to mine although it is not always easy or pleasant.

 

I've heard this before. Something about the Founder's Movement not being friendly with Mohler and SBTS, and vice-versa, even though two of the Founders board members are profs at SBTS. I'd like to hear this stuff.

 

Tom,

There is certainly no blanket antagonism among those supporting the Founders Ministries towards SBTS and/or Dr. Mohler.

The relationship is complicated, but most Founders men with whom I've spoken appreciate so much of what has happened at SBTS. For instance, the School of Theology would find great support among Founders supporters. The Graham School and the School of Leadership and Church Ministry, OTOH, would have less support, though the Graham School of Missions, Evangelism, and Church Growth is not guilty of much of the pragmatic excesses of so much of the church growth movement.

SBTS keeps the Founders movement as a whole at a bit of an arm's length because of the disdain which so many SBC "leading" pastors have for Founders, IMO. This disdain basically revolves around Founders' reformed soteriology, a determined return to the soteriology of most of the founding leaders of the SBC and of SBTS, for that matter. So, a lot of this is political, because the soteriology espoused by men in the Founders movement is seen in SBTS's Abstract of Principles.

Bill

 

Rhetorician...

I don't feel as though I have been called out by Broadus - nor do I think that was his intention. And I definitely do not want a debate.

Right the opposite. I believe he stated my point/belief/observations for me -- most likely better than I could have stated them myself.

SBTS and SBTS administrators have been non-publicly questioned and criticized by some for their 'complicated' and 'arms-length' relationship with Founders (Broadus' words). Some persons wish for more of an public embracing of Founders by SBTS.

SBTS (like most institutions) has to be careful of its 'bedfellows'. While most folks affiliated with SBTS and most folks affiliated with Founders could get along quite well, SBTS (being a high profile institution) must be careful (some political motivation to be sure) to not be too closely associated with any organization (because then SBTS could then be thrown into the pot with any whacko member of the other organization -- albeit a fridge member or not).

But 'Founders' was not even the intended subject of my original post....... just a side point to help show that SBTS gets the criticism from both sides.

Perhaps as Paid stated -- I should not have used the words ‘not honest’. A better way to phrase my intented point/concerns may be:

That I think it is very disingenuous for questions/concerns to be brought up out of nothing (but personal conjecture) -- and then expect an institution to have 'prove' a negative in order to refute the criticism.

 

IMHO, the Founders Movement has exerted a strong positive influence in moving SBTS to where it is today. However, SBTS serves too broad a constituency to publicly and specifically align itself with the Founders Movement. I do think you will see many of the folks associated with Founders gravitating to SBTS. It will be interesting to see whether the School of Theology side or the other schools of church growth, missions, etc. will influence the course of the seminary.

 

I'm not anybody if signifigance. I do have an opinion though.
I grew up in the SBC saved in a SBC church called to ministry in one. I went to a IFB school to get trained met my wife there etc... I then attended
SEBTS in Wake Forest during the days of Paige Patterson great place, great spirit on Campus.
My first church was SBC.
God led me out of the conv. I just did not feel comfortable with the how you have to accomodate "moderates" in SB circles. Nor can I come to terms with all the places "Cooperative program" money goes. Money that goes to schools like Mercer, Gardner Webb, Carson Newman, and plenty of other schools where the Bible is basically ridiculed by professors, IMHO is not a matter of "secondary seperation" it is a matter compromise. Rush Limbaugh has a great quote concerning liberalism and I think it is appropriate here. "Liberalism is not to be tolerated it is to be defeated" I think that is true even concerning theology. As long as the SBC lets moderates/liberals keep their foot in the door by allowing money to be shared then the resurgence will have been for nothing.
Furthermore, I fully understand that each SB church is autonomous and the state is autonomous from the national convention etc... I fully understand all that. However I'm afraid that you have alot more preachers and laymen that have a sort of Rick Warren bent to their thinking these days than say a Adrian Rogers or Jerry Vines, or Paige Patterson way of thinking. Al Mohler included.
What do you mean you say? Well SBC consists of a wide range of folk. Some flaming liberal some very conservative. That is all fine and dandy. I ask you fellows though who is going to be steering the ole ship 20yrs from now? Somebody of Rick Warren's persuasion who attended this year's Baptist World Alliance's annual meeting and basically denounced his own denom's. pulling out of the BWA? Is it going to be some fellow who has sympathies for something like the "Emergent Church Movement" which is totally wacked out.
Those SB men who have been deeply impacted by the Purpose Driven craze along with the willowcreek philosophy of ministry aren't exactly interested in the preeminence of theology in their ministry as much as they are making unchurched Harry and Sally feel okay. I'm simply using these examples to say that if the movers and shakers of the next generation of SB leaders tend to believe that "anything goes" regarding methodology in reaching and ministry in general then the ground work is already being laid for liberalism to once again gain a stranglehold on the SBC even if it takes another generation. BTW, IMHO the Emergent Church Movement is simply the fruits of the "seeker friendly" movement. Lets be honest now.
SBC has always taken pride in itself as being evangelistic. When I was pastoring in NC. the Consv. folk had finally won out in the state Conv. Down at the assoc. meeting on time we had some prominate, consrv. guys come speak about putting aside our differences with the moderates for the sake of evangelism. I mean it took 30yrs to wrestle control of the St. Conv. from those libs. and then they wanted us cons. fellows to "set aside" our differences for the sake of evangelism. Well the woman preacher in our association was all for it.HA!HA!.
My point is if your doctrine is different, how you evangelize will be different and how you disciple will be different. Yet in alot of states this kind of bologna is put up with all the time.

Why does the National SBC accept money from churches that also give to the Coooperative Baptist Fellowship?

I'm friends with a SB pastor here in town. He is a good man. He pastors a small flock. He bought a modular home and put it on the church property. The associational missionary got red hot about it. You know why? Because even though the church had been established for years the association still held the deed to the church property.? I realize that is one instance but I know of others.
How do some of you guys feel about your people's CP giving going to basically liberal institutions etc...?
I don't think the SBC is terrible or anything like that. I don't think your liberal if your in the SBC or anything like that I just can't personally go along with how moderates/liberals continue to have a place be it a church or institution.
BTW, David Cloud is in a sense in his own little universe, but at the same time everything he writes isn't pure hogwash. His research on the Roman Catholic Church is very good along with a few other things. Put it this way I'd rather sit at the table with him than with somebody like Spong who just wrote "The Sins of the Bible" I'd rather fellowship with him than say Brian McClaren or a bunch of those "Jesus Seminar" kooks. I'd rather hang out with him than ole fancy pants in the glass Cathederal.
Maybe if some baptists would do a little more teaching on the false doctrine of RC Ch. we would n't have people thinking we can work together. At least men like Cloud have the guts to call a spade a spade. I do not agree with alot of what Cloud says or writes but some of it I do. He is not however a good representation of mainstream IFB.

 

Like anything else gentelmen, balance! IFB (of which I am one) has a tendency to focus on truth and separation to the exclusion of love and unity. SBC has tendency to focus on love and unity to the exclusion of doctrinal purity and separation. I realize this is generalities but call it what it is, truth. That is what the Promise Keepers is all about. Where does the Bible condone an all inclusive body of professing Christians coming together to the exclusion of doctrinal agreement? The SBC is a major player in that movement.