Moderate Baptists gear up for Showdown

(Here I will ask Tom Vols to moderate any tendency on my part to become vitriolic on this issue.)

The fundamentalist movement has been one of increasingly narrowing the boundaries for orthodoxy for Southern Baptists. They may have finally reached their limits and pushed to hard. Even the Texas WMU is now challenging the IMB.

Joshua

 

What I'd like to know, Joshua, is why moderates like yourselves continue to criticize the SBC when many of you have decided not to contribute to the SBC anymore. Do you moderates have some plan to recapture the SBC in the near future? What gives?

 

Jimmy,

I haven't considered myself a Southern Baptist in 15 years. I don't generally concern myself with the SBC other than to comment on how different its leaders are from my kind of baptist or to respond to things that are said here or on BaptistLife.

I think the SBC is a dying animal that will either increasingly pass into irrelevance or go through a major reformation. Either way, it's not really something I think about when I'm not on the board.

Joshua

 

From the article: "The SBC is going in one direction, and there is a group that is going in another direction, and it's sad and unfortunate," said Dr. Jim Richards, executive director of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. "But churches have to make a decision: if they want to be Southern Baptist churches in Texas, or something else."

This same kind of ulitmatium split the predominantly Black National Baptist Convention into four religious bodies: (1) National Baptist Convention USA, Inc. (2) National Baptist Convention of America, Inc. (3) Progressive National Baptist Convention of America, Inc. (4) National Missionary Baptist Convention of America.

When you do not rely on the word and when you inject it with your own agenda, you get deep-rooted splits like this. That stands as the reason why my little town consists of so many little churches: 19th century congregations struggled to stay unified under the Word.

I will continue to pray for peace in the SBC and its affiliated groups.

 

I must've been on my mini-vacation when this subject originally came up. I'll take a look at the link and post later. Unless this is a dead issue.
Joshua, hopefully you keep me in check, too. Is it really possible to keep you in check though? Lord knows we've all tried

 

Briefly, let me address one topic that is bandied about quite often: the idea that the issue for moderates/liberals is having to sign a statement of faith. This is a red-herring. They are upset about WHAT they are having to attest to, not THAT they must do so.

Why did no one complain about having to sign the Abstract of Principles at Southern or at Southeastern while the liberals reigned, but cried murder when they had to do so under Patterson and Mohler's presidencies? Why did no one complain at SWBTS about signing the BFM of 1963? Why did no one complain about having to sign the New Hampshire confession? The issue here is there are a small number of out of touch radicals who simply cannot stomach the Biblical teaching confessed in the BFM of 2000. It is unfortunate that they are dishonestly attempting to muddle the waters. TimothyW has pointed this out and done so very well.
Of course, these new folks are free to do what many moderates/liberals have done in the past: sign the statements and then march directly into their classrooms and teach and preach in opposition to it .

 

[ March 02, 2002, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

Very interesting observations, Tom. Seems to me that the mods/libs are very uncomfortable with accepting the conservative viewpoint, yet they want to enforce their standards on everyone

 

I respectfully disagree-its not just the content. I don't think people were as offended under the prior creeds, but most didn't like being required to affirm them. I think the problem for most moderates like myself is that we are increasingly told what we must believe to have any position of authority. Going to your point about the content, the problem with requiring people to hold a certain position about literal interpretation of the entire bible and the limited role of women is that those positions have little to do with the fundamentals of Christian faith, that is, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the implication of those events on our lives.
I'm not part of some modernist, post modernist, or liberal agenda, I was raised in a traditional Southern Baptist Church, in a traditional southern Baptist family. I was baptized by Robert White, who is now the Executive Director of the Georgia Baptist Convention. I have what would be considered conservative to moderate orthodox Christian beliefs by most mainstream Christian denominations. But I will never hold any position of authority in Southern Baptist life because I am not an inerrantist, and I don't think our missionaries should have to sign a statement that in my opinion is inferior to scripture. There's something wrong with a denomination when a typical product of that denomination is not deemed worthy to serve it.

 

David,
With all due respect, you're clouding the issue.

No one said a word about having to sign the creeds under prior administrations.

This makes no sense. The Bible and one's view of its inspiration and the corollary truth of its inerrancy has no implication on our lives?

You're exactly right. Which is why the grassroots had to re-emerge and steer the SBC in a new direction.

 

You're exactly right. Which is why the grassroots had to re-emerge and steer the SBC in a new direction.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Tom, my home church is still part of the SBC. SBC still takes their money, and lets their members vote. Nothing has changed about my church. And I'm still typical of its members. Which still leaves us in the position of a denomination whose own products are deemed unworthy to serve.

[ March 06, 2002, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

 

[ March 06, 2002, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: David Cooke, Jr. ]

 

I find it tragic that the best arguments the mods can give are emotionally based. They appeal to how things used to be and their mother's religion. How sad that that stuff is the test of truth. As far as influence goes though, it is the mods that are struggling to even be relevant. They are constantly battling with such basic issues of homosexuallity, Scripture, salvation, what makes a Christian, politics, etc. How relevant can that be? I certainly wouldn't want to be part of a group that changes (or at least tries to change) its beliefs depending on the current trends and direction of the wind.

Last year, Samford's Beeson Divinity School hosted a conference called Pilgrims on the Sawdust Trail. Its main speaker was Dr. Richard Mauw(?). He proceeded to give some jargon about why it was good for the new evangelicals to come into existence and break away from the fundamentalists.

In keeping with modernist form, a fundamentalist (Dr. Kevin Bauder) was invited to represent our beliefs about it (we know he was invited so that the N.E. can snicker about the reasons why we should separate). Anyhow, I would invite anyone to get the tape. Mauw goes for a little more than an hour. On Beeson's tape, Bauder goes for a little more than a half an hour. Come to find out, they doctored his delivery by eliminating most of what he said. How do I know? Because I have both. Anyhow, Bauder systematically refuted Mauw's claims and Mauw was noticeably uncomfortable about the truth. It is the mods that are struggling to keep some sense of order withing its ranks.

In last years main Evangelical conference (I can't think of the name but it is the one where Darrell Bock is the president), the issue was the openness of God theory. Can you imagine that? They struggle with whether or not one can hold to such a view and still be considered a christian? They already deny just about everything else. What will be left to deny? They are the ones sinking into oblivion.

 

PTW,
You're thinking of the Evangelical Theological Society, which rejected open theism.

 

Thank you. That is the society. The point was though, how did it ever even become an issue?

 

Unfortunately, due to theological liberalism and the tabloid theology that a radical fringe believes is necessary. Thank God ETS rejected it.