R&E journal shows why SBC was reformed

R&E journal shows necessity
of Southern Baptist reformation
By James A. Smith Sr.


JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (BP)--"By the time we reach the 21st century,
the R&E will be a true Baptist journal -- for the nation and beyond,"
Roy Honeycutt, former president of Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary predicted in March 1996.

Well, the 21st century has arrived. In only five years, the
Review & Expositor, an academic journal published by various moderate
Baptist schools, has published an extraordinarily offensive issue with
four articles that promote values and theology that are manifestly
outside the mainstream of Southern Baptist life.

Honeycutt's statement (made when the R&E was taken without
permission from Southern Seminary in 1996) demonstrates what's at stake
in the controversy that is now swirling around the publication of the
most recent issue of the journal: Is this a "true Baptist journal"? It
also illustrates what the Southern Baptist Convention controversy of
the 1980s and 90s was all about and why the conservative resurgence was
necessary.

The Dec. 6 Baptist Press stories describing the "Sexuality and
the Church" issue (dated Spring 2001, although it was released just a
few months ago) cannot fully demonstrate just how objectionable the
content is. For those who may doubt the objectionable nature of the
journal, let me suggest an exercise:

Order your own copy (P.O. Box 6681, Louisville, Ky. 40206-0681,
(502) 327-8347, single copies are $9) or check out a copy from your
local theological library. After you read it, the matter should be
settled. In the unlikely event that you are not convinced, take the
next step in the exercise and read it to your congregation -- let's say
on a Wednesday night. (Pastors, carefully consider this step, if you
want to keep your job.)

Start with the lead article, "Embodiment versus Dualism: A
Theology of Sexuality from a Holistic Perspective." I know it sounds
very academic, but read to your congregation the author's view that sex
organs are sources of revelation about God. Don't leave out the
author's call for a "more accurate model" of God illustrated by a hymn
to "Mother God." (This is the same hymn that was sung at the Baptist
Women in Ministry meeting held this summer at the Cooperative Baptist
Fellowship meeting in Atlanta.) There's much more I dare not quote
here.

Turn next to page 173 and read to your members "The Case for Sex
Education in a Religious Context." Sounds fairly harmless, but read on.
See what folks think of "comprehensive" sex education in schools that
includes promotion of both abstinence and contraception. Be sure to
note the author's definition of "sexually-positive attitudes" as "those
which promote experiences that are non-coercive, non-exploitative,
risk-free, and mutually-pleasurable" -- sounds like Planned
Parenthood's agenda.

Or how about "The Church's Response to Homosexuality: Biblical
Models for the 21st Century." The author writes, "The right (the good,
the honest, the blessed, the ethical) answer [about homosexuality] is
more difficult than one word, one article can propose." Most Southern
Baptists I know don't find it difficult to know the right answer on
this matter.

Finally, turn to page 263 and read the sermon, "Should Wives
'Submit Graciously'? A Feminist Approach to Interpreting Ephesians
5:21-33" where the author offers a "feminist liberationist" revision of
the passage. Some Baptists would find themselves agreeing with the
author's rejection of the Baptist Faith & Message's statement on wifely
submission, in spite of its clear grounding in Scripture. I wonder how
many of them, however, are comfortable with her rejection of the
apostle Paul's authorship of Ephesians (see Eph. 1:1). Don't miss her
call for feminine and non-personal references to God or her citations
from the feminist theologian who wrote the "Mother God" hymn.

I'm not suggesting the content of these articles -- other than
the lead one -- is lurid. Instead, the material is just plain wrong.
The R&E is certainly not my idea of a "true Baptist journal."

I'm convinced that the vast, vast majority of SBC churches would
be outraged over this journal and would want to know if they helped
fund such an enterprise with their missions support.

Defenders of the R&E would be quick to reject my proposed
exercise, noting that the journal is intended for scholars and pastors,
not common, ordinary -- mere -- laypersons. Really? Aren't these folks
the same people who vigorously defend the principle of priesthood of
all believers? Seminaries and theological journals that cannot
withstand the priestly scrutiny of Baptist believers in the local
church should not enjoy the financial support of those same Baptists.

And that's what the SBC controversy was about -- not sending
missions dollars off to schools that undermine the faith and produce
ministers who do not trust the Bible. I believe that apart from the SBC
reformation of the 1980s and 90s -- as difficult and messy as it was at
times -- the current issue of the R&E would be mainstream, standard
fare for our seminaries today.

Perhaps you find that to be unlikely. Consider the following:

-- The author of the lead article earned a doctor of philosophy
degree from Southern Seminary in 1991. I'm told her R&E article has
similarities to her doctoral dissertation.

-- The author of the article on homosexuality was educated by
Southern Baptists, served on the faculty of Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary for many years and now teaches at a school
affiliated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

-- The author of the sermon on Ephesians 5 credits her views to
the education she received in Baptist schools.

-- Many of the faculty members and administrators of the
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and other schools that produce R&E are
products of SBC seminaries and taught at SBC schools. These were the
SBC's "best and brightest" according to moderates who opposed the SBC
reformation that caused their departure from our seminaries.

-- Three former SBC seminary presidents (Honeycutt-Southern;
Russell Dilday-Southwestern; and Randall Lolley-Southeastern) continue
to serve as "honorary editors" of the R&E. At the time R&E was taken
over by the CBF and other schools in response to the conservative
leadership of R. Albert Mohler Jr. at Southern Seminary, Dilday taught
at the BGCT-related Truett Seminary and said, "The journal and the
consortium that manages it will strengthen the new seminaries and
schools that are training a new generation of Baptist ministers."

What's interesting to me about the reactions out of Texas and
North Carolina (and the lack of reaction from the CBF) is that
virtually all of the attention has been centered on the lead article.
Why have they not condemned the values and theology promoted in the
other articles? Do they not find those views to be too liberal? At
least Truett has severed its R&E ties.

Southern Baptist churches that give their missions dollars
through the SBC Cooperative Program can have confidence that they have
not supported the publication of this objectionable journal. In
contrast, churches that fund the CBF or state conventions sponsoring
these schools must grapple with the fact that they have been (largely
unwittingly) enablers of this kind of theological liberalism. This
should alarm them and cause them to reevaluate their support
immediately.
--30--
Smith is executive editor of the Florida Baptist Witness newsjournal.

 

Daniel,
Your statement, based entirely on faulty logic, insulting demeanor, and ad-hominem, is entirely the reason why the grass roots SBs reformed the convention, and rightfully so. This journal was so radical that even some of its contributors backed away and even resigned their support (Baylor).

 

And I have found it impossible to respond to ad-hominem and faulty logic such as you have displayed. So I suppose we're at an impass

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paynedaniel:
TomVols,

Agreed. I look forward to your posts. Thanks for the welcome in the introductions section

Daniel Payne<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While we may disagree, I hope we are not disagreeable And I like to poke fun, especially at myself. Welcome again!

 

Joshua,
Valid points. My understanding is that Truett had some complaints from within and that they also did not want to be risky since the venture in Texas is new. And I am not surprised that no one has complained among R&E subscribers. People who subscribe to R&E will be like-minded. I have heard that there have been some libraries that are refusing to shelve the new R&E.

 

I probably should not have brought that up because that would be divulging some information that I probably shouldn't divulge. My sincerest apologies. But they are not SB seminaries. One such school also refuses to shelve Calvinistic books or journals, so that should give you some idea. I do not know if the SBC seminaries are shelving this copy of the journal or not. But this is hardly surprising. Librarians are very select in what they shelve due to limitations on funding, space, etc. Anyone who has worked in or with a library knows this.

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Yeah, that is an interesting acryonym. By the way, I don't consider a private library's refusal to obtain or shelve certain works to be censorship. I think that's a word that we throw around too much in the wrong context. I have no problem with this copy being shelved. I just don't remember what the Dewey Decimal number is for "Inept theology & Journalism"
I suspect it's probably found near the O.J Simpson autobiography, the National Enquirer, and the "Bible Code" book

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Squire:
While the edition in question may not be available for public viewing, the libraries, I am familiar with, would if they subscribe to the Journal in the first place, keep this edition back in "the stacks" for academic use.
Hoping to shed more light than heat,
Keith<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm sure that's the case, although based on things I've seen and heard, we can't assume it. I've seen IFB libraries at colleges throw out journals they did not agree with.