The Baptist Identity - Introduction

Michael,
This is the second thread in which you have come to this point. I say this sincerely, not as a dare and not sarcastically. Have you considered starting threads to discuss these particular issues? To solve our differences and come to a true unity, we must unify around the truth. The reason baptists are divided on this issue is because there is a disagreement about truth. Let's not mask it over, but let's discuss it. Obviously, there are some NT commands that are cultural and some are normative for today. You believe that and so do I. The question is, how do we make the distinction? What is the hermeneutical principle that guides us? As for the I. Tim passage, I believe it is normative for today that women are not to hold authority over men in the church. I take it as normative because Paul's reasoning for it is not based on a particular situation in that church, but is based on the story of the fall and the sin of Adam and Eve. Given the basis for Paul's command, please explain how that command could be cultural only and not for today.

 

Is Shurden's work really this unkown in IFB circles? Among moderate baptists, he is <i>the</i> guru of baptist history, and among fundamentalist Southern Baptists he is certainly widely known even if frequently disputed. I would guess that his works have been read by more laypeople than all other baptist historians combined (omitting, perhaps, <i>The Trail of Blod</i> which is more a work of popular fiction than history).

Joshua

 

Kiffin,

What do you mean Smyth & Helwys is on the leftward edge of Baptist thought? I know Cecil Staton owner/publisher. I would consider him well within the mainstream of Baptist life.
Look at the authors of the books they publish. Charles Poole is my former pastor and they have published 4 of his works and he is no where near the leftward edge (wherever you think that may be). Walter Brueggaman wrote the first published volume of their Commentary. (You would be hard pressed to toss him out on the leftward edge) They publish a SS curriculum titled Formations which I have used both as Teacher and student and it is excellent.(leftward edge? not in my view)
Are you are specifically referring to Dr. Godseys book? They do publish books written by women is that what you mean?

Oh and just as a point of information. The owner of that leftward edge Publishing House was just asked by Ralph Reed (Republican Party Chairman of Ga.) to run for the US House of Representatives in the 11th District as a Republican. Last time I checked Ralph Reed wasn't on the leftward edge of anything.

[ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: rhoneycutt ]

 

I would appreciate some further discussion on Swaimj's post regarding "under the Lordship of Christ" as being ambiguous.

I believe that all of the scripture should be interpreted through the Jesus filter. The Lord Jesus is our very best lesson on how God works, thinks, and acts in this world. He is who I commited my life to and decided to follow. I place his teachings above any others.

Somehow I believe if Paul were able to speak to us today he would be appalled that we were taking the things he wrote and elevating them to the same level or even above the teachings of our Lord.

Just thoughts call me a heretic if you will, but I would really like to discuss this book if anyone is reading it.

Russell

 

I encountered Shurden's work as part of a Baptist Doctrine class in college. I read it for outside reading credit, along with another book of his called Baptist Battles, about the doctrinal effects of various controversies in Baptist life.

I would not have thought that Shurden would be on the "left side" of the Baptist movement, but rather more in the middle. He's a Southern Baptist, if I am not mistaken, and his writing is the product of some extremely thorough research among other Baptists rather than the exclusive domain of his own perspective (as so many of the more fundamental and conservative Baptist writers are). He simply summarizes, with minimal subjective analysis, what other Baptists are saying to characterize themselves and their distinctives.

As I read more and more threads on this board, I am increasingly bothered by the way the terms "liberal", "fundamental" and other labels are thrown around. Being theologically liberal does not change the basic fact of one's spiritual condition related to their salvation in Jesus Christ. It's been turned into a bad word, especially among some groups of Baptists, but the fact of the matter is that conservatives (or fundamentalists, or whatever you want to call them) are no more sure of being right in their approach to the interpretation and application of scripture as liberals are--they just hold a different perspective related to a different standard. But they can no more prove themselves right than liberals can.

Dr. Howard Hendricks (Dallas Theological Seminary???) hermeneutics class teaches us that there is only one correct, consistent interpretation of scripture and that it is based on two specific principles. One is that the Bible is authoritative because it is God's word. The other is that modern readers (that would be us) are the secondary audience and that to correctly interpret the scripture, we must do it according to the context it sets for itself as the original audience would have seen it. What I see here, mostly, is prooftexting from a literalistic interpretation which completely ignores the cultural context of the original readers. This "verse by verse" literalism is based on a fallacy that we can just see "in plain English" what it says and what it means.
Those who are accused of being "liberal" are those who make careful observations of the text first, before jumping to a conclusion about its immediate interpretation through their own mind's eye.

If Smyth and Helwys Publishers produces Sunday School literature that is of the same quality as Dr. Shurden's books, then they may well be the top of the line of all Baptist publishing houses. I'd like to read and see some of their stuff. Obviously, they are Baptists who do their homework.

 

Ellis,

Thanks for an insightful and totally accurate post.

 

rlvaughan,
I agree with your summary of the author's approach in your last paragraph. With those precautions, I look forward to your future comments on the book.

 

To rlvaughn--

Shurden is a researcher more than he is a commentator. His conclusions about the commonality of the four freedoms are based on what he has read and gathered from other Baptists. Pick up a book by authors from the fundamentalist and conservative side of Baptist theology, and you find little documentation and plenty of opinion, and what documentation you do find relates only to other writers in the same narrow spectrum. Shurden researches a broad spectrum and then puts together those things he finds in common.

Granted, there are other areas in Baptist thinking that may be common to some, and perhaps even a majority of Baptists, but these four are the elements he finds common to virtually all Baptists. Look at his lists of documentation. They are far more numerous than most Christian writers.

Baptists are hard to pin down as a group, because so many separate themselves out from contact even with other Baptists. The very nature of what I have learned on this board from "independent, fundamental" Baptists would preclude the majority of them from taking part in this discussion, since they apparently shut themselves off from reading anything that isn't produced by one of their own approved publishers or authors. Southern Baptists have hidden their greatest authors and theologians in Broadman-Holman publishing for years and for a long time sold their works only through their own bookstores. It has only been recently that the Broadman publishers have released works for sale in other Christian retail outlets. A lot of really good stuff has been buried in isolation. I'm glad to see an author like Shurden reaching a broader spectrum and doing a better job of defining the Baptist movement than has been done in the past.

 

Mr Vaughn,
I'm not surprised you couln't find Dr. Shurdens book at Lifeway. They do consider Smyth & Helwys competition, (ecspecially when they began publishing a SS curriculum) You might want to check out their website and/or request a catalogue. They publish some excellent resources.
Russell

 

rjvaugn,

I,m sorry but Smyth and Helwys are on the leftward edge of Baptist thought. I believe you are conservative in your theology as I am. Read this article from Baptist Press

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>April 18, 2001

NEW YORK (BP)--The part-way schism in America's biggest Protestant denomination, the 15.9 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, is heating up again....

One element in the split is a publishing house in Macon, Ga., named Smyth & Helwys. This company was founded a decade ago by moderates to compete with the official Southern Baptist publisher in Nashville, Tenn., which they find unacceptably right-wing.

Now the young firm is launching an ambitious 31-volume "Smith & Helwys Commentary Series" on the Bible. The Southern Baptists would never have sponsored the newly issued first volume, which covers 1 Kings and 2 Kings. Author Walter Brueggemann, a professor at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, Ga., may be prolific, but he isn't even a Baptist.

More important, he's way too liberal for Nashville.

The books of Kings cover the death of David and the rise of Solomon in 962 B.C. down through the divided kingdoms of northern Israel and southern Judah, to the fall of Judah to Babylon in 587 B.C.


Is this accurate history? Brueggemann tells us that "to term this literature 'history' in any modern sense of an accurate 'factual' account of that past is widely recognized to be deeply problematic."

In his view, the details are "not consistently reliable," the material is often "confusing and unclear," and the books don't always confirm what is known from the limited sources we have outside the Bible.

He says this narrative doesn't intend to be history as modern readers understand that term. Instead, it's better understood as "theological commentary and not factual reportage."

Conservative Baptists would reject that rigid either-or choice. To them, the Bible is both fact and commentary.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Alliance of Baptistsis a extremist liberal group. Visit their website and dowload some of their statements regarding homosexuals and their offense at Baptists who try to convert Jews. Both of these of these organizations are liberal (Yes, I refuse to say moderate). If one does not believe in Inerrancy of Scripture or has no problem with homosexuals being received into the Church then they may be confortable with the Alliance of Baptists or Smyth and Helwys but the fact is both of these groups are on the leftwing of Baptist thought and I doubt that the original Smyth and Helwys would have anything to do with them.

 

Kiffin
Quoting a BP article is not an adequate defense of your earlier babbling about Smyth & Helwys. One would have to be "blind as a mole" (checking your SBC history) to believe BP is non biased.

Mr. Vaughn
Sorry to get us off topic but I will not sit idly by and allow Kiffin to unfairly label Smyth & Helwys.

Russell

 

In the linked excerpt, Shurden says:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...Baptists, have historically stood solidly for the concept that the ministry belongs to the laity of the church. Every believer is on equal footing with every other believer in the local Baptist church. No pastor has official or constituted authority to “rule over” anybody in a Baptist congregation. Why? Because all Christians are priests before God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. First, freedom (the priesthood of the believer) and structure (pastoral authority) are not mutually exclusive concepts as Shurden presents them. Second, pastors, according to the NT pattern DO have authority. The very meaning of the greek word "presbuteros" is overseer. Hebrews exhorts believers "Obey your elders in the Lord for they keep watch over your souls as those who must give an account."

 

The word "obey" is better translated "follow".

Obedience is due to God alone--"God alone is Lord of the conscience".

 

Bob,

And little do you know--there are more than two sides.

 

rjvaugn,

Sorry to get off the subject but I had to mention that being affiliated with these 2 sources would lead one to question where Shurden is coming from.

rhoneycutt,

You said,
"Quoting a BP article is not an adequate defense of your earlier babbling about Smyth & Helwys. One would have to be "blind as a mole" (checking your SBC history) to believe BP is non biased."

I never claimed BP was non biased but Smyth & Helwys certaintly isn't either and but connections with left leaning theogians.

 

Kiffin,
Great we are making progress. We agree that Baptist Press is biased, I will admit as well that S&H publishes manuscripts from theologians that would be considered left of where most of the folks on this board are. I also must tell you though that IMO they publish works by very very conservative scholars as well. The difference between the two organizations though is S&H is a privately owned publishing house, and BP is a news service which should provide accurate fair unbiased reporting.

Also as I have been reading through this thread I fear that some may be confusing the Baptist World Alliance (which the SBC is a member of) and the Alliance of Baptists which Dr. Shurden was instrumental in founding around 1986. The latter was formed as a response to activities occuring within the SBC at the time. Its original name I believe was the Southern Baptist Alliance. The former organization BWA is the organization referenced in the introduction to Dr. Shurdens book.

Mr Vaughn
Referencing your earlier post. I do not know whether or not Dr. Shurden is still a member of the SBC. I know he attends a church that allows designated giving to either SBC or CBF. That is a very interesting dilemna, I have never really considered myself a member of the convention. I am a member of my local church which is a member of the SBC. I do, as an individual support the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship financially (my church does not allow designated giving)so does that mean I am a member of both/neither? Hmm...maybe I shouldn't introduce myself as a recovering Southern Baptist anymore.

Russell