There is a question that has been bothering me for months now, and I have been hesitant to ask it. But I would really like to hear some of your responses to it, so I'm going to stick my neck out and ask anyway.
Where WOULD we be today if the Conservative Resurgence had not happened?
I have been chastised for not having a deep gratitude and appreciation for this group of men (even though I was 10 years old in 1979.) To be honest, I'm not really sure why I'm supposed to have these indebted feelings towards them.
The statement has been made, "imagine where we would be now if those men had not taken this stand!!!!"
But where WOULD we be???? What is the answer to that????
I have a hard time believing that our whole Southern Baptist Convention would have slid down the slippery slope to liberalism.
I think of my heroes within the SBC, starting with my parents. Their authority is the Word of God, and the leading of the Holy Spirit. I hardly see them jumping on a bandwagon of liberalism simply because other members within an organization chose to do so. And that goes for so many of the men and women I have known well over the last 37 years.
They are deeply grounded and rooted. I just have a hard time believing that such a large organization of believers, who have individual relationships with God, would have suddenly become tainted with liberal theology. Or that they would have corporately forsaken the Word that they had stood on all of their lives.
Call me naive, but I believe that God can HIMSELF protect the integrity and authority of His Word, as He has done for centuries. I believe that even if a huge number of Southern Baptists had gone astray, there would still have remained a good number who adhered to the inerrancy of the scripture.
And I question whether God would have used the same methods that certain men have used in order to protect the authority of His Word. Some of the things that have happened just do not seem to gel with the character of a Holy God.
I'm going to ask a tough question here, and please read it with the spirit that is intended. Is it possible that the Conservative Resurgence could have had right motives, but utilized ungodly methods for upholding the inerrancy of the Word? Kind of like Abram, when He got ahead of God's plan by sleeping with Hagar?
For months I have wrestled with this, asking myself, "Am I off base somewhere for not seeing these guys as the salvation of my denomination???" I struggle with some of the things that have been done by these men, especially "bringing down" other people. Even if those who were "disciplined" were teaching a false theology, and needed to be corrected, was there not a more Biblical, kind and loving way of doing so? Those chastised men and women were our brothers and sisters in Christ!!!! I just can't believe that Jesus would have used some of the same methods or condoned all the things that were done in the name of purifying our denomination.
Do you know what I honestly think? That I would be in the same place that I am theologically today--with or without the Conservative Resurgence.
My family, my mentors and the people who have invested in my spiritually through the years all upheld a deep reverence for Scripture and faith in the inerrancy of God's Word. I believe they would have still taught me TRUTH.
I also believe in the POWER of the Word of God to sustain itself. It is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword.
Where do you think we would be today without the Conservative Resurgence??? I would love to hear from people on both sides of this issue, because I am honestly trying to understand the huge difference in perspectives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Kiki,
If the Conservative Resurgence had never happened, or if it had been "unsuccessful", eventually many churches would have left the SBC. It is possible that a number of them would have re-grouped and formed their own denomination, similar to the Conservative Baptists, when they broke off from the American Baptists. It is also possible that these churches would have each gone their own way, some as independents, and some affiliating with a varied assortment of denominational groups and federations. The SBC would have continued on, and, in my opinion, would be in similar shape today to the United Methodists. There would still be renewal-minded people within the denomination, and a pretty good segment that still held to conservative theology. But, overall growth and baptisms would be down significantly, and the ability for impacting the world for Christ as a denominations would be lessened.
I am not sure how much the overall impact for Kingdom advance would have been affected, since those who had solid biblical convictions would have continued on, either within or outside of the Convention. However, I have a strong suspicion that the overall stewardship of Kingdom resources would have taken a pretty big hit, with the spiritual and economic investments of many down through the years permitted to drift in directions way out of sync with the original intentions of those in other times who gave of their lives and resources to build up the various institutions and programs that make up the SBC.
In summary, I definitely do not believe the future of biblical Christianity rises or falls with the direction taken by the SBC. But, in the interest of being good stewards of the Kingdom resources entrusted to us, we should not be content to passively sit by, and let the SBC go in whatever direction it might.
David,
Thanks for giving some clarification to that. What you said makes a lot of sense.
But one thing still bothers me. Why were some people treated so badly in the process of taking this stand? And do you believe it is still about preserving inerrancy, or has it morphed into something else?
Kiki:
The wonder of God is not that He uses His people to DO mighty things, or righteous things, or wonderful things. The fact is that He works His will through the actions ... even the misguided ones .. of fallible people. ALL fallible people.
Pilate painted the sign that told the thief on the cross that Jesus was a King. It was Goliath that brought David out as a future warrior and King.
Of course the conservative resurgence went about its work in imperfect ways. But it wasn't the conservative resurgence that preserved the SBC. It was God.
"What if.." never happened. Not in the history of the world. Sure, we can learn from history, but the answer to the future is obedience to God, regardless of history.
You'd be the same terrific devoted Christian young lady you are today, regardless of where the SBC is. That's because your condition is a work of God, not a product of the SBC.
Kiki,
As far as people being treated badly, you would probably need to talk about specific instances with specific people. There would probably be a different answer for each instance. And, even though my father was no doubt on the "inside" regarding a whole lot of this, I, having been in Spain for the last 16 years, am not near as up on the specifics as a lot of people might assume. It is really only with the recent stuff with the IMB BoT that I have begun to pay a whole lot of attention to denominational politics.
I do believe the Cons. Resurgence, at least from my father's point of view, at the beginning was primarily about biblical authority, or inerrancy. I never heard anything in my home to make me think differently. Since that issue has pretty much been resolved in SBC life, though, there are no doubt some who are not content to live without new battles. At this stage, from my relatively distant vantage point, I would say it is pretty much a mixed bag.
Hi, Kiki. Do you have an email address you check regularly?
Amanda Galeotti
amandahutsell@verizon.net
Kiki, I've blogged a wee bit on a similar subject before, and while I wasn't there and haven't read the history of the "Conservative Resurgence" and can't really comment on the propriety or lack thereof as regards any given person or their actions, it seems to me that the issue still boils down to this:
So why was the convention created? Simple. Buying power. It is difficult for one church to fully fund even one missionary family. It is difficult for one church to fully fund a seminary. It is difficult for one church to fully fund a publishing house, etc. The Southern Baptist Convention is a means whereby multitudes of small churches can pool their funds to "buy" stuff. We "buy" seminary education, or at least its availability. We "buy" foreign missions. We "buy" Christian literature...
Conflict--and the current uproar over the IMB is the latest example--arises when what to buy becomes an issue. Are we, as a convention, going to "buy" seminary professors who don't believe in biblical inerrancy? Are we going to "buy" missionaries with a private prayer language?
It seems to me that the Conservative Resurgence was a systemic change in what the Convention agreed to "buy." Without it, we would still be "buying" seminary professors that rejected concepts that--so it seems to me--are crucially important to the correct handling of the Word of God. Without having an exhaustive knowledge of the events of the time, it has often seemed to me that the Resurgence's critics' complaints revolve around the Convention's refusal to continue "buying" their services when what they had to "sell" was no longer desired by the majority of the messengers and board members. I have a hard time seeing that as skullduggery, but as I said, I haven't read the history and my impressions are principally based on what I see in blog-comments.
The upshot: based on what I've seen so far, on balance the Resurgence was a good thing and seems to be continuing in a positive direction.
Kiki,
I'm a little older than you. I agree with David. I went to a school that had some great, Godly professors. However, I had one OT professor who didn't even believe the Bible. The Resurgence was necessary. But in any good thing it can go too far.
Kiki,
I'm pretty sure I can't give an opinion that nears objectivity. I resonate with a lot of your questions. One of the biggest things today that bothers me is something Bro. Cleveland brought up: who gets the credit?
I often wonder why people aren't saying that we ought to have a deep appreciation for what God has done, but instead so often say that we ought to have a deep appreciation for this person or that one. With due respect for individuals involved, I think it is, in some ways, a reflection on our capitulation to human efforts over divine ones.
I wish I could read about a Bible College administrator and a judge who sat down in the Cafe DuMond and begged God to turn the hearts of our leaders back to faithfulness to his word. To be honest, I don't see how it took a whole lot of divine intervention to examine the articles of incorporation of the SBC and hatch a plan to assume control of its boards and agencies.
But in the end, where would we be? I agree with your assessment and David Rogers'. His father would not have forsaken his convictions had he lost the election in '79. Neither would thousands (millions?) of other Southern Baptists. We might have lost control of agencies and institutions. But then again, it might have been inspiring to see how God raised up others in their place.
Kiki,
I'm going to share a lunch conversation I had with my parents Presbyterian pastor a few years ago. At the time, they were attending Covenant Presbyterian in Austin, TX (your favorite place) a very solid, conservative church.
He had mentioned that he was teaching a seminary class at the local Presbyterian seminary and was one of the only who truly believed the Bible and the basic doctrines of the faith. He then asked about SBC life and how things were going for us. At some point, I mentioned things related to the CR and how it related to seminary education.
Many of our churches were seeing material written for our SS lessons, commentaries and the like--all from profs, or leaders supported by our CP dollars, that didn't sit too well. Genesis 1-12 shouldn't be taken as historical, Jonah is just a good story, etc.... Then these churches and members began noticing a change in the pastors that were coming out from our seminaries. They weren't that committed to essential doctrines.
Even when I told my church that I was going to seminary, I heard a line along the lines of "don't let that cemetary kill your faith."
In many ways, the CR reestablished a biblical foundation for our seminaries--it took a while and it wasn't easy. Many in leadership and secure teaching positions weren't that willing to change or step aside and so at times it got ugly. You're right, some of the tactics are sad, but at the same time, so is the thought that it was at times necessary.
Anyway, I related this and similar elements of our recent history and this Presbyterian minister's response was very telling--"Man, I wish we could do that!<---literal, paraphrased---> With our seminaries, with our denomination. We just aren't structured that way."
All that to say that on the whole, the CR has been a good thing for our denomination. I agree with David in that we would be much more like UM's with the conservative elements either leaving or being a powerless minority.
On the flip side, I've always noticed that swings of this nature have a tendency to swing too far and that re-corrections will have to be made in order to bring us back to a proper, balanced, biblical center. I believe we may be at that point now in the SBC--there are some messes that we will have to clean up.
As for the hostility--I've always thought much of it nowdays is more the fact that the players involved just don't like each other anymore. It's become more of a spitting contest between personalities.
I truly pray things could happen based on issues rather than tactics, & politics, but most change requires a fight of some kind, sadly. That's one thing that the Memphis Declaration is so helpful and important for us as younger ministers. It is easy to use your position and power with a heavy hand, rather than in the spirit of servanthood. We have to be careful that we don't cross that line, tactically, when we are fighting for something we care about--you and I are just as capable of doing things with bad tactics.
I hope this is helpful.
Kelly
Kiki,
I was not as emersed in the SBC when I knew you in college as I am now. I went to Ouachita with the idea of learning God's word and preparing myself for the ministry. I knew what was going in the SBC, but my first real intro into all that was going on was at Southwestern with the firing of Dr. Dilday.
I was in my second semester, working a lot of hours to pay for my education so I did not know all the happenings of the day. But I remember all that went on.
I am with you on the question of tatics. I believe Dr. Dilday needed to go, but was it handled the right way, I am not sure of that. I know that some of the professors that I sat under that year and a few years after did not believe the bible. I know that changed after Dr. Dilday was gone.
I am grateful to God for the people he used to bring about the CR. I believe there were some in the CR, sounds like David's dad was one, that tried to do it the right way and it was all about the authority of scripture. Along with that though I think there were some that were in for a power kick. Can I name any of them? Absolutely not, but with any good thing there is a segment of bad, so I think that there had to be bad motives and actions that came with what was good.
Living in the Northeast like we do, it is obvious where the SBC would be without the CR. I look at the UM, Presyb., Episcopals and the United Church of Christ in our area and see a dying church that has an ineffective message for people.
I hope though we as a Convention have not become satisfied with ourselves and the accomplishments on Biblical Authority. I hope we can move past that onto right living and making a true difference in the world we live in.
Wow,guys!!! These are great comments.
I guess I can see how it was necessary to enforce biblical inerrancy when it came to professors, etc. I had a couple of teachers in college with some interesting theology. However, they were the ones who really drove me to dig deeper into the Word for myself, by challenging what I had always known to be true.
But I like the comments that Bob made. Our gratitude should be to God, not man.
On the manner of how some people were treated, though--I guess I have to leave that in God's hands. I won't go into specifics, because the people involved have chosen not to drag things out or hold on to past hurts.
But there WERE things done in a manner that was unChristlike and ungodly.
I remain close to some of those individuals who are no longer SBC. We disagree on many things theologically, but I still love and honor them as people. I value them for who they are.
Some of them were my missionary aunts and uncles who laid foundations for us in mission work. I don't think they should be dismissed or discounted for the GOOD things that God has done in and through their lives.
I think in all cases, even in discipline, LOVE has got to be the banner under which we operate. I just cannot reconcile how bullying, slander, and attempting to "break" a person fits under the greatest commandment.
Kiki, I never attended seminary. I have no argument that there were liberal professors there that had to go. However, I have to say that if the CR had never happened there would be good conservative pastors in the SBC who are now working in places like Exxon-Mobil, American Airlines, H-P, UPS. You get the picture. These are men who were young then and were so disillusioned by the meanness and the dirty tricks that they saw done in the name of "inerrancy", that they left seminary never to return. I truly believe that many fine, Bible-believing people were so injured by what happened that they went away and never came back. Some left church for good. Missionaries were forced to leave places of service where they had planted there lives. (This you well know to be true.) People were forced to take sides in a fight that most people in the pews believed to be a "preacher's fight" from start to finish. There was correction to be made, but long after the most egregious situations were taken care of, the purging continued. I could tell you of many, many people who would not have cried bitter tears of grief and loss if the Resurgence had not taken place. I believe that if the CR had not taken place, the SBC would look a lot like it looked for many great years, like a place where Christ was honored, a place where diversity was welcome, where dissent was possible, and where people were committed to spreading the Good News of the gospel. If the Resurgence had not taken place, my heart would not have been broken.
As a member of 1st Baptist Dallas when the movement began to heat up, I had a front row seat to observe the fray.
For me the purpose of the CR was clear. Southern Baptists have a right to insist that men and women who train young folks in SB schools, whose salaries are paid by Southern Baptists, should believe/adhere to the historic SB positions of the inspiration of the Bible and the deity of Christ.
I attended a summer school at the seminary in Wake Forest in 1972 and overheard a young pastor say to a liberal professor in the lunch line,"Where I come from even the drunks believe the Bible is the Word of God!"
I think that pretty well sums it up.
Royce,
I was three in '79. I do not have memories of the beginning days of the CR. I do know some of the people marked as "liberal." These men affirm the inspiration of the Bible and the deity of Christ. I know some very conservative evangelicals who affirm women in ministry. They have been marked liberal by many CR Baptists. I attended a F.A.I.T.H clinic in Freeport, AL at a Free Will Baptist Church. The North Carolina FWB minister that led our group had been marked liberal by his FWB friends for allowing Paige Patterson to preach in his church. It seems to me that "liberal" has existed without definition. Would you help me out?
Kiki,
You ask some thought-provoking questions about how the SBC would have been different if it had not been for the Conservative Resurgence. I don't share the views of many of your commenters that it was a necessary step nor that it saved the denomination from liberalism. As Matt has noted above (we're not related as far as I know though we share the same last name), liberalism is a pretty difficult term to define. It usually means someone to the left of "us"--wherever we are on the scale. I too know many godly professors and missionaries whose careers were ruined by unchristian attacks on their person and character for the sake of the cause. I think it's mere speculation to suggest that the SBC have become a liberal denomination that denied the authority of Scripture. While many who were falsely accused of liberalism resisted using the term "inerrancy" because of the political baggage that the word carries with it, they certainly did not reject the inspiration and authority of the Bible, much less the deity of Christ as some commentators above suggest.
The most amazing thing to me in all of this is that after such fierce struggles to insist on the use of the term "inerrancy" to describe the Bible, the BF&M 2000 did not use the term at all in its article describing the Scriptures. How weird is that? Could it be because even the proponents of the CR recognize that the term inerrancy can only be applied to the original autographs--none of which exist?
Kiki,
The other commenters have explained the facts about the theological necessities which were the driving force of the resurgence. The things I think concern you were the outgrowth of SBC structure. To make sweeping changes required elections of men committed to make them. To seek to elect those men required an organizational process which often may have seemed comparable to a political convention. It is a sad fact that it is very difficult to become involved in controversy like that and maintain a gracious and forgiving spirit. People can become vested in the process with a commitment to win - with the same kind of competetive spririt which drives elections. Over a long period of time people just got more and more committed to an outcome, sometimes without what we (and many of them) might say was due regard for showing grace in the process. Part of that had to do with their having to endure ostracism, name-calling, slander, and most importantly, what they knew was betrayal of the truth by many. Consider the recent events surrounding Wade Burleson and the IMB and the very strong emotions kindled on both sides. Imagine what might be created if that pot was kept boiling for 10 years! It is like many other events in history -- the context makes a lot of difference. It is not an excuse for sin, harshness, ego, or lack of love, but it does provide a context to better understand.
Kiki,
I am sorry if this is long. I also just saw this post and hope it’s not too late to comment. But I was an independent Baptist watching what was happening in the SBC during the resurgence, so maybe this is a different perspective.
My first experience with any SBC church or pastor was when preaching a revival outside of Knoxville, TN in 1976. At the invitation, a lady came forward who said she didn’t know if she was saved. I motioned for the pastor to speak with her and told him her question. His response was “What do you want me to tell her?” I brought a few people with me after that to deal with folks who came forward.
My second was in 1981 with a woman who was a new graduate from Southern. She told me she was going to become a senior pastor soon and wanted me to be her youth pastor. I told her I didn’t believe the Bible allowed women to be senior pastors. She told me that things were changing in the SBC and soon women would be pastors throughout churches.
Because of these 2 personal experiences, I formed the opinion that the SBC was something I did not want to be a part of.
5 years later, I was asked to become the interim at a SBC church. By this time I had heard of many changes within the SBC. I was also growing weary of the fundamentalist movement with its tie in to the republicans and its lack of focus on starting new churches and reaching people.
So I spoke to the leadership of the church. Because so many independent guys were becoming pastors at SBC church were unethically trying to make those churches leave the convention, I was asked to meet with several pastors “informally”. I met with them and found that in the intervening years some changes HAD taken place. They were as committed to the inerrancy of the Bible and the autonomy of the church as I was. They talked about reaching people with the Gospel.
Since that time, I have become a joyful and willing part of the SBC. I would be less than candid if I didn’t say that sometimes I fear that politics has replaced some of the passion for reaching the world with the Gospel.
So to answer “what if the resurgence hadn’t happened?” my answer would be more personal. I wouldn’t be in a wonderful SBC church. That wouldn’t have been any loss to the SBC, but it would have been my loss. So I am thankful for the resurgence.
Post a Comment