Recommended Reading: Baptist Battles

Nancy T. Ammerman, Baptist Battles, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 1990.

                                                                                                                                                                    Vol. VII, No. 2, February 1994

Nancy Ammerman bases her book, Baptist Battles, on extensive research she and her assistants conducted over several years in the mid-1980s. Dr. Ammerman is a professional sociologist who teaches at Emory University. She is also very active within the moderate-liberal movement and speaks frequently at CBF and Alliance of Baptists meetings. Commendably, she is forthright in reporting the results of her research. Interestingly, her data confirm virtually every assertion made by conservatives during the controversy within the SBC. Below are a few quotes from her book with page numbers noted so that you can check them out for yourself. Bold print has been added for emphasis.

Regarding the basis of the controversy on pp. 73-74 she writes:

"The terms of this Baptist battle are theological. It has obvious social, cultural, and organizational dimensions that are the concern of this book; but the terms used by the contenders have to do with what they believe. On at least some matters, Southern Baptists do differ widely in what they believe. ... Fundamentalists were willing to insist that the Bible was accurate in its history and science, as well as in its religious and moral prescriptions. Moderates saw biblical history and science as conditioned by the times in which it was written – only its religious truths were really without error."

On cooperation between "fundamentalists" and moderates she states on pp. 111-112:

"Fundamentalists did not believe that, "If we can agree on what we want to do together, we do not need to worry about agreeing on what we believe." Eighty-four percent of self-identified fundamentalists disagreed with that statement. For them, believing must come before doing. ... In contrast, only about a fourth (28 percent) of the self-identified moderates said that belief is more important than common goals."

Ammerman writes on p. 141 concerning the stance of graduates from the six SBC seminaries:

.:.those who went to Southern, Southeastern, or Midwestern were nearly three times as likely to be moderate in theology as were graduates of the other three schools. ... The three liberal seminaries, however, had almost no one willingto identify themselves as a fundamentalist, and only 16 percent agreed with fundamentalist beliefs."

In addressing the question of whether there had been politics in the SBC before the Conservative Resurgence, she writes on pp, 169-170:

"The annual meetings had always been political occasions, of course. ... For the period between 1931 and 1979, most of the work of the denomination went on in its institutions and agencies, relatively undisturbed by the annual gathering to which they reported. Churches accepted that authority and allowed the programs and materials of the denomination to shape what they did. Policies were set and rewards allocated largely inside the network of pastors, trustees, and bureaucrats who were in charge. Power was at issue when people met for their annual meeting; they just never noticed it because they accepted the legitimacy of the leaders who governed and the staff who executed policy. ... When fundamentalists decided to challenge the old powers, they had to organize their own system of rewards and bring to bear a new set of resources. It was not that the Convention had become political for the first time. Rather, there were for the first time contending political parties, each with its own platform, leadership structure, resources, and rewards."