The Moderate Movement within the SBC

by Roger A. Moran                                                                                    Vol. VII, No. 8, October 1994

It could be argued that the majority of those who have come to consider themselves "moderates" within the Southern Baptist Convention are really quite conservative in both their theology and their positions on social issues. But it has also become clear that the leadership within the SBC's "moderate" movement has been less than honest about their views, beliefs, and their affiliations with liberal non-Baptist organizations. Especially of interest is the "pro-choice" element within the leadership of the "moderate" camp.

Two non-Baptist, "pro-choice" organizations using the credibility of Southern Baptist moderates to advance their liberal agenda are Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (ROAR).

With the support of a host of leading Southern Baptist moderates, AU began working in the mid-1960s for the removal of what they called "antiquated laws in regard to abortion." In 1973 AU supported the Roe v. Wade decision and by 1978 had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the pro-abortion position in the Missouri Webster case.

Since the 1960s AU has argued that abortion is a religious liberty issue and that to restrict access to abortion by law would be to establish one theological view of "personhood" over other "theological" views, thus, representing a violation of both the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

In an August 1991 interview with AU Executive Director Robert L. Maddox, who is a Southern Baptist minister, he stated: "If you polled Americans United people and if you polled the trustees, 90% to 95% of the people in Americans United would say: First, they deplore abortion. Second, a woman should have a right to a legal safe abortion ..." Proclaiming himself to be a Southern Baptist "moderate," Maddox went on to state he was "unapologetically a theistic evolutionist," rejecting Adam and Eve and the first 11 chapters of Genesis as nothing more than a "magnificent, theological statement of how God began to deal with people." Supporting homosexual rights, Maddox stated that he did not consider the act of homosexuality to be sin, but that it becomes sin when the homosexual lifestyle becomes "destructive." It would seem apparent that liberal theology is a prerequisite for liberal political alignments.

The second pro-abortion group, requiring less explanation, is the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR). Much like AU, RCAR is a humanist front group listed by the American Humanist Association as one of their national affiliates. Both AU and RCAR have been a haven for humanist activity. Edd Doerr, who served as Chairman of the Board and Vice President of the American Humanist Association from 1985 to 1991, has also served as vice president of RCAR since 1989 and served on the Executive Staff of AU for 16 years.

Working side by side with humanist and religious liberals, Southern Baptist "moderates" have played a key role in undermining the pro-life position the Christian community. A good example would be the current moderator of the new moderate Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, John H. Hewett, who served as the Kentucky state coordinator for RCAR, and now serves on the Nation Advisory Board for AU.

The former head of the SBC's Christian Life Commission, Foy Valentine, was listed as an official sponsor of RCAR. Valentine also signed an RCAR document entitled "A Call to Concern" which supported the Roe v Wade decision. Valentine has also served as President of AU since 1989.

Also of interest, is the new ethics agency formed by Southern Baptist moderates called the Baptist Center for Ethics (BCE). According to an Associated Baptist Press article: The Baptist Center for Ethics will provide Southern Baptists with "careful moral reflection and practical solutions to real problems."

The problem with the newly formed BCE is that its leadership reads like a who's who of RCAR. John H. Hewett is listed as one of the Center's directors, and SBC Professors Glen Stassen, Paul Simmons, and Dan McGee are listed as associates of the BCE. All three professors signed the RCAR document "A Call to Concern" supporting the Roe v Wade decision. Paul Simmons, professor of Christian ethic's at Southern Seminary, has written "pro-choice" pamphlets for RCAR. In a recently published book entitled Abortion Rights and Fetal Personhood (edited by humanists Edd Doerr an James Prescott), Simmons wrote a chapter entitled "The Fetus as Person: A Biblical Perspective."

Another key organization in the "moderate" movement is the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs (BJC). Both AU and the BJC were de-funded at our most recent Missouri Baptist Convention. The BJC was the primary founder of AU in the late 1940's, and all of the BJC directors have served in official positions with AU. The current BJC director, James Dunn, (who serves as a trustee for AU) also served on the board of People for the American Way. Dunn serves on the board of Public Education and Religious Liberty (PEARL), along with former BJC directors E. Wood Jr. and humanist Edd Doerr. PEARL, like RCAR, is also listed as a national affiliate of the AHA. Wood, who serves as the head of the J - M. Dawson Institute at Baylor, serves on the board of Americans for Religious Liberty (ARL), a religious liberty organization founded and operated by top leaders of the American Humanist Association. Humanist Edd Doerr is Executive Director of ARL.

The most recent example of the philosophical compatibility between the AHA and the SBC "moderate" mentality came when the BJC recommended Edd Doerr's recent book Church Schools and Public Money. Arguing the standard humanist line of "separation of church and state and separation of (Christian) ideology and state," the January 1992 issue of the BJC's journal stated that "(e)veryone interested in public education and religious liberty should read this book. Baptists in particular will read it with enjoyment."

The book blasts Christian school curriculums for misteaching science by teaching creation, for their opposition to socialism, and for their "frequent references... to Noah's Ark, the Flood and the Tower of Babel." The book then reflects the humanist belief that only "fundamentalist" weirdo's believe the Bible as it is: "(t)hese examples reveal a worldview clearly at odds with that of most Americans, including most Christians."

The BJC's recommended book also establishes the humanist idea that "(e)ducational choice is the buzzword for the 1990's," and that everything from vouchers, tuition tax credit and even a tax deduction for tuition cost constitutes government support of religion thereby violating the first amendment. The book then shows its contempt for Bible-believing Christianity when it reveals the humanist fear that if the economic burden were eased from parents, Christian schools would grow, which "would inevitably increase social fragmentation... (and) would further divide our society along religious lines." According to the humanists, Bible-believing Christians and the Word of God have been the root of America's problems rather than the source of her strength.

It was also pointed out in the BJC's recommended book that if the current monopoly in government education were to be weakened and Christian schools were to increase in size and number, this would pose "a serious threat to women's rights... (because) These schools ... generally teach that abortion is a grave sin..." The increase in conservative Christian education, the book noted, would "inevitably mean great political divisiveness along religious lines."

Nothing is more important than the philosophical basis of our children's education. Liberal Southern Baptists, posing as moderates, have worked side by side with humanists for years (through groups like AU, BJC, and RCAR) to build high the so called "wall of separation." When the religious freedom guarantee of the First Amendment was interpreted to mean a wall of separation between church and state, it allowed the religious and political left to use the force of law to mandate "religious neutrality" in our educational institutions. Religious neutrality is nothing more than government mandated non-acknowledgment of God. The educational philosophy of humanism is rooted in the non-acknowledgment of God, for humanism rejects the existence of God and the authority of Scripture. The Christian educational philosophy, on the other hand, is established upon Jesus Christ and the Word of God.

We are told by such groups as AU, BIC, etc., that to break the government monopoly in education by allowing true parental choice (choice in education philosophy) is "unconstitutional." Here, the words of Paul Blanshard (AU's first legal counsel, and signer of the Humanist Manifesto II) begin to make real sense. Blanshard wrote in the March/April 1976 issue of the Humanist magazine:

"I think the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is sixteen tends to lead toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high-school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history.

"... most Americans are no longer found in church on Sunday, even though more than 90 percent of us allege that we believe in God. This alleged prevailing belief in God is not to be taken too seriously... I am convinced that (the) religious belief of millions of Americans is only nominal. It is warmhearted service religion, not creedal religion. When I was one of the editors of The Nation in the twenties, I wrote an editorial explaining that golf and intelligence were the two primary reasons that men did not attend church. Perhaps I would now say golf and a high-school diploma." (emphasis mine)

Religious liberty is now defined by many as a "wall of separation" between church and state. The non-acknowledgment of God is called "religious neutrality." Americans United, the Baptist Joint Committee, Americans for Religious Liberty and other such groups, have argued that religious freedom can only flourish in a "secular state." Yet it should be obvious to all, that in an ever growing "secular state," where the state is continually expanding into new areas of life and increasingly consuming the wealth of the nation, in the end, such an all powerful secular state that controls the education of its children will produce a secular society.

The ties between the religious and political left and many of the SBC "moderate" leaders is overwhelming and far too extensive to begin to list. But the Bible clearly warns us of several things. First, we are to beware of false prophets; second, we are to beware lest any man take us captive through philosophy; and thirdly, friendship with the world is hatred toward God.

As we seek to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world, we should remember that God commissioned His people to stand for unadulterated righteousness. Wickedness can only appear in the fullness of its wickedness when measured by the truth it violates.