Four Words: Which applies to You?
by T. C. Pinckney Vol. IX, No. 4, April 1996
Recently a reader, Mr. Jack Haskins of Spotsylvania, wrote saying, "My reason for writing is to ask for your assistance in defining four words. I have looked these words up in dictionaries, both secular and religious, and have not found what I consider a good religious definition. I wrote the Baptist Bookstore and asked for a reference that I could purchase that gave a good definition of these four words. They did not have anything for me. Since I have a question about these words, and many others have given me different, or incomplete definitions, perhaps you could publish the SBC definitions, along with any references people could consult. The four words are: fundamentalist, moderate, liberal, and conservative."
A Complex Matter
Mr. Haskins has put his finger on an area of considerable confusion in the minds of many. A major reason for the confusion is that the same four words are used in three distinct areas of communication. There are two primary fields: extra-SBC use and intra-SBC use. Then usage within the Southern Baptist Convention also occurs in two different contexts.
Extra-SBC Use:
We hear all four words used to describe people and organizations which have nothing directly to do with the Southern Baptist Convention. Thus, a few years ago we repeatedly heard the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran described as a “fundamentalist Moslem." In England one of the major political parties is the Conservative Party. Another is the Liberals. On the evening news we may hear one Senator described as "moderate on tax reform," another as “liberal on social policy.” Clearly these non-SBC uses have (or at least should have) little relation to the words as used within the SBC.
Moreover, the great majority of national media representatives favor government solutions, non-traditional values, and "innovative” social arrangements. It is not surprising, therefore, that most major newspaper writers, TV commentators, song writers, and movie script writers use "fundamentalist" and "conservative” negatively, "liberal" and "moderate” positively. Typically the context makes clear that “moderate" implies someone who is reasonable, thoughtful, and all-around an admirable type. In the small but growing segment of the media which approaches matters from a more traditional perspective, the connotations are reversed with "conservative” being perhaps the highest praise, followed by “fundamentalist" (though seldom used), “liberal” being applied to the writer's special opponents and "moderate" often designating someone too weak or indecisive to merit respect from either the committed left or right.
As Jack Haskins pointed out, however, when he described his frustrated attempts to discover an official SBC definition and usage guide for the words, there is no such definitive, officially endorsed guideline. Consequently, outside the SBC a good rule is "Let the reader beware." Use discernment and consider carefully the context, the author's position, and what the context implies.
lntra-SBC Use:
This is the area of primary interest to Southern Baptists. Within the SBC we also have major problems sorting out just what the speaker or writer means because the same four words are used to describe a person's posture in both the theological and the political realms.
A. Theology:
1. “Fundamentalism” and “fundamentalist” came into use as a result of the publishing of The Fundamentals in 1909. Concerned with unorthodox beliefs creeping into the church, two laymen, who chose to remain anonymous, donated funds to publish and send to 300,000 ministers, missionaries, and other Christian workers throughout the English speaking world a set of issue papers originally printed in twelve small volumes. The editorial committee was chaired first by Rev. A. C. Dixon and upon his death by R. A. Torrey. In 1917 the fund for free distribution having been exhausted, The Fundamentals was republished and sold in four volumes. In 1933 Baker Book House republished the 1917 four volume edition without change. That edition is still available having been republished in 1993, and I highly recommend it. Most of the papers are as relevant today as in 1909.
Those interested can still read The Fundamentals and see for themselves what the word originally meant in its theological context. Basically, it simply referred to the beliefs of orthodox, historical Christianity. But, unfortunately, there is another connotation woven closely, sometimes with malice aforethought, around the straightforward doctrinal beliefs.
"Fundamentalist," especially when begun with a capital "F" is usually intended to imply a harsh, condemnatory spirit; legalistic, pharisaical insistence upon adding certain man-made traditions (such as dress or haircut codes) to the gospel. Though I know of no certain documentation, this usage of the word seems to have begun in the 1920's with the rise of Norrisism in Texas. J. Frank Norris (1877-1952) was pastor of First Baptist Church, Ft. Worth from 1909 to 1952. He attacked in bitter terms the Tarrant County Baptist Association, the Baptist General Convention of Texas, and the Southern Baptist Convention. Finally, after having been expelled from Southern Baptist life, he formed his own denomination ultimately called the World Baptist Fellowship.
Thus "fundamentalist' conveys two quite different meanings. The strictly theological one is simply belief in orthodox Christian doctrine. The polemical meaning indicates a harsh, rigid, narrow-minded, sometimes ignorant emphasis upon men's traditions and rules with a strain of works righteousness and a stern, angry God. This type Fundamentalist de-emphasizes God's love, mercy, and grace.
2. Conservative: In its theological use "conservative" is perhaps the one word claimed by all Southern Baptists. It connotes sound, orthodox biblical belief but without the implication of harsh legalism which has come to taint "fundamentalist.” Even those who do not believe the Virgin Birth (or if they believe it, think that it is not particularly important), and those who believe that biblical sanctions against homosexual practice are not inspired of God but rather reflect the culture of the time when the passage was written, claim to be conservative.
This raises the issue of "doublespeak.” Ralph Elliott, the central figure in the Genesis controversy of the early 1960's recounts his views of those events in his 1992 book, The Genesis Controversy. On pp. 33-34 he writes, "’Doublespeak' has become an insidious disease within Southern Baptist life. Through the years the program at Southern Seminary has acquainted students with the best in current research in the given fields of study. Often, however, this has been done with an eye and ear for the 'gallery' and how much the ‘church trade' would bear. Professors and students learn to couch their beliefs in acceptable terminology and in holy jargon so that although thinking one thing, the speaker calculated so as to cause the hearer to affirm something else. When I taught at Southern Seminary years ago, we often said to one professor who was particularly gifted at this 'doublespeak' game, that if the Southern Baptist Convention should split, he would be the first speaker at both conventions. ...
"It is my personal belief that this doublespeak across the years has contributed to a lack of nurture and growth and is a major factor in the present problems. The basic question is one of integrity rather than the gift of communication."
The almost uniform claim to be “conservatives” by men who do not believe all the Bible is an example of doublespeak. They lay claim to a term which they know most Baptist laymen will understand as meaning they believe in inerrancy, while they actually believe something quite different. For example, neo-orthodoxy (which, incidentally, is a misnomer; it is neither new nor orthodox. The term itself is an example of intentional doublespeak) states "The Bible (contains the word of God.” But a consistent neo-orthodox pastor will not say, 'The Bible is the Word of God." He believes that the spiritual truths in the Bible are true, but its other statements about history, scientific matters, et cetera are culturally derived and often not true. Such claimants rationalize their position by reference to those in other, usually “mainline” (perhaps we should now change that term to "sideline") denominations who are notably less orthodox than themselves.
In common, everyday English doublespeak is simply a lie. The speaker knowingly, intentionally uses certain words which he believes his hearers will understand to mean one thing when he is fully aware he believes something quite different. Jesus' instructions to His disciples as He was about to send them out witnessing are still appropriate, “...be ye therefore wise as serpents, and innocent as doves.” All too many Southern Baptists are innocent but make little or no effort to be wise. Especially the members of pastor and/or director of missions search committees need to be wise and alert to the possibility of doublespeak. They should never be satisfied with a general answer. Ask questions that demand specific answers, and never let a candidate avoid direct, specific answers. This does not mean one need be unpleasant, simply be firm and insist on definitive answers.
In summary on the theological meaning of "conservative," when honestly used it simply means historically orthodox biblical belief.
Introduction to Theological Liberals and Moderates: It is relatively easy to define "conservative" and "fundamentalist" theologically because both refer to Christians who believe in the full authority, the inerrancy of Scripture. The centripetal force of God's Word keeps pulling conservatives and fundamentalists back to a common foundation, the beliefs set forth in the Bible. If, however one decides to pick and choose among biblical doctrines, he casts himself adrift from safe anchorage, and the vicious cross currents of fallen human nature, contemporary culture, and peer pressure carry him onto the perilous reefs of pride and passion, skepticism and rationalism. But precisely because there is no single doctrinal agreement among liberals and moderates, no authoritative force constantly pulling them back to common ground, they are encountered in far more than Heinz' famous 57 varieties. There are seemingly endless variations among them; seldom if ever do two moderates or liberals agree entirely upon doctrine.
As a result of this inability to unite theologically, moderates and liberals shy away from discussing doctrine and focus instead upon cooperation. Consider the following passage from Beyond the lmpasse?, p. 253. Here Dr. Al Mohler, now president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, responds to Robison James’ suggestion that all SBC elements can work unitedly, based upon some minimal confession:
"... At a bare minimum, the denomination should now recognize the impossibility to forge consensus by the course of confessional minimalism. This is why I must take issue with James when he suggests:
"'Your doctrines and my doctrines may differ at some significant point, perhaps in our doctrine of Scripture. Even so, we can share leadership in missions, evangelism, and theological education if the crucial question ... is whether you and I are mutually related to Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, living faithfully in Him and for Him (p. 128).'
“This has the seductive power of such minimalism. The problem arises when the full significance of doctrinal differences comes to light. At the extremes, the differences are so great that partisans do not share common conceptions of theological education (What is to be taught?), missions (What is the substance of the missionary message?), and evangelism (What is the nature of biblical evangelism?). No one should expect total consensus on all theological issues, but the absence of a confessional consensus on foundational issues is fatal to any body serious about the tasks of missions, evangelism, and theological education.”
Now let me return to definitions of liberals and moderates.
3. Liberals: Liberals believe that the Bible is a record of man's search for God, contrasted to the conservative-fundamentalist view that it is God's revelation to man. This basic difference in perspective means everything, for if the Bible is only man reaching out to God, its contents are humanly produced and by definition imperfect. Consistent with their perspective, liberals deny prophecy and rationalize it away by claiming that the prophetic passages were actually written after the events and only claim a pre-event date. Liberals see the early chapters of Genesis as myth, saga, or legend concocted by primitive people to explain events long lost in the inaccessible past. They see monotheism as having evolved from spiritualism through polytheism. To them Jesus could not have been born of a virgin since such is scientifically impossible. Similarly Jesus could not have risen from the dead. Miracles did not happen: the Red Sea did not part; the walls of Jericho did not fall at the trumpet blast and shout; the iron ax-head did not float; and so forth. To them all these passages are but parables, never intended to be taken as descriptions of actual events, but rather to be understood, like Jesus' parables as illustrative stories conveying spiritual truths through fictional accounts. They are fond (at least among themselves, less frequently openly to the Southern Baptist public) of asserting that the Bible is full of contradictions and errors. However, interestingly, no two liberals seem to agree entirely on which parts of the Bible are true, which legend.
The important thing to note is that liberals have placed the authority of their minds above the authority of God's Word. Perhaps the pre-eminent example of liberalism among those who claim to be Christians is the infamous Jesus Seminar, a group of "Christian” scholars who meet periodically to decide by majority vote which parts of the Bible are accurate, which are in error! I am not aware that any members of the Jesus Seminar are Southern Baptists, but in Southern Baptist life we have many examples of liberalism. Readers will perhaps remember the two churches in North Carolina a couple of years ago one of which “blessed the union" (read, "married") two practicing homosexual men and the other of which licensed a practicing homosexual to preach. On 9 October 1995 Austin Baptist Association of Austin, TX, ousted University Baptist Church for ordaining a practicing homosexual as deacon. Acceptance of abortion is common (not universal) among liberal pastors and theologians. Frequently, liberals emphasize social and economic aid and reduce evangelism; after all, if the Bible is but a record of certain men's efforts to reach up to God, the records of other religions (i.e., the Koran, the Buddhist and Hindu holy books) are equally valid, and we have no right to impose our narrow views upon those who believe otherwise. Some liberals will maintain that there are "many roads all leading to the same destination."
There may be many ways to slice this pie, but let me suggest that theological liberalism proceeds from three bases:
a. Wishful thinking which produces an overemphasis upon God's love and a corresponding underemphasis upon His justice. The motivation is to avoid having to deal with guilt. Sincerity replaces repentance.
b. Pride expressed in the belief that God could not cause a book to be written saying exactly what He wished, but I and others like me are wise enough to discern what He intended, what He should have said. This allows the liberal to recreate God in his own image. Usually they are reticent about acknowledging this, but the recent Re-imagining conference had as its specific purpose reconstructing our concept of God.
c. Naturalism, that is, the assumption that God may have created the universe, but He does not and never has intervened in its natural functioning. It is easy to see that accepting God's inability or unwillingness to intervene leads to acceptance of evolution, rejection of the foundational chapters of Genesis, elimination of original sin and the need for Christ's atonement, and replaces these doctrines with the Enlightenment concept of man as a tabula rasa, a clean slate upon which society writes. Thus "salvation" comes from changing society corporately rather than changing hearts individually.
Theological liberalism may take a long time, perhaps several generations, to reach its ultimate results, but if the process is not reversed by conversion to true Christianity, the results will be:
(1) God's authority wanes.
(2) Man's authority waxes.
(3) Man becomes increasingly influenced by contemporary culture as reflected today in
the acceptance within more and more churches of drinking, bad language, divorce, abortion, and even homosexual practice.
(4) The church becomes a social experience, no longer a ministry imperative; a place to get my needs met, not a place where I can serve others; a source of maudlin emotion, not a temple of serious engagement with God.
(5) All religions are deemed acceptable routes to God.
(6) Universalism. ("A loving god would never condemn anyone to hell for eternity.")
(7) Man's uncleansed guilt and unsatisfied thirst for God lead him to explore other avenues: Eastern religions, New Age, spiritualism, cults, or atheism.
(8) Hedonism. When every man does what is right in his own eyes, he soon begins to do what is wrong in God's eyes.
Theological moderates are simply those beginning the slide toward liberalism. In terms of our eight point list immediately above, a true moderate would be involved in some degree with numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4. But he would not yet have descended to numbers five through eight.
B. Intra-SBC Political Meanings.
Fundamentalist is used by Southern Baptist political liberals as a propaganda term to make their opponents look bad. As frequently used by them it implies a mean, anti-intellectual, narrow minded, harsh person who seeks power and control for the sake of power and control. Not believing the Bible to be completely without error themselves, many liberals appear to think that anyone who claims so to believe must be lying and must have ulterior motives.
Politically, conservative is the term claimed by all hands. Those supporting the conservative resurgence of the last fifteen years claim it as an accurate description of their biblical stance and what they intend to bring about in the SBC (a return to full biblical authority). Those opposed to the conservative resurgence (who may be theological conservatives, moderates, or liberals) all claim the title "conservative" because (1) they realize most Southern Baptists are conservatives and so there is political advantage to using it and/or (2) some of those opposed to the conservative resurgence who are biblical inerrantists, focus on the theological facets of the term, and consequently feel it validly applies to them. Also (3) liberals often focus on the fact that as a whole Southern Baptists are more biblically orthodox (and hence conservative) than members of other major denominations.
Moderate: Moderate is the self-description favored by those opposed to the conservative resurgence. As previously noted, "moderate" has a nice ring to it. It connotes balance, reasonableness, thoughtfulness, an avoidance of extremes. Especially if the moderates can tag their opponents with being “Fundamentalists", they see an advantage in being considered "moderate.” Sometimes we see two terms awkwardly combined as in “moderate-conservative." This is an attempt to have the best of both worlds.
Now, in personal relations, being moderate is often the correct posture, as distinct from being a fanatic. But in Southern Baptist affairs one must question such a position. Should a Baptist love Jesus moderately, or with every fiber of his being? Should a Baptist be moderately concerned with evangelism, or passionately? Should we be only moderately involved in assuring that the SBC returns to convictions and policies based upon the inerrancy, the full authority of the Word of God? Should you be moderately honest or moderately faithful your spouse?
In decisions and actions which do NOT involve matters of principle, moderation is desirable, but where principles are concerned, moderation is the refuge of the dilettante, the coward, the unconcerned, and the scoundrel. Where God's, commands are concerned, complete conviction, wholehearted involvement, a willingness to stand with Jesus regardless of men's opinions is the only honorable course.
Liberal is the political label used by conservatives to denote those opposed to the conservative resurgence within the SBC or their state convention. Just as often those folks object to that tag. Among Baptists "liberal' is almost universally a pejorative term.
Conclusion: Please note that nothing above deals with whether the individual is a "nice" person. Though I am about as Conservative as possible, there are a few conservatives whose personalities, attitudes, or policies grate on me. And I know moderates and liberals who personally are very attractive. But “niceness” is not the issue.
The crucial issues are: (1) Where does the person stand theologically? And, (2) What is his vision for the SBC, the state convention, and his local church vis-a-vis God's Word?
My suggestion is that if you need to know someone's position in these two respects, first establish his specific and unequivocal theological stance. Ask whether he is an in inerrantist. If he replies forthrightly that he is a moderate, dodges the issue, or responds along the lines of, "I believe the Bible contains the Word of God.” or “I believe my Bible is absolutely true and trustworthy.", you know immediately that he falls somewhere within the moderate to liberal spectrum. If that is the case, you have no need to move to the second area, for you know he opposes the conservative resurgence. If, however, he satisfies you that he is an inerrantist, ask whether he supports the conservative resurgence. And be sure you get a straight answer. If he tap dances around the issue or imposes conditions and qualifications, you can sure he is a political "moderate” or an uncommitted, uninvolved, politically ignorant conservative. For myself, I prefer an open, frank enemy to an equivocal, undependable "friend."
So here you have four words. Which applies to you?