Baptist Battles, a Review

                                                                                                                        Vol. IV, No. 1, January 1991

Baptist Battles by Nancy Tatom Ammerman (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1990). Condensed slightly from a review by Dr. Paige Patterson.

Nancy Ammerman is a brilliant sociologist teaching in the Candler School of Theology at Emory University. This is the institution which gave us the first of the big name theological morticians, Thomas J.J. Altizer, whose wisdom it was that God had died. Ammerman is a self-confessed moderate (preface, p. xii), a feminist, and a prominent participant in the August meeting of moderates in Atlanta which sought ways of stifling the conservative resurgence in Southern Baptist life. She is also serving as a member of the executive board of this incipient new convention. The author's purpose is to demonstrate that the divisions within Southern Baptist life reflect "deep cultural divisions separating people who have responded differently to that cultural change."

Astonishingly, Ammerman's research reveals that just about every concern which conservative Southern Baptists have voiced over the last thirty years is totally justified! Consider the following fifteen admissions to which Ammerman is driven by her research. (1) The national bureaucracy in the SBC had become totally pervasive by 1978 (p. 13). (2) The staffs and trustees of the agencies and institutions were overwhelmingly moderate in their sympathies prior to 1979 (p. 14). (3) In the twenties, when other denominations were struggling with the Modernist controversies, there were virtually no Modernists in the SBC (p. 48). (4) Even today the vast majority of Southern Baptists are conservatives (p. 76). (5) Some who call themselves "conservative" do so not to reflect their actual theological posture but rather as a convenience in order to relate to the SBC mainstream (p. 78). (6) Moderates in the SBC tend to be far more liberal than their conservative counterparts on ethical issues, with many moderates imbibing alcohol and even swearing (pp. 107-109). (7) Moderates attach much less importance to evangelism and "soul-winning" than do conservatives (p. 111). (8) Moderates in Southern Baptist life are almost exclusively from a white-collar, professional, elitist class, while conservatives are broadly distributed among all kinds of people (pp. 129, 131-136). (9) Influential moderates tend to be from large historic churches; whereas conservative leadership emerges from a coalition of the smaller churches and the so-called "super-churches" (p. 131). (10) The unquestionable impact of Southern Baptist seminaries as the carriers of moderate and liberal views is forever established (p. 135). Especially was that found to be the case with Southern, Southeastern, and Midwestern seminaries (p. 141). (11) In fact, the deleterious and corrosive impact on doctrinal orthodoxy among Southern Baptists is clearly shown to be almost exclusively the legacy of our educational institutions. Ammerman shows, for example, that laypersons who attend Baptist colleges and universities are much more likely to be liberal in their theology than laypersons who attend state schools (pp. 136-141, 163). (12) During the 50s and 60s, conservative pastors had been isolated and excluded from channels of leadership in the denomination (p. 171). (13) Moderates have been involved in the politics of Southern Baptist life long before 1979, and their efforts have been just as overtly political as those of conservatives (pp. 196 & 270). (14) For years moderates condemned conservatives' proposals for designating around entities and programs that were distasteful to conservatives, whereas now moderates have reversed their position (pp. 243, 270). (15) Periodically, conservative students at Southern Baptist seminaries and state Baptist institutions were subject to verbal attacks in the classrooms of those schools (p. 249).

Any two or three of these admissions would provide ample justification for conservative efforts to turn the convention back to the faith of its fathers. With all its warts and foibles the conservative resurgence is more than justified in this light. Just to give the flavor of Ammerman's delightful style, note the following observations. Concerning the denomination's educational coterie she says, "It is little wonder that the Convention's colleges and seminaries were the primary target of the discontented right wing. Colleges and seminaries had created both the ideology and the social networks, both sources of meaning and belonging, out of which the old establishment was constructed. They were largely responsible for the changes in belief the fundamentalists sought to oppose. Our statistical testing of responses from survey respondents confirmed what fundamentalists already knew – their foremost enemy was the denomination's educational system."

Regarding moderate views on ethical questions Ammerman wrote, "The tension between moderate lifestyles and the practices of their more conservative brothers and sisters was apparent at some moderate gatherings. The use of an occasional four-letter word seemed a kind of defiant badge of liberation for some. I have never heard a moderate use God's name in a profane way, nor have I heard any sexually explicit language, but other ‘four-letter' words can be heard on occasion. (However, if they were. not entirely sure who was listening, the words were likely to be spoken in hushed tones or through clenched teeth.) Likewise, a glass of wine with dinner was not uncommon with moderates. But they would surely take care that they were unnoticed. Room service was heavily used in Southern Baptist Convention hotels. While moderates wanted to proclaim their liberation from puritanical standards, their freedom to express themselves fully or to drink in moderation was hampered by their knowledge that most of their Southern Baptist brothers and sisters did not approve. These matters of lifestyle were another of the ways in which the left wing of the denomination was self-consciously different."

Regarding moderate perspectives on homosexuality she says, "Moderate leanings toward tolerating were also seen in their response to the much more controversial issue of homosexuality. It was not that they were willing to endorse homosexuality as a ‘viable Christian alternative.' Only about 2 percent of all our respondents, regardless of theological position, agreed or strongly agreed with that statement. However, self-identified moderates were much more likely to say they were unsure (1.1 percent versus 4 percent for everyone else) and much less likely to say they strongly disagreed (56 percent versus 77 percent of all others).

On the question of soul-winning Ammerman says, "Perhaps the most dramatic difference between fundamentalist and moderate practices, however, was the fundamentalist enthusiasm for soul-winning. When asked if their church ‘puts a lot of emphasis on evangelism and soul-winning,' over three-quarters (77 percent) of self-identified fundamentalists said that was very true, and another 17 percent said it was somewhat true. Only 6 percent disagreed or were unsure. Self-identified moderates, on the other hand, were more ambivalent. Only 14 percent said it was very true, while 61 percent chose somewhat true, and 25 percent disagreed or were unsure. Similarly, when asked about their own personal soul-winning practices, fundamentalists outscored moderates. Nearly three fourths (74 percent) of fundamentalists said it was very true that they ,share the plan of salvation whenever [they] get a chance.' Less than a quarter (18 percent) of moderates were so sure. Twenty-four percent either disagreed with that statement or were unsure, compared to 4 percent of fundamentalists. Again most moderates said it was somewhat true."

The mystery is solved. What conservatives have known and alleged is now documented and rehearsed, not from a conservative pen, but from an honest, forthright moderate who simply uncovers the unvarnished reality of the nature of the conflict. And while Ammerman is unintentionally stripping bare the disguises moderates have most often donned, she also points to certain conservative advantages in the twelve year struggle which have been almost entirely unnoticed even by seasoned observers. First, the vast superiority of conservatives in the pulpit has given them more than just a leg up in a preaching oriented denomination (p. 181). Second, Ammerman notes the overwhelmingly adopted statement of the Peace Committee as effectively authenticating the claims of conservatives (p. 219). Also, her research suggesting that 83 percent of all Southern Baptists are either self-identified fundamentalists, fundamentalist-conservatives, or conservatives, as compared with only 17 percent moderate-conservatives or self-identified moderates, is probably the most accurate assessment to date.

The book has its mistakes, but most of these are not related to the author's research. The errors usually occur when she suddenly shifts to her own opinions or chronicles the usual moderate rhetoric concerning such demonstrably false accusations as conservative mass bussing of voters (p. 3), or the allegations that conservatives attempt to undermine individual freedom (p. 112). Ammerman stooped to the reporting of moderate paranoia about classroom lectures being taped and then shipped off to Dallas (p. 121). She is in error that "in 1982, two opposed Jimmy Draper" (p. 176). There were three others nominated for president that year. Suggesting that fundamentalists tended to be more argumentative and uncharitable than moderates during the years of the controversy (p. 194) at best reveals a lack of exposure and personal bias. Reference to Paul Pressler as "politician Paul Pressler" is pejorative and unworthy of a scholar of Ammerman's class (p. 71). But this is the worst of it. Ammerman does not succeed in her purpose of demonstrating that the current controversy arises out of cultural differences. But the book is still invaluable.