“Moderate” Directions

                                                                                                                      Vol. II, No. 5, November 1989

Both moderates and conservatives are deeply interested in the intentions of the moderate/liberal leadership within the SBC. While the great mass of conservatives remained loyal to the SBC and our Cooperative Program during the 40 to 50 years of moderate/liberal domination (with of course a few individual exceptions), it is now becoming increasingly clear that large numbers of those on the other side have no intention of doing the same.

Mod/lib organizations have changed with confusing regularity, but we may now be witnessing the establishment of two more permanent such groups: Baptists Committed to the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Southern Baptist Alliance. Though both are adamantly opposed to the conservative resurgence, are sympathetic to each other, and support the same candidates for SBC offices, there are also important differences.

Both groups are collecting money to oppose conservatives in New Orleans next June. They have hired a secular political consultant who advised them that they would have to spend $2,000,000 to win in N.O. Realizing that so much was out of reach, the mod/libs have set their goal at $800,000. Both groups are now holding meetings in many SBC states, collecting money, and getting sympathetic messengers committed to attend the convention next June.

Baptists Committed is characterized, as its name implies, by a stronger determination to wrest control of the SBC back from conservatives and by a lesser inclination to pull out of the SBC. An example of BC activity is the meeting held in Birmingham, Alabama on Tuesday, 26 September, at Vestavia Hills Baptist Church. The letter of invitation was mailed in Houston, Texas on 1 September, signed by Steve Tondera, and enclosed a brochure featuring the picture of Dr. Winfred Moore.

The letter states, "Baptists Committed has a simple goal: to educate Southern Baptist people that the present leadership is leading our convention away from her historic principles of cooperation, thus destroying our denomination; and to so mobilize Southern Baptists that they will elect a President in New Orleans committed to unifying our convention and depoliticizing our convention so that it can never be taken over by any group again. ..."

There are several interesting aspects of these purposes. The letter clearly announces the intent to win in New Orleans. Conservatives, a word to the wise should be sufficient. Those purposes also speak of both cooperation and depoliticizing the convention. Interestingly they do not address another unique Baptist principle, the autonomy of each Southern Baptist entity and the strictly voluntary nature of cooperation between them.

Ask yourself how the SBC could be "depoliticized" so that it could "never be taken over by any group again." Only two ways occur to this writer. Basic to both is that control must be removed from the messengers at the annual conventions. One way would be to establish some form of hierarchy as in the Methodist, Episcopal, or Catholic Churches so that decisions would be made by a very few at the top. Those in the local churches, both clergy and laity, would simply be told what to do. A second way would be for state associations to control the SBC by giving them the power to name the members of the Committee on Committees, a power which now resides in our elected SBC president. In fact, that is the president's only power.

A controlling hierarchy may appeal to the more radical mod/libs who often display high church and liturgical tendencies (see below), but it would be so obviously and drastically at odds with historic Baptist polity that one doubts it has any chance of being adopted. However, control by state conventions is more subtle (though no less dangerous and offensive to Baptist belief and practice) and therefore may have a greater chance of slipping in. Indeed, exactly that arrangement was recommended in November 1988 here in Virginia by the President's Task Force on the Denominational Crisis and overwhelmingly approved by the messengers at the BGAV convention. One wonders if the average messenger there realized that he was actually voting to destroy the SBC as it has functioned for close to a century and a half.

The Birmingham meeting was interesting. The 50 to 55 in attendance discussed their fund-raising, fostered various false rumors about conservative problems (it is unclear whether they actually believe them or just consider them political ploys), and indicated that mod/libs will try hard to tie conservatives to Reconstruction Theology. Baptists Committed is clearly focussed on rewinning control of the SBC.

The Southern Baptist Alliance has a separatist thrust. Very recently the SBA held an organizational meeting at Oakhurst Baptist Church, Decatur, Georgia. The meeting elected as state president a layman, Walter Knight, publisher of the liberal newspaper, SBC Today. A few at the meeting expressed the desire to remain in the SBC, but the great majority want to become a separate denomination. Rev. Beeland, the host pastor, said no one wants to leave the SBC more than he does. In the worship service all ministers wore vestments and spoke from a printed liturgy. The liturgy removed all male references to God using instead such phrases as "God the Maker."

Another interesting fact, in view of the frequent mod/lib charge that "fundamentalists" seek to establish a creed, is that the SBA has a ten point creed (which they call an affirmation or covenant) to which one must agree in order to become a member! Please note this is not intended to suggest they should not have such a covenant ... every group must be characterized by certain distinctives or, by definition, it cannot be a group. Rather the point is that no one should criticize others for doing what one is doing oneself. Moreover the English word "creed" is derived from the Latin credo, which simply means "I believe." To maintain there should be no creed, then, is to hold that one should believe nothing, which is not only undesirable but impossible.

The Florida SBA met in the First Baptist Church of Deland 27 October 1988. One point covered was that the SBA is promoting mission possibilities the SBC will not support. Among the areas cited were ministries with a woman pastor, ministries with a divorced pastor, ministries with charismatic tendencies (curious in view of the conservative theology of charismatics), and certain social ministries. Speakers made several points. The SBC is lost to mod/libs, and it is dumb to ignore that fact. (Contrast this with the Baptists Committed focus on recapturing the SBC.) Churches are being encouraged to stop funding SBC agencies that reflect the conservative resurgence. They suggested sending the money instead to your state convention if you agree with what the state is doing, the Foreign Mission Board, the Baptist Joint committee on Public Affairs, Women in Ministry, and similar groups. Participants were encouraged not to send any money to the Home Mission board or the Christian Life Commission. Leaders urged churches to send diverted funds to the SBA.

It was pointed out that SBA members are remaining in the SBC in hopes that the defunding effort will collapse the SBC agencies and they will be there to pick up the remnant. The SBA members indicated that the "inclusion" principle is important. A wide range of interpretations is fine ... you have your theology and I have mine ... what is important is that we work together. This conflicts directly with historic Baptist belief in the primacy of faith, belief. "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." Prov. 23:7. Thus, works are secondary deriving from belief. Jesus approved the Pharisees' works but condemned the men because their hearts were wrong. And, inevitably, wrong belief results in wrong works just as the Pharisees' wrong hearts led to Christ's crucifixion.