BGAV President Writes, Editor Responds, Part I

by T. C. Pinckney                                                                                               Vol. VII, No. 4, May 1994

Rev. Ronald W. Crawford, president of the Baptist General Association of Virginia, wrote your editor on 17 March regarding the article "Crawford Appoints Moderate-Conservative Panel" which appeared in the February 1994 Baptist Banner. Readers may want to review the original article before reading this one. [Website visitors can find it in the BGAV topical index, entry for February 1994.] President Crawford's letter was well organized into a brief introduction and seven points, and he closed by saying, "I hope that you will consider printing my letter in the next Banner. You would certainly be free to editorialize it!" Because each of his points stands pretty much independently of the others, it seems best to reprint his items one by one exactly as he wrote them and follow each with my response to that item. Each of his points will begin with his initials RWC, my replies with mine TCP. Because of length considerations, this article will be divided between this and the next Banner.

RWC: Carrying the [February] article was certainly a service to your readers. We need for Virginia Baptists to be well informed. I would like to add to that information by offering a response to your editorial comments in the article.

First, you quoted Jeremiah chapter 6 with regard to being cautious about those who cry "peace, peace..." I am sure we all realize the need to be cautious. We also are familiar with the words of Jesus, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the Sons of God" (Matthew 5:9).

TCP: First, the question of peace. Of course I agree that Matthew 5:9 ("Blessed be the peacemakers") is as important as Jeremiah 6:14 ("...saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace."). In the Banner article I did not quote the entire Jeremiah passage and will not now, but it culminates in v. 19 "Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it." (My emphasis.) Peace is built upon the solid rock of God's Word, not upon the unstable sand of men's "thoughts," good intentions, and/or desire to be "nice." There is nothing inherently wrong with good intentions or the desire to be nice, but they simply are inadequate and do not provide the essential firm foundation. And the only infinite characteristic of mankind seems to be his ability to logically rationalize anything he wants to do. Benjamin Franklin commented upon this in his autobiography, "So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do." Psa. 85:10 states, "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." Thus, without truth ("Thy word is truth.") there can be no mercy; without righteousness, no peace. This thought is reinforced in Psalm 119:165 "Great peace have they who love thy law:..." I believe we both would agree that this is not the peace of circumstances but of the spirit regardless of circumstances. Again, the latter concept is strengthened in Isaiah 26:3 "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee." The necessity of God's Word as the foundation of peace is also stressed in Isaiah 48:18, "O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea:" And Jesus specifically warned us that following Him would not lead to earthly peace in Matthew 10:34ff, "Think not that I am come to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." See also its parallel passage Luke 12:51ff. Finally, and clearest of all, in John 16:33 Jesus lays it right on the line, "These things I have spoken to you, that in me ye may have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." (My emphases.)

From all these passages it is clear that the true peacemaker is he who honors and rests in the truth of God's Word, who brings others to a similar faith and knowledge, and who is not unduly concerned about worldly circumstances. He should not seek confrontation, but neither should he retreat from it when thrust upon him by those who question God's Word. The Bible provides many examples of such men, buffeted by the world yet with hearts full of peace beyond all understanding, most notably our Lord Himself and Paul.

RWC: Second, you suggest my words, "to explore methods of cooperation, given our different places" reveals an assumption "that either (1) denigrates the authority of the Bible or (2) maligns the motives of conservatives." I am grieved that my words might imply either. This was certainly never my intention. If l have been unclear, I apologize. I simply intended to indicate that conservatives and moderates hold different views on many issues – but serve the same Lord.

TCP: In your second point you comment upon my discussion of your quoted words. Just let me point out that I acknowledged, "... Pastor Crawford almost certainly did not have this in mind when he spoke as quoted above..." Having absolved you of intent, however, I stand by my analysis of the logical implications of your statement.

RWC: Third, yes it is true that some moderates view conservatives with considerable disdain. I do not personally share these views. In my mind, conservative Virginia Baptists (SBCV) are brothers and sisters in Christ. I believe they are seeking the will of God for their lives.

TCP: Your third point comments inter alia, "yes, it is true that some moderates view conservatives with considerable disdain." I just re-read the Banner article. Nowhere in it did I make such an assertion, so your reference is somewhat obscure to me. But perhaps you had in mind my examination of the assumption which "(2) maligns the motives of conservatives." Disdain? Possibly, but that was not and is not my concern. My purpose was to try to set right for Banner readers the obvious and repeated perversion of conservative motives by moderate spokesmen.

RWC: Fourth, I am sure you didn't intend to do this, but some readers may have gotten the impression that moderates believe "the Bible to be basically a human book inspired in somewhat the same fashion as the writings of Shakespeare or Homer..." This is not my view. I know of no Virginia Baptist moderate who holds such a view of scripture.

You are certainly correct to suggest that moderates and conservatives disagree over biblical issues. For my own part, I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is "God breathed" as no other book. Though moderates and conservatives will disagree on the interpretation of specific passages, we are one in viewing the Bible as the Word of God.

TCP: Fourth, and this point approaches the crux of the matter: There is validity to the objection you raise. I was, of course, speaking of one end of a spectrum of moderate-liberal thought and of my judgment that believing the Bible to contain errors places man's mind above God's revelation so that inevitably that approach leads ultimately (it may even take one or two generations) to viewing biblical inspiration as no more than Homer's. However, my loose February wording did imply that all moderates hold this view, and that was incorrect. I apologize.

But now let's turn to the substance of the issue: Just what do moderates believe about the authority and inspiration of Scripture. Recognizing that (1) we are speaking of thousands of individuals, (2) there is undoubtedly a broad spread of belief among them, and (3) some (many?) who vote moderate are personally as orthodox scripturally as I or anyone else ... notwithstanding all these qualifications, frankly I find your statement ("I know of no Virginia Baptist who holds such a view of Scripture.") incredible. (See the discussion below of Dr. Glenn Hinson's writings as one example.)

Considering that Jesus said, "... by their fruits shall ye know them" (Matthew 7:20), Ron, what do you believe is the fruit of your actions, your leadership among Virginia Baptists? You are a trustee of the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, and you are very active in promoting the CBF among Virginia churches. What is the impact of these organizations? To the best of my knowledge neither has taken a biblical stand on the question of homosexuality, even though this is one of the pressing issues of our day and culture, even though because of the initiatives of two local North Carolina churches the SBC was forced to address the issue. How can a man who writes "I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is `God breathed' as no other book" adhere to and energetically promote such organizations? If the Bible is "the inspired Word of God," the question of a stance on homosexuality is settled: God pronounces it abominable; so must we. On the other hand, if I find homosexuality just another acceptable lifestyle or even if I cannot come to a conclusion, then I have rejected the authority of God's Word and can hardly claim to consider it God-breathed.

What does the CBF say is its view of Scripture? In May 1991 the CBF's Steering Committee endorsed a statement which said, "We cannot claim more for the Bible than the Bible claims for itself. The Bible neither claims nor reveals inerrancy as a Christian teaching. Bible claims must be based on the Bible, not on human interpretations of the Bible." This statement about what the Bible claims is untrue! The first enclosure to this letter includes a large number of scriptural references which establish without question that the Bible does indeed claim to be inerrant. I pray you will examine each of these with an open mind and receptive heart. [Note: Though I did not say so in the original letter to Rev. Crawford, I certainly should have remarked on my strong agreement with the last sentence of the CBF steering Committee quote just cited: "Bible claims must be based on the Bible, not on human interpretations of the Bible."]

To return to your quote, how can a man who writes "I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is `God breathed' as no other book" in good conscience be a trustee of a seminary which employs a professor who believes as does Dr. Glenn Hinson? The following quotes are from Hinson's book, Jesus Christ, Volume 1 in the series "Faith of Our Fathers," a Consortium Book, 1977 published by McGrath Publishing Company. (Emphasis added.)

pp 56-57: All [Gospel] sources, however objective they claim to be, have biases. They reflect the slanted viewpoints of their authors. At the same time most possess, in varying degrees, some element of fact. The fact that none of these is absolutely factual, however, does not take away all of their value. What it takes away is the dogmatic certainty with which historians in the past sometimes operated. ... In the case of the gospels one can safely conclude that a kernel of historical fact underlies the early Church's handling of the material.

p 64: These [temptation] experiences [which followed Jesus' baptism] may have been the creation of the evangelists or sources upon which they depended. All three of the Synoptics but especially Matthew and Luke present the temptation story in more or less mythological terms when it had to be a highly personal and interior experience. In the interest of presenting Jesus as the Messiah-Servant, they or their sources could have created the account.

p 66: A number of modern scholars have discounted the healing narratives and miracle stories, ascribing them to primitive mythology and early Christian embellishment. Some embellishment undoubtedly occurred.

p 76: Indeed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Jesus expected the return of the Son of Man and the consummation to occur within his own lifetime (Mark 13:30). His "error" was due to prophetic foreshortening.

p 79: The fact that some alteration has occurred by later time, therefore, should not undermine confidence that the early believers preserved a credible core of Jesus' own words.

p 107: The words in 1 Corinthians 11:24 and Luke 22:19, "Do this in remembrance of me," may not have been Jesus' words. They could, however, have represented his wish.

p 111: The risen Christ had not a physical but a spiritual body.

There seem to be only two logical possibilities: (1) If you believe what your words clearly imply (and I am willing to accept your words at face value, in fact accept them with great joy), then you must part company with the CBF and the Baptist Theological Seminary in Richmond (where Dr. Hinson is on faculty). (2) The other possibility is that you are playing the god-word game: saying words that sound good to the undisceming, words which you think your auditors will understand one way (in this case as an orthodox affirmation of belief in the Bible) but which in your own mind mean something quite different.

I learned to beware of god-words to which the speaker has given his own private, secret redefinitions through the following experience. Some years ago I was on a pulpit committee. One evening the committee met with an attractive young pastor over dinner. During the meal we were just getting acquainted, but about the time dessert arrived we got down to business. He asked us questions, and we asked him. Roughly an hour into the process one of the other men on the committee asked, "Bob (not his name, he pastors a Virginia church today), do you believe the Bible is inerrant?" Bob replied, "I believe my Bible is absolutely trustworthy and true!" and slapped his knee for emphasis.

The committee member, Larry (his real name), paused reflectively and then said, "I'm not sure I fully understand that answer. Could you elaborate?" Bob replied with a couple of sentences and finished in the same words, "I believe my Bible is absolutely trustworthy and true!" And again slapped his knee. Larry asked again, and again, and again. Finally, on the seventh question Larry said, "Let me put it this way: You know the incident of the floating ax head?" And Bob acknowledged he did. Then Larry asked, "Do you believe the iron ax head physically floated to the top of the Jordan river?" And Bob said, "No." (Incidentally this occurred months before I became at all involved in SBC politics.)

What was Bob up to in that exchange? Clearly he was using words as weapons, telling us words he understood one way but which he wanted us to understand in a very different way. Now I do not know the precise concept of inspiration to which Bob may adhere, but it would seem to be along the line that the message is inspired though the words, and the historical and scientific facts are often in error. But no sweat, the facts are not all that important anyway. Even legend, myth, and saga can serve God's purpose.

In my judgment this aberrant biblical theory springs from a depreciated concept of God and His Word. Yet God created man, a creature so complex that information theorists tell us it would take more books than there are electrons in the entire universe just to describe exhaustively one human being. The God capable of such creation merely by speaking man into existence certainly is also capable of controlling/influencing His creature so that His chosen amanuensis infallibly writes what God desires. It is a constant and alluring temptation for each of us to measure God in terms of me, but He measures us; we can in no way measure Him. He is a different order of being, infinitely more different from me than I am from an ant. He raised up Pharaoh for His glory. How much more can He use one who joyfully devotes his life to God's wishes. No, those who underrate His Book, underrate God. They suffer from theological myopia; making man the measure; they create God in their own image rather than man in the imago dei. They must be opposed in denominational decisions but deeply pitied and earnestly prayed for as individuals.

[Originally this article was published in two sections, Part I (above) in the May 1994 Banner, Part II (below) in the June issue. Here on the website they are combined for readers’ convenience.]

BGAV President Writes, Editor Responds, Part II

                                                                                                                            Vol. VII, No. 5, June 1994

[Rev. Ronald W. Crawford, president of the BGAV, wrote your editor commenting on the article “Crawford Appoints Moderate-Conservative Panel” in the February Banner. Rev. Crawford's letter contained seven numbered points. The last Banner contained an article which reprinted his first four points, each followed by your editor's response. The following article will use the same format for his final three points. "RWC" indicates the beginning of a portion of his letter, "TCP" the start of my editorial reply.]

RWC: Fifth, you rightly identify the issue of biblical authority as an area of significant disagreement between conservatives and moderates. Conservatives generally emphasize the importance of inerrancy. Moderates on the other hand tend to focus primary attention on a dynamic relationship with Jesus Christ (I do not mean to suggest that conservatives give too little attention to this area.) Let me illustrate the way moderates view the relative importance of biblical authority versus a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Saul, the persecutor of the early church, knew the Word of God (Old Testament) backward and forward. His commitment to the text was unwavering. Yet, he did not know Jesus until he traveled the Damascus road. The relationship with Christ changed his life, not his view of scripture. Paul's revelation did not come from a text – but from a person, Jesus Christ.

Moderates are Baptists who place "primary" emphasis on the Lordship of Jesus Christ (personal relationship).

TCP: Your fifth point is closely related to the fourth. Though I note that you cast the distinction between conservatives and moderates in terms of relative emphases, I have a problem understanding your intent when you write, "Conservatives generally emphasize the importance of inerrancy. Moderates on the other hand tend to focus primary attention on a dynamic relationship with Jesus Christ (I do not mean to suggest that conservatives give too little attention in this area)." If conservatives do not give too little attention, logically they must give either enough or too much attention to the relationship with Christ. And since the latter hardly seems possible, I take it you mean that conservatives give the correct amount of attention to the relationship with Jesus. But if that is so, what do you imply about moderates? You say they "focus primary attention on a dynamic relationship with Jesus Christ." Surely you do not intend to say that by contrast with conservatives moderates place too little emphasis on Scripture! It seems to me that, in spite of your parenthetical disclaimer, your point must be that conservatives over-emphasize biblical authority and neglect in some degree the personal relationship with Jesus.

Part of the problem you wrestled with in phrasing this passage appears to be that you were proceeding on the basis of a non-existent dichotomy. There is no contradiction nor competition between God's Living and Written Word. Jesus is the incarnate Revelation; the Bible the unfolding account of God's plan, the historical record of the progressive preparation and explanation of the Messiah. All that we know about Jesus we learn in the Bible. One cannot have a personal, dynamic relationship with Christ absent study of and commitment to biblical doctrine. (The true believer certainly doesn't have to be a Ph.D. [indeed, depending upon where such a degree was obtained, its absence may be a major advantage], but he will want, will love to read his Master's Word.) Relationships with Christ and the Bible are not competitors nor in contrast, but mutually reinforcing; indeed, they form one, unified whole. If a man does not love Christ, he will not love Scripture; if he does not love Scripture, he does not love Christ.

And that is why I believe your Pauline illustration is mistaken. Of course it was the personal "relationship with Christ [which] changed his life, not his view of scripture [sic]." But to phrase it as you have betrays a thought pattern based upon the false dichotomy. It is not either/or, but both/and. We now live in a different dispensation than did Saul of Tarsus. Signs have ceased until the end times. God completed His progressive, revelatory story of Jesus in the Scripture so that there is now no need for signs. We are among the most fortunate of men, for all we have to do is to read the Bible to be presented with God's great sacrifice, His wondrous plan for our salvation. But to the degree we discount or denigrate Scripture, we discount or denigrate Christ, for it is His story. All we know of Jesus is what we read in the Bible.

You write, "Moderates are Baptists who place ‘primary' emphasis on the Lordship of Jesus Christ (personal relationship)." I can write with complete conviction, "Conservatives are Baptists who place primary emphasis on the Lordship of Jesus Christ." However, I would hasten to add the point made above, that the Bible reveals Jesus to us and that he who truly believes in God's Living Word will be drawn to study and apply God's written Word and to accept it as fully authoritative. Again, to the degree that one denies the complete authority of Scripture, he is to that degree less committed to Christ, to that degree in rebellion against Christ.

In conclusion on this fifth point, let me call to your attention the drastic nature of the charge against conservatives bound up in your words. Though it may well not have been your conscious thought, your words indicate very clearly that conservatives are not fully Christian, that we lack some element of the complete Christian life, that in some respects we are like the lost for we do not "place primary emphasis upon the Lordship of Jesus Christ" but instead have been diverted onto a theological tangent by "generally emphasiz(ing) the importance of inerrancy." This is, of course, an old and worn attack upon conservatives: that we are legalistic, pharisaical, and by contrast "moderates" are true biblical Christians. But Jesus never rebuked the Pharisees for believing the Scriptures too much, but rather for obeying the Scriptures too little. See Mark 7:1-9ff, especially vv 6-7, "He answered and said unto them, Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." And in John 5:39, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." See also Matthew 22:29; Mark 14:49; Romans 16:26; and II Timothy 3:15.

– Of course the Scriptures do not save, only faith in Jesus does, but Jesus told the Pharisees their problem was that they taught the traditions, commandments of men rather than searching out the commands of the Father in the Scripture.

– It is possible to pervert God's written Word by either addition or deletion. So those we refer to as legalists add various rules to Scripture, such as dress codes, haircut styles, et cetera. Some of these may make sense, some don't, but none is Scripture. Those we refer to as liberals take the other path to perverting Scripture by substituting their own judgments and preferences for God's commandments. We see this in action today with the hesitation or outright refusal to stand against homosexuality and abortion.

RWC: Sixth, you raised the doctrinal issue of the virgin birth. I was unsure how your readers might have thought this applied to moderates. May I simply say, "I believe Jesus Christ was the divine, virgin born Son of God..." We moderates have been unfairly maligned in this subject.

TCP: Your sixth point addresses the virgin birth, and you state, "May I simply say, `I believe Jesus Christ was the divine, virgin born, Son of God...' We moderates have been unfairly maligned on the subject." As noted above, among moderates there is a wide range of views on this and similar subjects, probably a much broader spectrum than among conservatives. And I accept without reservation your characterization of your personal view. However, I have a question for you: How can you participate in and energetically promote an organization which purports to be Christian, even Baptist, nay even to represent the true historic Baptist tradition, but which is headed by a man (Dr. Cecil Sherman) who has said upon more than one occasion [as quoted in Christianity Today, 5 August 1983, p. 41 and reiterated in response to a question as recently as last year in a CBF proselytizing meeting here in Virginia (tape available)] that an SBC seminary professor who "did not ascribe to the virgin birth" should NOT be fired. In explanation he noted that John, Mark, Paul, Peter's letters, and James' epistle do not mention it. In his answer he also noted that Matthew and Luke do recount the virgin birth. My question is, how often does the Lord God have to say something for us to take Him seriously?

Let me offer an analogy taken from my military background. Now like the parables, please do not read too much into my example. It is only military because having tried the Air Force for thirty years before deciding not to make it a career, military examples flow naturally to me.

Let's say you are the general commanding a major combat theater during a war. You have marshalled your troops, stockpiled your supplies, gathered every scrap of intelligence, found that the latest weather forecast is favorable, been assured by your subordinate commanders that they are ready. So you give the order: Tomorrow morning at 0530 we attack.

Sure enough, at 0530 your 25,000 men in American uniforms attack. After some time one of the front line officers notices something peculiar and alarming. One of his soldiers, dressed in an American uniform, one he had known for months, who shipped over with the outfit from the States, one who knows the Pledge of Allegiance and the Star Spangled Banner by heart and says/sings them lustily, one he has regarded as a model soldier ... is only firing at other men in American uniforms. Every time he fires his weapon another American falls dead or wounded. From the U.S. perspective is that "model" soldier a friend or an enemy? The answer is clear regardless of the uniform he wears.                  

Now let's extend the analogy. Suppose that the first soldier's weapon is one of the heavier caliber weapons with a rapid rate of fire; it uses lots of ammunition, more than one man can carry. So a helper is assigned to carry ammo boxes and resupply the first man whenever necessary. Now the second man has seen what the first is doing: shooting other Americans. But he keeps right on giving him ammunition. Not only that, he calls out to other ammunition bearers, "Come on over here and give your load to Joe. He's really doing an effective job! Every time he shoots some soldier falls! Of course I don't believe he ought to be killing Americans, but let's keep him supplied with ammo!"

You see, Ron, I regard you as in the position of the second soldier. You believe in the virgin birth, but you are encouraging and supporting with all your might those who don't and those who don't believe it is of particular importance, those who will not even take a biblical stand on something as cut and dried as homosexuality or abortion, those who say, "CBF is a missions delivery system; we are not a theology standardization organization."

Mine are very frank words. They may be hard to read. They may offend. But I will not weasel word it and say I am sorry if they offend. I am not because if they offend it may well be because they convict. "Open rebuke is better than secret love." The doctor who tells his patient of newly discovered cancer may in a sense offend, but he certainly should not withhold the truth. I deeply believe you have taken a drastically mistaken path. You have by your letter offered me the opportunity to bring this to your attention. Believing as I do, if I were less than frank with you, I would have to answer for my failure when I stand before Jesus (Matthew 12:36). Also, believing as I do, I would not be a good neighbor were I to tell you other than the truth as I see it.

RWC: Finally, you seem to suggest that "cooperation" is only possible after acceptance of an "inerrant Bible." In effect, doctrinal uniformity becomes the parameters of cooperation; i.e., you can only cooperate with those who believe like you. If I have rightly understood you, this is a cardinal difference between moderates and conservatives. Moderates are willing to respect and cooperate with other Baptists who hold different theological views. We believe this should be done in the "spirit of Jesus." Moderates believe the responsibility to work together (cooperate with brothers and sisters in Christ) takes precedence over doctrinal uniformity.

TCP: On your last point: You have understood me correctly. While in my judgment conservatives and moderates can certainly cooperate closely in the non-theological, nondenominational sphere, and while they may like each other and be on friendly terms (and I pray never on angry or mean-spirited terms), I fail to see how two can walk together who are not agreed. I concur that this is a cardinal difference (though derivative from their respective scriptural stands) between moderates and conservatives.

You write with apparent approval: "Moderates are willing to respect and cooperate with other Baptists who hold different theological views. We believe this should be done in the ‘spirit of Jesus.' Moderates believe the responsibility to work together (cooperate with brothers and sisters in Christ) takes precedence over doctrinal uniformity."

If I understand your thought correctly, part of the problem may be definitional. When you say, "doctrinal uniformity" it conveys the idea of rigid conformity on every point. And indeed, moderates are fond of accusing (sometimes directly, sometimes by implication) conservatives of just such a demand. But that is a red herring. There are many points of theology conservatives may and do differ on. Let me illustrate (this time less personally).

Most – perhaps all – conservatives would, I believe, agree with this illustration. We see all illustration. We see all possible subjects divided (like Gaul) into three parts. The central group is comprised of those about which the Bible speaks definitively. Example: the world was created in six 24-hour days, Adam and Eve were real historical people, there was a world-wide flood which only eight people survived, the stated authors wrote the canonical books, the Red Sea parted, Jesus was born of a virgin, He was crucified, died, was buried, rose on the third day, ascended into heaven, whence He will return. A second group is made up of those subjects upon which the Bible speaks but less than definitively. Eschatology is a prime example. The third group of subjects covers those about which the Bible has nothing to say. On these latter some general biblical principles may obtain having to do with being good stewards of God’s creation or other broad areas, but the Scripture does not contain any specific treatment.

– Re the first category of topics, conservatives maintain that man has no discretion, no permissible judgment. God has spoken clearly. Man has but two choices: (1) believe and (if apropos) obey or (2) disbelieve and be in rebellion against God's Word.

– Re the second group, man has the prerogative of judgment, sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on the degree of specificity with which the Bible covers each subject.

– Re the third set, man has essentially free reign for his judgment, bounded only by the general scriptural guidelines already referenced.

Conservatives view the moderate position as placing virtually all subjects in the third category, or at best the second, with possibly only one (Jesus saves) in the first.           [True liberals go even further and adopt a universalist stance. (I have representative quotes if you wish them.)] And conservatives do not believe doctrinal minimalism is a virtue but a vice, an eternally deadly vice. I refer you to Al Mohler's "A Response" in Beyond the Impasse?, Broadman Press, Nashville, 1992. I suggest you read the entire "Response," but for present purposes let me quote from just page 253:

"...At a bare minimum, the denomination should now recognize the impossibility to forge consensus by the course of confessional minimalism.

"That is why I must take issue with [Robison B.] 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 l 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 anybody serious about the tasks of missions, evangelism, and theological education."

I will repeat the portion of your penultimate paragraph where you write, "Moderates are willing to respect and cooperate with other Baptists who hold different theological views. We believe this should be done in the ‘spirit of Jesus.' Moderates believe the responsibility to work together (cooperate with brothers and sisters in Christ) takes precedence over doctrinal uniformity.” (My emphasis.) I have three comments on this passage:

1. "Doctrinal uniformity" is a pejorative phrase which inflames the gorge rather than contributing to reasoned discussion. However, disregarding that and substituting "doctrinal agreement on fundamentals," your statement turns Christianity on its head. You reverse all orthodoxy of at least the last two millennia. Since when does our responsibility to other humans precede our loyalty to Jesus' commandments?

2. Where does the dilution of "doctrinal uniformity" (or preferably, doctrinal agreement on fundamentals) cease? Why not amalgamate with Methodists? Presbyterians? Adventists? Catholics? Mormons? Moonies? Hindus? And please do not reject this question as extreme. This is exactly the direction the doctrinal minimalism you espouse in the quoted sentences has led some Southern Baptists. (Again, I have a quote or two if you really need to document my point.)

3. Working together must be based upon something. In your judgment, what is that basis of cooperation? Judging from your letter you would say the "spirit of Jesus." But the only place we can learn about the "spirit of Jesus" is in Scripture. It is impossible to minimize the one without minimizing the other. It appears to me that your statement "responsibility to work together (cooperate with brothers and sisters in Christ) takes precedence over doctrinal uniformity" distills down to the functional success of an organization, that the inherent imperative of such an approach is the progressive stripping away of each doctrinal standard until one is left with a husk, the mere fond memory of shared liturgy and phrases (the god-words I addressed earlier) now bereft of all content. Then in one more generation the warm fuzzy memory fades and all pretense of Christianity disappears. (Let me refer you to Francis A. Schaeffer's works, particularly in Volume 2 of his Complete Works, "A Christian View of the Bible as Truth." For your convenience I have enclosed a passage from this book as attachment #2 to this letter.)

In the garden the serpent asked, "Yea, hath God said ...?” Satan always attacks God's Word. The only answer to those who parrot the serpent's line is, "Yes, God said it! That settles it!" I pray that you will come to see the overwhelming importance of this fact. If you do, be assured of a warm welcome among conservatives. We desire no cliques. We open our arms and hearts to all who sincerely believe in the perfection, the full authority, the inerrancy of God's Word. We realize that not everyone concludes this spiritual journey at the same time (and unfortunately some never do). And we do not claim that we are infallible, only the Bible.