Moderate Defines Moderates                                                                                

                                                                                                                               Vol. IX, No. 5, May 1996

     In 1993 Mercer University Press, well known for producing books by Southern Baptist liberals, published The Struggle for the Soul of the SBC, Moderate Responses to the Fundamentalist Movement, edited by Walter B. Shurden. Each chapter is written by a different "moderate" leader. This "Antiheritage" addresses a selection from the second chapter, "Moderate Responses to the Fundamentalist Movement," by Dr. Cecil Sherman, national executive director of the "Cooperative Baptist Fellowship." Italics appear in the original. Bold print has been added for emphasis. The passage appears on pages 29-30.

     "3. Issues That Defined Moderates: Again and again it was said, 'This is just a political spat between two contending groups.' Nothing could be further from the truth. Two groups did politic because they disagreed on basic theology and polity. Where the Fundamentalists are going to take the Southern Baptist Convention is to their theology. Where the Moderates would have taken the Southern Baptist Convention is to their theology. And the theology of the two groups was, is, and will be quite different. Let me list some of the defining points of theology of the Moderates.

   1. The Bible. I do not know an irreverent Moderate. A part of their reverence is in the Moderate attitude toward the Bible. The Bible is a witness to Jesus Christ. The Bible is not all of revelation; actually the Bible is a "true sample' of God's ongoing revelation. All of the Bible is culturally conditioned. Parts of the Bible are so trapped in time and culture that they have been bypassed in God's continuing stream of self-revelation. So slavery allowed in the Bible is no longer consistent with our understanding of the character of God. Jesus laid aside whole sections of the Old Testament. Those parts of the Bible no longer inform our Christian walk. But always we Moderates are in touch with and are serious students of the Bible.

     "But such a statement about the Bible was not good enough. Moderates were said to ‘not believe the Bible’ because we would not say we were biblical inerrantists. Early on in the political contest Moderates debated whether or not we should take up the subject of inerrancy, criticize it, and make our case before Southern Baptists. The people best qualified to make the case were teachers. If they made our case against inerrancy, they could lose their jobs. Most pastors were afraid to touch the subject. Their laity might think they did not "believe the Bible." The Bible issue was a "gotcha." If we were silent, we were soft on the Bible. If we spoke or wrote our case, to the half-learned we proved we did not believe the Bible.

     "How the Bible is handled and interpreted remains a major point of difference between Moderates and Fundamentalists. Modem scholarship cannot be ignored. We cannot read the Bible as if the date were 1650. Too much has happened in Bible studies. We are post-

Enlightenment people whether we want to be or not. New science and new history instruct the way we read our Bibles. Newfound manuscripts cannot he ignored. None of this new data steals power from the Bible. But accommodations do have to be made. God's moving revelation has to be factored into the equation. A position on the Bible that is different from the glib 'biblical-inerrancy' stuff of Fundamentalism defines us.

     “... I don't believe in biblical inerrancy because the biblical text will not support the assertion. Inerrancy is not the truth.

     "That's the Moderate position. We ought to tell the truth about the Bible. Our religion does not have to be propped up to survive. The Bible is not the centerpiece anyway. The Bible is a witness to Jesus. Not only is Fundamentalism wrong about what the Bible is, Fundamentalism in a rush to defend the Bible has shifted the focus from Jesus to the Bible. This shift is not good."

     [Editorial Comment. My, my. It is hard to know where to begin. Space does not allow a thorough critique of every revelation implicit in Sherman's passage, but let's look at just a few.

     Note how the good doctor characterizes the Bible. It is a witness to Christ. It is only a "'true sample' of God's ongoing revelation. Parts of the Bible are so trapped in time and culture that they have been bypassed in God's continuing stream of self-revelation." But Jesus said, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18. And, "And if any man shall take away from the

words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city ...” Revelation 22:19.

     Now notice the reasons Sherman gives in his third paragraph quoted above as to why the "moderates" were not willing to address the theological issue: (1) self-interest; they were unwilling to risk position in order to stand up for what they thought was right. Now certainly many theological conservatives have had the same compunctions about standing openly and steadfastly for the truth, but we have never lacked for leaders willing to risk all for the cause of God's word. And (2) they were unwilling to try to present their case to the "half-learned."

     Moderates volubly and ritually assert their adherence to the priesthood of all believers, but here we have a clear instance of their real attitude. You and I are but "half-learned," not able to receive and understand the argumentation about biblical truth. As one reads more widely among liberal works, he is impressed with the elitism repeatedly reflected in their writings. The presumption that advanced degrees and status convey special insight and that those without academic credentials are incapable of comprehension is profoundly antibaptistic. TCP]