Cecil Sherman Talks about the Bible and Liberalism (in 1983)

                                                                                                                                                                Vol. VII, No. 7, September 1994

[This interview is reprinted from The Indiana Baptist of 7 June 1994 and was written by James C. Hefley who conducted the original interview.]

I've always liked Cecil Sherman, Coordinator of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. Not that I agree with all of his theology and church politics. I've liked him for his candor in interviews and dogged commitment to his convictions.

He's been in the news lately for an answer to a question I asked him 11 years ago: should a teacher in a Baptist institution be fired if he doesn't believe in the virgin birth?

Before the 1983 Pittsburgh convention, Sherman sent a sad letter to agency heads and denominational editors, stating, "...A denomination that has no place for us is emerging." The morning after Jimmy Draper's election as SBC president, I had a breakfast interview with Sherman. He was plainly discouraged and upset with denominational executives and editors who, in his view, had kowtowed to the conservative movement.

To better understand Sherman on this and other matters, I'm printing the entire interview here, except for obvious repetitiveness. Because the interview was 11 years ago, I have faxed Sherman a copy. His response, update and clarification (if any) of his 1983 opinions will be printed in the Indiana Baptist. [Editorial note: I called Jim Hefley on this, and he told me Sherman replied with a nice letter including the statement, "Essentially my views are unchanged." He suggested no changes. TCP]

The occasional brackets in the interview text are [Hefley's] inserts to clarify the subject on which Sherman is speaking.

Q. What do you see as the principal problem in the SBC at this time. Is it politics?

A. We've always been political and party-oriented. But it's always [been until recently] a good ole boy politics.

There have been right and left parties, more or less. Many of those [taking] part don't have a clear definition of right and left in religious terms. We are not a theologically informed people. Southern Baptists seem to have as their highest good quantifying..."How many people did you gather into your church [and] baptize; how many dollars to the Cooperative Program; how big is your building?" That's very easy to quantify.

More difficult to quantify is: "Are you more sensitive to the needs of your brother? Were you acting under the guidance of the Spirit of the Living God?"

We have decided that the people who can quantify are successful, and they are exalted among us .... The right wing of our convention is into quantifying .... I think their goals and methods are less than Biblical, and are suspect. Since this [quantifying] is so much apart of everything we [do], and since the thing we fear most is not quantifying, so Methodists and Presbyterians are held up as bad guys; they're not growing, [so] "Lord, we don't want to be like them."

Liberalism is defined in creedal words "they're not strong on the virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, second coming, blah, blah, blah."

There's some truth in the charge [of] weakness in those mainline denominations, [but] that doesn't deal with growth. Mormons are growing. Moonies are growing. Muslims are growing. Correctness of doctrine and growth are not related .... There are men [in the SBC] who have correct doctrine who are not in growing churches.... This convention will do anything to grow.

How has Judge Pressler succeeded? He has tagged into... our greatest fears. He has found some men whom I presume honestly believe the little formula that quantifying is good and liberalism works against quantifying, and so our greatest fears and dreams are packaged up [to win SBC elections].

Q. How do you define a liberal?

A.   In the main a liberal is not very much tied to tradition or old ways, and he is much more prone to wander from that which was given him in the beginning.

In theology, we normally rattle off some doctrines; a liberal is probably more interested in ethics than evangelism, more interested in inward commitments than outward expression.

Sometimes I'm a liberal and sometimes not ... Nobody will use the word [liberal], but the word is sometimes a godly, good word; liberalism means when you are willing to depart from [the] old and bad, it becomes good; when it is to depart from the old and good, it's bad.

Q. How do you determine what is old and good?

A. I'm a Biblicist, but I'm a Biblicist in my own mix. I think the New Testament sits in judgment on the Old Testament so when somebody says all the Bible is of equal worth and inspiration, I don't buy that. Jesus threw out whole sections of the Old Testament .... In that time that was a very liberal thing to do and got him in an enormous amount of trouble. Paul threw away lots of things that were important to Old Testament people, rules, regulations, genealogies.

[As I] understand the Bible, I count myself a Biblicist. [But] I' m not nearly as chained to what is orthodox as some in our denomination are. I guess that would make me a liberal. Sometimes the Bible and where we have decided the Bible is going don't seem to me to be at the same place. For example, Dale Moody is out [at Southern Seminary] because he refused to back down on biblical grounds on something he thought the Bible taught. I do disagree with him [on eternal security], but I would not debate him because he's smarter than I am. He's a lot smarter than I am.

I see in the Scripture that there is a case for his side [that a believer can lose his salvation]; therefore I would never fire a Dale Moody because he followed the Scripture where he thought it went. [Moody's] view happened to vary with where our tradition says a teacher for us must go.

The test for a Baptist is [this]: is the Scripture the highest source of authority? Not do you believe in [eternal] security or apostasy; there's a great deal of Scripture on both sides. Dale Moody is functioning as a Baptist. We fired him for not coming out with what John Broadus did in 1859. Who's John Broadus? He's just a guy, a good guy, a very fine man. So why are you liberal if you follow the Scripture and use it as your highest objective source?

Q. Would it be appropriate for one to teach [in a denominational school] and question the virgin birth?

A. It's in two Gospels, but not in two others. I believe in the virgin birth, but why did Mark and John forget to list it? Did they make a mistake? If the virgin birth is desperately important, [these] Gospel writers must have erred.

Q. If a [teacher] suddenly announced that he did not believe in the virgin birth, should he be fired?

A. There's only one doctrine ... that is candidly singled out and used as a we're-gonna put-you-out doctrine. John wrote, "If you don't believe Jesus is the Christ, you should be put out." That's the only time I know in the New Testament [that] they were trying to separate who should [be put] out ... There are some other teachings in the New Testament that say don't follow certain teachers....

Q. Paige [Patterson] would say different standards should apply for someone teaching [in a denominational school].

A. Yes, I know he says that. Theology is not that; there are other times when the New Testament seems to give varying signals, [so] why should we be dogmatic. The New Testament is written to inform [us] that Christ came to save sinners. Christ is God's latest, best revelation about how to know Him. It's very clear that His dying and His resurrection are the pivotal acts in our salvation. There's a whole lot of other stuff that the New Testament seems to give mixed signals on.

I could not support a Falwell type seminary. I don't know if my church [First Baptist in Asheville, NC] would support me, but I would tell them that.

Q. Adrian [Rogers] would say, "I could not support a Cecil Sherman seminary, [if] in the Cooperative Program, we're saying, `everybody support this."'... Can a seminary survive [with a mix of fundamental and non-fundamental trustees]?

A. Somebody asked me about parity. I said, "I think it would be destructive of the collegiality that is necessary to make a teaching institution a reasonable place," and, then I said, "it would be war."

If you believe as I understand Mr. Rogers to believe and if I believe as I believe, and we're the only two people in the theology department, the students [would] inevitably be confused.

Q. Are we moving to the point where [we'll have] a seminary for one view and another seminary where people are comfortable with another view?

A. I don't know.

Q. You're talking about things that could lead to a ... shaking of the whole structure... in allowing [complete] soul freedom [for denominational teachers]. Would it be a violation of your soul freedom to support a Falwell-type seminary?

No answer.

Q. If you couldn't support that kind of seminary through the Cooperative Program, then you'd be a disloyal Southern Baptist.

A. I assume that's correct. What we're doing is we're taking schools that are functioning very closely to the way I think they ought to act and we're turning them and intimidating them to [take] the point of view of the right wing.

Q. [So] in the past have teaching agencies not followed the point of view of the right wing [of the SBC]? Does [the right wing] then have a legitimate complaint?

A. If [by that you mean] to create a litmus test – are you teaching submission for women, inerrancy for inspiration, creationism as a correct interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis? – I'm setting up the things they talk about; in general that has not been taught in our seminaries. Creationism [for example], has not been offered as an option.

Q. Creationism and inerrancy have not been taught in our seminaries?

A. That is generally true.

Q. When these fellows say that [these things have not been taught], then they're correct?

A. Uh, huh. Generally speaking, the agencies have thought what I perceive. But the reason I perceive this way is that I was taught this way in Southwestern Seminary when nobody was calling Southwestern liberal.

Q. Are you going to go down fighting?

A. The Convention has always been important to me. I'm a child of the Convention. I grew up [in it].

The interview' ended at this point.

At Pittsburgh an evening fellowship was attended by about 900 moderates. Organizers said they would probably have a program in 1984 at Kansas City, a prediction which turned out to be true. From having their own '`program" at the annual convention, the moderate movement evolved into the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship with Cecil Sherman as coordinator of a full range of denominational services. The CBF now holds its annual meetings in another city, away from the SBC.

[Editorial comment: This is an extremely significant interview, worthy of a close second reading. In Dr. Sherman's answer to Hefley's very first question, note that Sherman forthrightly acknowledges that SBC events have always been political. He also makes an excellent point. "We are not a theologically informed people." Hosea 4:6 says, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." And so it often is.

There is also some truth in Sherman’s criticism that Southern Baptists frequently focus only on “quantifying”. Liberals use this kernel of truth to justify disinterest in soul-winning, while conservatives use it to rationalize weakness in discipleship and disregard to our brothers’ needs. Sherman says, “a liberal is probably more interested in ethics than evangelism...” implying that conservatives are more interested in evangelism than ethics. Of course we should be interested in all three: evangelism, discipleship, and ethics.

Sherman is drastically. wrong in stating, "Correctness of doctrine and growth are not related." An accurate statement would acknowledge that there are many factors which impact growth, but the decline of once great denominations clearly demonstrates the influence of doctrine. Non-Christian or sub-Christian sects can grow through the determined use of human means, but the Holy Spirit will not empower a church or denomination which moves too far from biblical truth.

Discussing Dale Moody, who believed one can lose his salvation, Sherman confused the role of an individual believer who has the unquestioned right to interpret Scripture as he feels led, and the responsibility of a denominational employee to act (in the case of a seminary professor to teach) in accordance with the doctrine of the denomination which has employed him. Both are matters of integrity. If a man cannot be loyal to his employer, he must either find other work or live a hypocrite, that is, a liar. This is true in secular life, how much more in denominational life.

Note that Sherman lists a number of things "that in general [have] not been taught in our seminaries": including inerrancy of inspiration, creationism. Then he goes on to state that he was taught that way at Southwestern Seminary. I do not know when he was at Southwestern, but he is now approximately 63, so one would estimate he was there in the 1950s. Thus according to Sherman, Southwestern has not been teaching inerrancy or creationism for at least the last 35 or 40 years. (There is a difference between not teaching something [just omitting, reference to it) and teaching against it.) And Southwestern has certainly not been among the most liberal of our seminaries.]