Were The Moderates Partly Right?

Now there's a question to ponder.

Wait. Don't throw that tomato.

I am a committed inerrantist. The conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention has had my full support.

At the same time I have many, many wonderful moderate friends. I love them deeply and dearly as brothers and sisters in Christ and enjoy great fellowship with them. At age 55, no one is going to tell me who I can associate with along life's journey. Many of these "moderates" are really as conservative theologically as I am, but just may not use the same words. Lots of them probably have even more passion about sharing Christ than I possess.

The 1980's and 90's were years of tremendous upheaval in our convention. Clearly, changes had to be made to get us back to a more Biblically-grounded, evangelistic-hearted, mission-focused stance. Yet many good and decent people were hurt.

Lots of moderates were labeled and libeled and had their reputations besmirched and saw their careers damaged. Of course it cuts both ways. Conservatives were ridiculed and maligned, too. A deep divide resulted. I've been convinced for some time that a mighty move of God and an awesome revival could sweep this nation if these 2 sides would come together, even now,in a posture of humble contrition. Maybe there would never again be much affiliation organizationally but there could be apology and confession and repentance and reconciliation relationally. What a message that would send to a watching world. What a demonstration of the spirit of Christ. Seems like John 13:35 touches on this.

When all the denominational conflict broke out almost 30 years ago, and it soon became evident that the conservative viewpoint would prevail, the moderates made some predictions.

I don't know if these days they are sitting back saying "we told you so" or not. And it's certainly by no means confirmed that their warning prophecies have come true. I hope that they will not.

There is a feeling in the air, though, however vague, that something's just not quite as it should be. Were the moderates good prognosticators those many years ago? Is it wrong to even ask that question? We better ask it.

Were they partly right about the long-term future of our convention? And is there time to forestall their gloomy assessment from way back then? It may be that we'll unwittingly lend unnecessary credibility to their dire forecasts unless some course corrections are made.

They said, for example, that the controversy that erupted in 1979 was not really about scripture and inerrancy but about politics and control. The suggestion was that all the flap over the terms inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy was simply a smokescreen for those seeking to wrest dominance in the denominational power structure.

I didn't believe that then, and I don't believe it now. We had to take a strong, definitive stand on the authority of God's Word. The teaching in our schools, which would affect the future crops of preachers in our pulpits, was leaning too far toward the liberal and would eventually, if left unchecked, render our churches lifeless. Something had to be done to change our institutions. Church historians will probably debate for decades on whether what was done and how it was accomplished was the best approach, but nevertheless sincere men acted to rescue a denomination from slowly sinking into the abyss of theological mediocrity and cold, powerless congregations.

But 30 years later, look around. The battle over the Bible was won. Our seminaries are in terrific shape. But we've got to honestly face something. There has been, for some time, the perception out there that a small group has been making most of the decisions. That power is concentrated in the hands of a few who expect to be just blindly trusted to know and do what's best. That everything is cut and dried. That criticisms or complaints are not welcome. Hence, for instance, that discussion time on the convention floor should be kept to the barest minimum. Trustee appointments must go only to those who toe the most rigid of lines. You gotta ask--in a house now full of conservatives, what are we so afraid of? The tapping of Frank Page for the presidency in 2006 and his reelection this year do offer encouragement that perhaps there's going to be an opening up of the process. The vote on the BFM motion gives hope, too.

They said back then that this whole conflict was just a preachers' fight. They insisted that laypeople were not interested in all this fussin' and feudin' over doctrine but wanted to get on with kingdom business and missions, and we pastors were holding things up. We were wasting valuable time, it was thought. We were told that folks in the pews couldn't care less about all the bickering but just wanted peace and harmony and, especially, results in world outreach.

Guess what? Turns out, 30 years later, that the ones tending to dominate in convention leadership are preachers. Usually of the megachurch variety. More often than not, it's preachers standing at the floor microphones at the annual session. Each June, pastors still preach and holler and shout, somehow fearful that liberalism is "comin' back", and preachers debate each other on the finer points of theological discourse while laypeople sit out there wondering why, with all this heat and bluster, we're baptizing less people and not sending out enough missionaries. Average folks in the pews must wonder what all the fuss is about and why we can't seem to get on with the mission.

Can anyone remember the last time a layperson was president of the SBC? It just might be refreshing and transformative if we elected some strong, wise, godly laypeople to our highest offices for a few cycles. Persons with fresh, creative, out-of-the-box, marketplace, non-ministerial thinking. Back home, in our pulpits, we preach that all in the body are equal and of great value(1 Corinthians 12) and have gifts to celebrate and share, not just the pastors. We could act like we really believe that by giving more of our layfolks major leadership posts. We preachers could learn some things from them if we'd release our grip on the top slots.

They said that we would ultimately turn inward and end up fighting each other. Ouch.

Okay. Maybe there is a sociological principle at work here. Group dynamics studies tell us that when an organization feels like it has won over its major threats, it tends to take it easy and starts looking at inside stuff and ends up getting picky and irritable. Bubbles of conflict develop. With no external "enemies" to deal with, energy starts getting used up in internal squabbles. Anyone else noticed what's been happening in the SBC the last few years?

At first it was the liberals. Sure, something had to be done there. But then it was the moderates. Next it was the Calvinists. Now it's the Charismatics. Who are we going to slug it out with next? What group among us will next be made to feel that it is no longer needed or wanted? Who will be left after awhile? Probably just someone to turn off the lights.

This protracted navel-gazing and infighting is going to distract us and divert our momentum, and just might do us in as a cooperating body. All the suspicion and the "with us or with them" mentality, that we deplore so much in our individual congregations, could cripple us. Our internal struggles could so weaken us that we lose our stature and significance on the stage of Kingdom advance and world evangelization. You know it's true--a church can experience one split and survive, but when it keeps going through ruptures and fractures, it's in real jeopardy. Could that happen as well in our larger body? You bet. God doesn't absolutely have to have the Southern Baptist Convention, you realize.

They also said that we would probably become more and more narrow. Hmm.

The vibes I sense nowadays lead me to think that we are devolving from a bold, positive, conservative, evangelical, cooperative position to a kind of rigidity, almost an exclusive, narrow fundamentalism. Regrettably, we're often known more for what we are against than what we are for in this world.

Seems like it's not enough anymore to believe in Biblical inerrancy and the virgin birth and the deity of Christ and substitutionary atonement and the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the second coming of our Lord. Now everybody also has to think just alike on secondary and tertiary doctrines. Same view on the Millenium. Same perspective on spiritual gifts. There's no room for compromise or warm, collegial dialogue or agreeing to work together as loving partners on the main thing despite minor differences in theology or methodology. The impression is given that we all must walk in lock step, even though a lot of kneecaps and ankles and heels are sore and aching. Ties and connections with like-minded evangelical groups, zealous about reaching the nations for Jesus in these last days, are minimized or even severed just at the very time when we most need to be linked in high energy, frontline ministry to impact the world.

Indulge me. Honest questions: why do we all have to think alike on every single thing in order to cooperate together in God's work? And why are we bashing some people in our midst, denigrating them as rebels and whiners, who dare to speak up when they see something amiss and see us heading too far in a rightward drift when we well remember what it was like to be so labeled and misunderstood a few decades ago when we spoke up and warned of a leftward drift?

Finally, they said that sooner or later a lot of young people would leave. The prediction was that the rigidity would force many of the brightest and best in the next generation to depart. I don't know about you, but I sometimes hear the doors slamming shut and sometimes just quietly closing. A lot of sincere, dedicated younger pastors are tired of not having much of a voice. Some are fed up with a snail's pace bureaucracy. Many of those guys who are theologically sound and intellectually robust are weary(just when we need their passion and zest) from internecine battles over minor doctrinal points. There are younger men and women on fire with eagerness to try bold, new, innovative missiological strategies to reach a rapidly changing culture that's passing us by but they feel rejected when they speak up. It looks like an awful lot of these younger persons that we reared in our SBC churches and nurtured and helped to hear God's call are now moving on to other venues.

I praise the Lord for the concern and vision of Drs. Jimmy Draper and Morris Chapman a few years ago as they saw the rushing freight train-like challenge of this possible impending draining of a vast reservior of potential. More needs to be done to stem the tide of a large exit of younger disciples who are looking for more effective ways to do ministry in these climactic times than are currently offered in our present denominational structure. Many of these young people are far more willing to sacrifice than we ever were. They just want to do it in cutting edge ways that will impact the culture they know all too well.

So...were the moderates partly right? With hindsight, was their insight a bit of foresight?

You decide.

I love our great old convention so very much. Always have. I want to see us not just survive, but thrive.

Put down that tomato. Let's think and pray. With some adjustments, our best days as Baptists could be just ahead.