Honeycutt's holy war

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[David Flick]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Sandy perhaps you need to check your stats according Brian Koonce staff member of The Pathway, reporting from Baltimore in June the SBC now has fewer the 50,000 churches you claim, His figure is 45,000 he further points out the total Messenger registration at 5,294 which was up from the 5,103 at Huston in 2013. Maryland alone was up from 66 to 449 When the SBC last met in Baltimore the in 1940, 74 years prior, attendance was 3,776.

The unofficial state-by-state messenger registration numbers are as follows: Alabama, 248; Alaska, 15; Arizona, 20; Arkansas, 172; California, 98; Colorado, 28; Connecticut, 8; Delaware, 23; Florida, 288; Georgia, 379; Guam, 1; Hawaii, 10; Idaho, 4; Illinois, 92; Indiana, 74; Iowa, 4; Kansas, 27; Kentucky, 251; Louisiana, 170; Maine, 1; Maryland, 429; Massachusetts, 10; Michigan, 29; Minnesota, 3; Mississippi, 198; Missouri, 143; Montana, 5; Nebraska, 2; Nevada, 26; New Hampshire, 5; New Jersey, 39; New Mexico, 31; New York, 67; North Carolina, 427; Ohio, 89; Oklahoma, 128; Oregon, 2; Pennsylvania, 106; Puerto Rico 4; South Carolina, 243; South Dakota, 4; Tennessee, 423; Texas, 320; Utah, 8; Vermont, 6; Virginia, 497; Washington, 5; Washington, D.C., 20; West Virginia, 40; Wisconsin, 6; Wyoming, 6. There were 256 messengers that were approved through the credentials process but were unaffiliated with a state convention.

I wish he had provided figures for the two competing conventions in each Texas and Virginia. When you consider that many large churches send more than one messenger you can be sure the percentage of churches sending messengers is less than 10 %.

[Dave Roberts]

When I think of the number of SBC churches who have never sent messengers to the SBC, I realize just how weak the rates of participation really are. For many congregations in today's world, the SBC is an unaffordable luxury. They will probably send someone to the local association, they might send a messenger or two to the state body (if it meets in their part of the state, but the SBC is seldom their concern. These are small to medium size congregations in many varied locations from the inner city to the most rural of areas. Their WMU is the only real link they have to the convention as they promote mission offerings. Missions is what has kept these churches involved, but they are seldom well-informed or deeply concerned about denominational issues. Their only way to be represented at the SBC is to decrease their missions giving.

[Sandy]

You know, I look back at this discussion, since it has been more than 30 years since the beginning of the conservative resurgence, the SBC has moved on, but it seems that the entities connected to CBF can't seem to get past the past. During the ten years I was involved in a core CBF supporting church, I saw this inability to get over the past as a huge hindrance to moving forward. The compulsion to continuously eulogize is a symptom of having been part of a system and organization that became more important, along with individual position within its inner circle of leadership, than its mission and purpose. The vision of the pre-1979 leadership of the SBC was jockeying for positions of prestige and prominence, and they got separated from the people because of it.

The conservative resurgence would have happened eventually, regardless of who led it. Nobody "took" anything away from anyone, all of those who were elected to leadership or appointed to boards were equally eligible as a result of their cooperation in the denomination, and the way that cooperation was defined. There was nothing preventing the moderates from organizing and getting their messengers to convention meetings, except that their sense of entitlement and privilege only succeeded in putting off potential supporters that they could have mobilized at key points in the controversy. The SBC was more conservative than its leadership, and when it reached critical points, there was a correction of direction.

So here we are today. The SBC didn't split over the controversy, all in all, if it lost 200 churches, that would be a high estimate. The evidence that the core of the convention's constituency was conservative lies in the fact that none of the moderate organizations that formed as a result have ever gained much traction. CBF peaked at about 1,800 churches, and has spent the past decade downsizing its staff, cutting expenses and watching its budget contributions from churches drop by half from its peak. The Alliance of Baptists never amounted to anything except a salary channel for a few displaced SBC'ers, and that's essentially what CBF is now. Conservative splits of state conventions in Texas and Virginia have soared in membership and participation, and continue to do so, while moderate attempts at keeping control or forming new groups haven't met with much success. It is what it is, and its not going back. It's long past time to move on.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Jon Estes]

There is a comment which Honeycutt makes and I have read and heard before but never stopped to see what is truly being stated. Maybe those here can help me understand the reason for a certain word being inserted.

In the SBC conflict (call it what you want, that is not the reason for this question) I have always heard the conservative side speak out against liberalism.

During the discussion, the non-conservative side adds a new word (not a part of the worded argument being made by cons). That word is classical.

Please help me understand the difference between liberalism (the cons word) and classical liberalism) a term used by some of those n-cons in the debate). It seems like a deflection.

If liberalism and classical liberalism have two different meanings, why is the side being accused adding the word classical?

If they have different meanings, would those who support the term classical be willing to say that the seminaries were leaning and heading in a liberal direction?

If they mean the same thing, why add the term?

[Dave Roberts]

Jon, I don't know if my conservative friends would agree, but classical liberalism was what existed primarily in the 19th century. It's chief spokesman was Friedrick Schleiermacher along with a number of other theologians, primarily in Europe. World War I brought it to an end. It's primary tenets were the goodness of humanity that was being perfected all the time and the imminent improvement of humanity as the Kingdom of God came on earth. It's positive slant was doomed by World War I's inhumanity and disaster in Europe. The enlightened Christian nations were the ones who perpetrated the worst atrocities. Theologically, it was shattered by the critiques of Neo-orthodoxy and by Karl Barth's commentary on Romans (Romerbrief). The so called liberalism of the SBC fight had little in common with the classical liberalism that questioned the resurrection, the virgin birth, and the authority of scripture.

[Sandy]

[Jon Estes]

[Tim Bonney]

[David Flick]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Dave Roberts]

Actually, though Sandy won't agree, the theological revisionists were the CR/Takeover crowd in the SBC. Inerrancy, as defined by the Chicago Statement which the Patterson-Pressler Coalition waved as the classic statement of theology, was the newcomer on the block. Indeed, Benjamin Warfield's tract didn't show up until the classical continental liberalism emerged. Baptists were best described as "simple biblicists" who were not nearly as concerned with the theories behind scripture as the clear message of scripture. While Baptists certainly had educated and scholarly pastors, an educated ministry was not considered a priority by many Baptists well into the 20th century. II Timothy 3:16-17 would have been often used without a defense of what its words meant.

[David Flick]

[Sandy]

You can spout your revisionist blah blah about the SBC controversy all you want. Fact is, it's been over 30 years, the SBC is clearly solidly behind its current leadership with relatively no dissention since the small group of politically active moderates decided to back away, few churches severed ties with the SBC, and the few, small moderate entities that still exist are reduced, as in this case, to eulogizing the dead. How appropriate.

[Dave Roberts]

[David Flick]

[Tim Bonney]

[Jon Estes]

[William Thornton]

...to some of the things mentioned above:

SBC cons couldn't get a sniff from Baptist Press before or during the CR and all of the state papers (save for one, I think) were mod/lib establishment mouthpieces that would regularly spin or withhold news negative to the est. or favorable to cons. Prior to the internet this was tantamount to a news vise grip. Cons networked...a genuine grass roots effort.

No one identified with the con movement has a snowball's chance of any significant denominational job.

I have always wondered about how things would be different if just a few more had voted against Vines in 1988 and mods won that one election.

If not for the intemperate and counterproductive behavior of the Shermans, Chafin, Dilday and Dunn some of the close elections might have been lost. It's ironic but owe them a lot.

[Sandy]

Percentages don't really measure the impact or effect of the direction of the conservative resurgence. That only depends on the number of messengers who actually cast a ballot during that particular election. The statistics reflect a pattern. With the exception of 1988 (and I think that was because Vines wasn't particularly exciting, or well liked by conservatives) the margins all increased. In the larger convention meetings, the conservatives won by several thousand votes. They had widespread support, and were able to sustain, and increase it across time. The moderates could not continue to gather enough messengers from within the small group of churches from which SBC leadership was drawn.

But I think the bottom line is not in some convoluted, complicated theological statement about inerrancy, but over the very simple question, "Does the Bible have errors in it?" A simple declaration, "We do not believe the Bible has errors in it, and we will not teach that in our seminaries," would have resolved much of the problem. We now know, from what moderates have written since the controversy, why they could not say that, and that alone is evidence that they were not in step with the majority of Southern Baptists in the pew. When the criticism of Adrian Rogers "pickles have souls" statement came out, and his critics completely missed the point, I think that characterizes the whole ham fisted efforts of moderate Baptists in the SBC to hang on to their privilege and prestige. That's why few people or churches followed their leaders out the door.

It's been thirty years. The SBC is clearly a conservative (and clearly NOT a fundamentalist) denomination. It didn't split, as predicted, "down the middle," in fact, it really didn't split at all. The splinter groups spend an inordinate amount of time eulogizing their old warriors, and an inordinate amount of money providing perks, like airline commutes and a second home, for the few of their leaders that they can afford. I don't think that's going to attract many followers.[code][/code]

[Tim Bonney]

I have Sunday School in a few minutes so I'll be brief.

Jon, it appears to me that the criteria for what is liberal or conservative is if you believe in the inerrancy of scripture. The huge flaw in that idea is that the theory of inerrancy is the newest theory of inspiration out of the 19th century. None of the founders of any of our denominations would have ever heard of it. Conservative means to conserve the faith. How can a newbie theory be "conservative?"

Sandy, you do a good job of manipulating stats Sandy. When a percentage is close you try to switch to a discussion of raw numbers every time using the size of the convention as a cover for the close vote. This falls into the category of "lies, d*mn lies, and statistics."

William, in your gratitude for the takeover can you tell me what, if anything, is better in the SBC than it was before the takeover? All I see is declining CP, declining baptisms, declining evangelism, declining church attendance, etc. Welcome to the problems of the mainline. But I've yet to see anything about the new SBC that is better for the average SBCer than the old SBC.

[Jon Estes]

Timothy,

What I hoped to convey is that the people in the pew chose to define conservative vs liberal by the belief that is bible is without error vs. with error? They chose without error.

Trying to get the people in the pew to consider something opposite of inerrant other than errant was not going to happen. Anyone who wanted to say there were errors but you can still trust it was not going to win the pew vote.

Those dear saints in the pew who attended the meetings, were bused in, showed up to cast their vote then leave did so for one reason. To say to the world and the SBC liberals, don't mess with my bible.

Let the liberals believe the myth of Genesis 1-11 but do it in another convention, not in our convention, seminaries, SS literature...

Honeycutt was late with his sermon but he was also speaking a language those who sat in the pews wold not accept.

I am of the opinion that if the liberals had one one presidency during the battle, it would have been the last time one would even come close any any future votes. Dallas would not have been the most attended meeting. It could have been fun to watch.