BaptistLife.Com Forums.

http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2012/08/ ... ns-in.html

Just read a few paragraphs down to you get Otten in the conversation and how this "shadowy" figure Introduced techniques of McCarthyism and the Birchers into the Mo Synod takeover.

It has been my longstanding assertion now ratified by Thomas Powers in www.nybooks.com Pressler was the SBC's Otten.

Hope to to talk to some of his staff. Already made the scene but had to come back and sign out of my computer time at the Library.

It's been my understanding, and from study, that taking the Bible "literally" includes interpreting the writers' use of literary devices. Things like hyperbole, allegory, and some that were specific to the period of time in which the Bible was written, such as the apocalyptic style of Revelation, are part of what is considered a "literal" interpretation. That may be an additional difference between conservatives and "fundamentalists".

Truth, of which God is the source, is consistent and absolute, no matter the form of revelation. If the Holy Spirit inspired the scripture's writers to reveal truth, and the early church was inspired by the same Holy Spirit in the process of accepting authentic writings of the apostles and early church leaders as a "measuring rod" of truth, then that measuring rod is certainly going to be an accurate, and authentic measure of anything that purports to be truth, either literally, or by precept.

The Chicago Statement is the straw man moderates use to argue their point and perspective. But the Southern Baptist view of the issue was best expressed by Jimmy Draper in his book Biblical Authority: The Critical Issue for Southern Baptists. That came out around 1978 or 79, though I didn't actually read it until later. But Draper clearly had his finger on the pulse of the churches and their people in the pews, and the conservative leadership drew heavily on his work during the controversy. It's less about the error free nature of the Bible, and more about its practical use as a measuring rod of truth. Draper's view doesn't lend itself to criticisms of "bibliolatry".

I think it is really pretty easy to follow the contexts found in the Bible, and apply its principles, precepts, or literal statements with the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit, and I think that is exactly what Jesus had in mind when he said that the comforter would follow his ministry. Baptists believe that the Bible is authoritative, reliable, and sufficient and that requires, not precludes, the work of the Holy Spirit. In fact, Paul opens his first letter to the Corinthians with a statement that indicates how essential the Spirit's illumination is to the understanding of truth as revealed in the scriptures. Intellect and experience alone are not sufficient, but when blended with written revelation, and spiritual illumination, they can reveal what God wants to reveal. That's the Baptist understanding of Biblical Authority that I know.

Keith, I'm explaining the problem mods faced not offering a theological treatise. Perhaps there is a way to present a more flexible and nuanced view of Scriptural authority that will persuade ordinary church pastors and members. You demonstrate the mods other problem when you say that "what is popular is not necessarily correct". Dismissing inerrancy and authority claims as not being correct sounds rather elitist (nothing personal, we all have sufficient background with each other here to understand these things) and when the mod elites like Dilday and Chafin would attempt this they alienated thousands of fence sitters who were more uncomfortable with their view of Scripture than with Patterson and Roger's inerrancy.

Even the main mod candidates, the folksy Winfred Moore, the energetic evangelist Dan Vestal, or megapastor Richard. Jackson, the mods best candidate never overcame this problem.

The old fallacy is that if you don't subscribe to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, then you believe the Bible is filled with untruths. I heard variations of that sermon too many times to count. There is just one problem, most of the folks I know who do not subscribe to inerrancy read their Bibles daily, preach from its authority, study it regularly, and allow the Bible to guide their lives. They just don't accept the positivism of inerrancy as a good fit for the book they love.

Lou, so true about how the fundy demagogues demonized Winfred Moore.

I remember Moore coming to Rome Ga before the Atlanta SBC and the associational fundies in Jerry Vines hometown lining up at the microphone with all their gibberish. Among those in the audience was the NBC correspondent who went on to do the weekly program on religion on PBS.

Grady Cothen spent two hours in my home in the early 90's researching his book What Happened to the SBC. Jack Harwell had sent him my way.

Yesterday I found a copy of Baptists Today, 2007 or so issue with an interview of Cothen.

He goes over many of the worn out gibberish on inerrancy folks like Sandy continue to spew up every time the conversation comes up.

Again the important thing is you various revenants find a Print issue of the Oct 9 New York Review of Books and read it.

It goes back to the snake in the woodpile clause of the 20's BFM which added a phrase about the "Science" of the First 11 chapters of Genesis to stave off concerns about the SBC coming unraveled between the illiterates and the fairly literates in the rank and file over the Scopes trial and Evolution! -- see Rachel Held Evans great testimonial "Evolving in Monkeytown".

Read the http://www.nybooks.com Thomas Powers piece to see how Texas Fundies like Criswell, Pressler and that cabal latched on to such mish mash and eviscerated a denomination and set a white mindset up for the Tea Party we have today.

Let's advance this conversation with a group reading of the NY Rev piece which was the whole point to beging with, not an opportunity for Sandy and the like the cough up the same things they were saying about the obfuscations of inerrancy they were spitting out 15 years ago.

the avuncular, folksy Moore was I'll equipped for the task mod leaders gave him. His airport-hopping, sound bite ready campaign tour prior to one of his lost elections was painful for this con to watch. He just looked so uncomfortable in his role.

The Gatlinburg Gang was just clueless about the whole business. There was just no mod who was much good if not in a back room somewhere making decisions. I'd be open to my mod/lib friends naming one here. Vestal was energetic and charismatic but came in way too late.

This may help Sandy understand my Dad's place in the Baptist spectrum. My Dad was a summer camp mentor to Colin Harris and they were lifelong friends afte 1960, but Harris the much sharper thinker.

Even so my Dad had an appetite for the right place and the right cause as Randall Lolley eulogized when he passed in 99.

My Dad would be very proud of Colin Harris for this most timely, apropo piece for this conversation.

http://ethicsdaily.com/orthodoxy-and-he ... -cms-22200

As for Thornton, case could be made George Wallace before he got shot was more of a crowd pleaser than the more civil and erudite Albert Brewer in Alabama; but look at the crowd they were trying to make their case to and what kind of response they got.

Such was the difference in rough analogy to Winfred Moore and Jerry Vines, even Rogers or that hack AmWay salesman Charles Stanley, the two percenter.

William you impressed me early on as fan of Jonathan Edwards. I know you have the faculties, the ability to understand the case Thomas Powers is making in www.nybooks.com. Just wish you would find the Oct 9 print issue and lets get on with it.

We all remember Pressler walked off the set when Moyers began exploring the diabolical network to Gary North and Texas Right wing Oil Politics.

http://gailpellettproductions.com/the-b ... the-bible/

This remnder from25 years ago is what the Oct 9 www.nybooks.com updates!