How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Discuss current news and trends taking place in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Moderator: William Thornton

How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby William Thornton » Sun May 17, 2009 7:14 am

I'm intrigued by Tony Cartledge's blog article Southeastern Tightens the Screws in which he says that

Tony Cartledge wrote:At a recent orientation session, my friend [who had been a field supervisor for SEBTS students] was told that he not only had to agree to work within the guidelines of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message statement, but he had to sign an affirmation that he supported it.

But that's not all. He would also have been required to sign a statement indicating his support for the Abstract of Principles, the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, and the "Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood."


That's four separate statements to be signed. Good thing the seminaries all give out those free advertising pens.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12378
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Lamar Wadsworth » Sun May 17, 2009 12:44 pm

Oh well, no danger of me ever teaching at SEBTS. The "creeping creedalism" that Dale Moody at SBTS used to warn us about is now "stampeding creedalism." The quality of theological education really tanks when few divergent viewpoints are allowed, even when we are talking about divergent viewpoints well within the mainstream of evangelical thought. For instance, there are plenty of evangelical Christians, including many who would consider themselves inerrantists, who interpret Scripture to support women in all ministry roles including the pastorate. While I don't consider myself an inerrantist (and thus couldn't sign the Chicago statement), I am pretty conservative in my view of Scripture and in the hermeneutical principles I follow to arrive at my view that God calls and gifts women and men alike for all forms of Christian ministry, so I couldn't sign the Danvers statement either.

It does intrigue me to see the primary issue on which difference of opinion is at least tolerated--the question of whether Christ died for all or only for the elect. In today's SBC, it's OK to disagree about that but not OK to disagree about whether God calls women to preach the Gospel.
Lamar Wadsworth
 
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:53 am
Location: Rockmart GA (on a slippery slope, between Aragon and VanWert, 6 miles SW of Taylorsville)

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Dave Roberts » Sun May 17, 2009 12:47 pm

I served as a field ministry supervisor for SEBTS in the early 1980's. As I recall, my contract was about 2 paragraphs long. It would take a day just to read all that.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7526
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby RyanHale » Sun May 17, 2009 3:06 pm

Another example of Godsliners making the tent smaller & smaller. By using doctrinal points to proclaim their own purity, they are shutting the door on those who have genuine convictions to the contrary.
RyanHale
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:13 pm
Location: GA

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby JaneFordA » Mon May 18, 2009 9:50 am

RyanHale wrote:Another example of Godsliners making the tent smaller & smaller. By using doctrinal points to proclaim their own purity, they are shutting the door on those who have genuine convictions to the contrary.


They've been stupefyingly irrelevant for so many years that anyone with a brain hardly cares what they do, anyway. But they're good for comic relief when things get a little dull.
User avatar
JaneFordA
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:09 pm
Location: Glendale, OH (home of the famous black squirrels)

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Dave Roberts » Mon May 18, 2009 10:33 am

Anyone who can sign the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and its exceptions with a straight face has a problem.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7526
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Michael » Mon May 18, 2009 11:04 am

This is not your father's - certainly not my - SEBTS. It makes me sad on the one hand as an alum but also continually grateful for having matriculated at SEBTS in the Lolley years.
Michael
"Is this heaven?"
"No, it's Iowa."
"Iowa? I could have sworn this was heaven."
Michael
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:24 pm
Location: Coralville, Iowa

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Dave Roberts » Mon May 18, 2009 11:24 am

Timothy Bonney wrote:
Dave Roberts wrote:Anyone who can sign the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and its exceptions with a straight face has a problem.


Dave, I've not read the statement. Its not something that has been up for discussion in the ABC. Can you elaborate?

Tim


The statement makes so many exceptions. First, inerrancy only technically applies only to the original autographs. Since we only have copies of copies, then it is a faith assertion about that which no one has ever seen.

Second, the statement excepts numbers, and parallel accounts from the standard of inerrancy. The cited example is David's census where the earlier account says God incited David and the Chronicler says it was Satan. Census numbers and troop numbers are excempted from the standard. So inerrancy, by the Chicaog statement, is only partial at best.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7526
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Ed Pettibone » Tue May 19, 2009 8:55 am

Timothy Bonney wrote:
Dave Roberts wrote:Anyone who can sign the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and its exceptions with a straight face has a problem.


Dave, I've not read the statement. Its not something that has been up for discussion in the ABC. Can you elaborate?

Tim



Ed: TIm I am in total agreement with those here who have for all intents and purposes said that the Chicago Statement on inerrancy is not worth the paper it is written on UNLESS one is demonstrating the unreasonableness of the claim. I do however believe that for that one reason alone every pastor should atleast give it a read through. Oh and BTW, I have had discussions about it with ABC pastors and a few other ABC local church leaders including some folk on pulpit committees who do ascribe to it.

Here is a link to make it easy for you to get up to speed. :wink:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Jerry_B » Tue May 19, 2009 7:31 pm

If I'm not mistaken (like that could ever happen) the number of exceptions in the Chicago statement is somewhere in the neighborhood of 21 or 26! Why bother?
Jerry_B
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 9:15 pm
Location: Texas

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Big Daddy Weaver » Tue May 19, 2009 9:58 pm

I'm sure that the Chicago Statement was talked about by many ABCers in its early years. But the conference was held in 1978 and I think that's when the document was produced. It was very popular among northern evangelicals - so I'd guess that at least a few American Baptists endorsed it and probably more than a few came out against it. I don't think that more than a handful of the original signatories were Southern Baptists.


The only SBC names that I recognize are Russ Bush, W.A. Criswell, and Jerry Vines.

It is interesting that notable fundamentalist leaders like Adrian Rogers, Paul Pressler and Paige Patterson are absent from this list. Maybe their absence says something about the motivations behind the "Conservative Resurgence" - it was more about power/control than truth/theology. Or maybe this just shows the early (continued) resistance on the part of some Southern Baptists to join conservative Northern Evangelicals in various endeavors. Or maybe it's both.

List of Chicago signatories.
User avatar
Big Daddy Weaver
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:15 am
Location: Waco, TX

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Sandy » Tue May 19, 2009 10:12 pm

I think the resistance of some Southern Baptists to subscribe to the Chicago statement is not necessarily based on the contents of the statement itself, but on the idea that it must be signed, or subscribed to, in order to facilitate some kind of cooperation or fellowship. That is what I myself object to, since that makes it a creed rather than a confession. It is a human statement of belief about the nature of the Bible as scripture and as such, it is not equal with the scripture, so requiring someone else's agreement with it as a condition of cooperation is creedal.

As far as the contents go, what does it contain that is disagreeable to a Baptist?
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9393
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Big Daddy Weaver » Wed May 20, 2009 3:02 am

Timothy Bonney wrote:"I'm always amazed that people can get so excited about a theological term for Biblical inspiration not found in the Bible and not heard of until, what, the 19th century?"


I've seen this argument made a few times here at BL.com. Obviously, I'm not inerrantist. But this particular argument reminds me of the conservatives/fundamentalists who point out that the phrase "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the United States Constitution. Not sure why the term "inerrant" needs to be in the Bible for the claims of inerrantists to be true...

The term "inerrancy" might not have been heard of until the 19th century or whatever but obviously the theological ideas found in the Chicago Statement and other similar documents have been around for centuries. Literalism is nothing new. Thankfully modern biblical scholarship has helped many of us Baptists to leave different literalist interpretive approaches behind...
User avatar
Big Daddy Weaver
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:15 am
Location: Waco, TX

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Dave Roberts » Wed May 20, 2009 7:36 am

As I recall, the invitation to the conference that produced the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrrancy said something about the need to provide better underpinnings for the doctrine of plenary-verbal inspiration. I can't remember where I read it, but then that was over 30 years ago. The purpose was to provide the theoretical support for the plenary-verbal folks.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7526
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Mark » Wed May 20, 2009 9:26 am

BDiddy, soon to be betrothed, wrote: Not sure why the term "inerrant" needs to be in the Bible for the claims of inerrantists to be true...

I suppose the term doesn't have to actually be present for it to be true, similar indeed to "the Trinity" or "separation of church and state."

The problem is that SBC Fundamentalists have long claimed "inerrancy" - a term that, indeed, appears nowhere in the Bible - as THE central and historical unifying point for Southern Baptists, which of course has never been true. Far from being a biblical word, "inerrancy" was birthed primarily by conservative Presbyterians and is one of several man-made theories as to how the Bible was inspired.

A final rub about the term "inerrancy" is that SBC Fundamentalists rarely use it anymore. Sharper minds among them know it won't stand up to legitimate scholarship. Thus their intention omission of the term from Baptist Faith and Message 2000. As Walter Shurden has written, "Inerrancy is not the truth." :|
Mark
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:05 pm
Location: Alabama

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Haruo » Wed May 20, 2009 12:22 pm

Timothy Bonney wrote:
Big Daddy Weaver wrote:I'm sure that the Chicago Statement was talked about by many ABCers in its early years. But the conference was held in 1978 and I think that's when the document was produced. It was very popular among northern evangelicals - so I'd guess that at least a few American Baptists endorsed it and probably more than a few came out against it. I don't think that more than a handful of the original signatories were Southern Baptists.
[/url]


Big Daddy the inerrancy conversation/fight pretty much never happened in the ABC. But, that isn't to say that some northern Baptists couldn't have picked up the language.

Because at the time there was no ABC (except the broadcasting company), only yet another NBC. Inerrancy (or something indistinguishable except in terminology) was indeed a hot-button topic in the Northern Baptist Convention, beginning in the World War I era (Harry Emerson Fosdick was the leader of the anti-inerrantists; Rockefeller built him a cathedral to do it from), and when the dust settled, those NBC folks who thought this should be a point of disfellowshipment went off and formed their own GARBC. A generation later, in the late 1940s, essentially the same controversy came to essentially the same conclusion again (though this time without Fosdick's centrality), and those NBCers who thought it should be the point of departure departed and formed their own CBA. Only after the Conservative Baptist Association departed did the NBC change its name to ABC.

Haruo checking in from sunny Lemoore, CA...
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12743
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Big Daddy Weaver » Wed May 20, 2009 1:12 pm

Here's a list of Southern Baptists who signed the Chicago Statement in '78. I overlooked the Pattersons:

Richard Belcher (SC pastor, former prof. at Columbia Bible College)
Russ Bush
J. William Carpenter (FL pastor, active in the BF&M Fellowship)
W. A. Criswell
Richard L. Mellick Jr. (Criswell College)
Jimmy A. Milliken (Mid-America Seminary)
Roger Nicole (taught at Gordon-Conwell, but a Southern Baptist in church membership)
Paige Patterson
Dorothy Patterson
Charles Ryrie (member of FBC Dallas, though taught at DTS)
Jerry Vines
User avatar
Big Daddy Weaver
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:15 am
Location: Waco, TX

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Ed Pettibone » Wed May 20, 2009 10:04 pm

Tim Says to Aaron Weaver "I agree with you that literalism is nothing new. But, in the context of the SBC takeover it was not good enough to use even synonyms for "inerrant." If you couldn't accept a very specific use of the term "inerrant" as THE understanding of Biblical interpretation you were called anything from "liberal" to "skunk." None of this really had much to do with theology, it was politics and power pure and simple. The word "inerrant" became in and of itself a "shibboleth" and, no one who couldn't pronounce it right was a good Southern Baptist."

Ed: Tim I honestly think this discussion could develop into possibly the most worth while contribution ever on this site if we stay focused on the issue of inerrancy. So for the moment I will not argue a lot with your blaming what Barnette called the Heresy of Inerrancy on the Southern Baptist, although Barnettte may turn over in his grave.

When you write "in the context of the SBC takeover it was not good enough to use even synonyms for "inerrant." For me a flag goes up and questions come to mind. Why would you want to use synonyms for a term that is not applicable ? And Criswell didn't seem to put any distance between liberal and Skunk. And I have to disagree with your contention that "None of this really had much to do with theology, it was politics and power pure and simple." I understand that thinking and have made very similar statements, however to many people in the pews it had a lot to do with theology, perhaps not "good Theology" in your mind or mine but in the theology that most Baptist grew up on, starting in primary SS. with the chorus The B-I-B-L-E, I stand alone on the WORD of GOD the B-I-B-L-E. On the other hand you are exactly right when you say of how it (inerrancy) was used in the takeover "it was politics and power pure and simple". Well maybe not so simple. :roll: And to our discredit we moderates for the most part did not counter the term well. It took me while but by 1980 I was opposing the term inerrancy and trying to explain that it just does not accurately describe the BIBLE. And too often I got hit over the head with "Well if it isn't inerrant it must be errant". I found it hard to argue with that rationale, and as Flick and others who where on the old SBC net can attest we kept beating our heads against a brick wall on that one. (If you think Sneed is radical right. you should have seen some of his buddies.) I began agreeing that yes it is errant, in some instances. I finally started calling my self a biblical realist and defined that as "one who believe that in maters of faith and practice the Bible really means what it says and is reliable." I am not sure that got any of them off of my back but it made me more comfortable.

I have said all of that to say perhaps the participant on this site could reach some type of consensus on a term that expresses our concept of what it is to say the Bible is a "lamp unto my feet" , and put on something of a campaign to to get it worked into our "church talk" . The old retort when some one says "the bible is Inerrant " to shout "NO! it is not", hasn't gotten us very far.
User avatar
Ed Pettibone
 
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: .Burnt Hills, New York, Capital Area

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Dave Roberts » Fri May 22, 2009 10:17 am

I remember one strong inerrantist preaching at a NC meeting who brashly got up and declared, "My Bible is inerrant from the place on the front where it says 'Holy Bible' to the place on the back where it says 'genuine leather.'" Something was lacking in his theology, IMHO. :brick:
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7526
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Dave Roberts » Fri May 22, 2009 11:28 am

Timothy Bonney wrote:
Dave Roberts wrote:I remember one strong inerrantist preaching at a NC meeting who brashly got up and declared, "My Bible is inerrant from the place on the front where it says 'Holy Bible' to the place on the back where it says 'genuine leather.'" Something was lacking in his theology, IMHO. :brick:


LOL, so that included the study notes by Schofield right? :roll:


For that speaker, I'm certain it did. I think he also had about a 10-pound Bible he could use to pound his opponents over the head if they didn't agree. :wink:
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7526
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Gary » Fri May 22, 2009 11:36 am

Dave Roberts wrote:
Timothy Bonney wrote:
Dave Roberts wrote:I remember one strong inerrantist preaching at a NC meeting who brashly got up and declared, "My Bible is inerrant from the place on the front where it says 'Holy Bible' to the place on the back where it says 'genuine leather.'" Something was lacking in his theology, IMHO. :brick:


LOL, so that included the study notes by Schofield right? :roll:


For that speaker, I'm certain it did. I think he also had about a 10-pound Bible he could use to pound his opponents over the head if they didn't agree. :wink:


"If the KJV was good enough for Paul and Silas, it is good enough for me!"
__________________________________________________________
Gary Skaggs, Norman, OK
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
User avatar
Gary
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: Norman, Oklahoma

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Lamar Wadsworth » Fri May 22, 2009 7:08 pm

I remember the late Dale Moody saying that it was a shock to him when he got to Southern Seminary and learned that some of the older manuscripts didn't have Scofield's notes.
Lamar Wadsworth
 
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:53 am
Location: Rockmart GA (on a slippery slope, between Aragon and VanWert, 6 miles SW of Taylorsville)

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Dave Roberts » Fri May 22, 2009 7:12 pm

Lamar Wadsworth wrote:I remember the late Dale Moody saying that it was a shock to him when he got to Southern Seminary and learned that some of the older manuscripts didn't have Scofield's notes.


Moody was fascinating...and truthful.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7526
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Haruo » Sun May 24, 2009 8:39 pm

Actually, Paul and Silas predated Scofield, so they didn't actually have a completely inerrant text to work with...
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12743
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: How many things will 'good' SBCers have to sign...

Postby Chris » Sun May 24, 2009 9:29 pm

Haruo wrote:Actually, Paul and Silas predated Scofield, so they didn't actually have a completely inerrant text to work with...


Spur material
Jesus paid the price for me and everybody.
Chris
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:29 pm
Location: Newport News, VA

Next

Return to SBC News and Trends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest