SBC Calvinism New Statement

[Gene Scarborough]

I would totally agree with the BDW analysis.

It shows why the respect and honoring of the SBC is on a decline in the general public.

God does not bless a mess and that is all we have had since before 1979 among Baptists. I am not putting it on an persoanalized NC liscense tag. The quieter I am over my affiliations, the more Christian I can be!

People coming to any church are looking for love and encouragement to get through another week. When that church becomes a constant battlefield, they quickly look elsewhere for spiritual growth---unless they are Manic-Depressive!

[Timothy Bonney]

Remember: When Paul said "all scripture," he was not referring to our Bible---rather all "writings" in circulation in his day and long before the Canon came into existence!

More likely Paul was only referring to the Hebrew canon and not any recent writings. It would be very unlikely that Paul would call his own writings "scripture."

Conservative and Fundamentalist Protestants do often forget that the Church chose what ended up in the canon in part based on what matched the faith as given in the ecumenical creeds of the church formed at that time. Fundamentalists in particular act as if the Bible dropped from the sky on golden inerrant tablets.

However, just because it was the Church that chose the canon does not mean that the canon is any less valid. Or that it makes non-canonical books more acceptable. On the contrary, the early church chose the canon based on the teachings of the early church as given by Christ and the Apostles.

[William Thornton]

Nice photo, Timothy. You look very extinguished.

[Timothy Bonney]

Nice photo, Timothy. You look very extinguished.

Extinguished, LOL

[Gene Scarborough]

If you have a beard, do you have a tat to be even more "cool dude preacher?"

LIke the new pic. Can't reduce mine enough to post it---have cowboy hat to add to the effect!

[Sandy]

Sandy---

The Canon inclusion required certain hurdles:

Written by an Apostle (few were actually written by their hand--rather a follower's hand)
In agreement with the Apostle's Creed--man made cognitive statement by majority vote.
Approved by all the churches---another hand raise vote by the church devotees

All of these indicate a strong hand of man and church in the process which gives us our current Canon. I find most interesting material in the non-Canonical writings and the Gnostic Gospels.

Remember: When Paul said "all scripture," he was not referring to our Bible---rather all "writings" in circulation in his day and long before the Canon came into existence!

The whole purpose of putting together the Canon was to distinguish between the gnostic influences and other philosophical trends that were pushing their way into Christianity. The churches recognized the difference long before any church council met, and had sifted out the pseudepigrapha from the earlier manuscripts that reflected the writing and accurate teaching of the apostles. That's why it was a relatively easy, and fairly quick process to determine that, out of hundreds of possible manuscripts, there were just a few in common usage that met the standards. To characterize the process as a hand raise vote with majority rule is to demonstrate a bias that flies in the face of your constant claim to objectivity.

"Scripture" to Paul, was not all inclusive of everything in circulation in his day, but rather what would have been found on the scrolls in most synagogues and in the Temple. It also very likely would have referred to the oral tradition of Christian faith, including the things that were being written and passed along that Jesus taught. Paul's approach to evangelism and preaching was to "reason from the scriptures" that Jesus was the Christ. So he wouldn't have used anything that wouldn't have been accepted as such.

[Timothy Bonney]

If you have a beard, do you have a tat to be even more "cool dude preacher?"

LIke the new pic. Can't reduce mine enough to post it---have cowboy hat to add to the effect!

I've had the beard almost all of my adult life. I remember a lot of older ladies not liking it when I was first preaching. My response always was "Jesus wore a beard."

But no, I don't have any tattoos. I do know a couple of UMC youth pastors with fairly extensive tattoos. But they are all a lot younger than I am. (Notice the gray beard.)

[Sandy]

The "consensus accord" is a waste of time. Maybe it serves to calm the storm for a brief moment. But long-term, it's not really a solution.

The major argument put forth by these "Traditional Southern Baptists" is that - playing off of Bill Leonard's Grand Compromise thesis - there's been an unspoken agreement between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. The agreement is essentially that Calvinists know their place and don't step out of line.

Well, Calvinism is on the rise, Calvinist leaders are increasingly influential and hold prestigious positions in the denomination. And now, these traditionalists are ticked off and complaining.

I sympathize with the Calvinists because these "Traditionalists" are really coming across as arrogant youknowwhats

All that said, isn't this just fundamentalism at its finest? Doctrinal purity is the cornerstone of fundamentalism. A public fight is how that purity is secured and defended. For the most part, these "Traditionalists" represent the Old Guard. They are the ones who instigated the "Conservative Resurgence." Now, their 40-55 year-old sons with their many myths and romanticized view of the 1980s are stepping up to do battle and defend the power and control that their elders secured.

Just further proof that - for these leaders - the past was about power and control and the present must be about maintaining power and control (although they are a little late to the scene here).

To a certain extent, this debate is a distraction. Fighting over Calvinism is just an excuse to fight, IMO. That's fundamentalism.

When the more liberal mainline Protestants do this same thing, they call it "dialogue." Getting together, spending money on a high class hotel, most likely near a good golf course, giving the appearance of "doing something" while actually planning to ride the middle of the road and avoid taking any decisive action if possible, that's what they call "dialogue." This looks a lot like that.

First of all, this isn't fundamentalism. Fundamentalists generally operate in completely independent churches, avoiding any ties from which they might have to walk away. If the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention was "fundamentalist," it has done a remarkable job of holding together a loose confederation of independent, autonomous congregations, and if it was about power and control, they certainly hit on a theme that garnered virtually unanimous support. The SBC lost fewer churches throughout twenty years of controversy than it did in the previous twenty years by attrition and disbanding. Essentially, there hasn't been a formal "split" and the largest of the two groups that emerged opposite the SBC leadership amounts to about 2% of the total number of churches, though the vast majority of those have yet to sever their ties with the denomination completely. Contrast that with what is happening in some liberal, mainline denominations over hot button issues and this is not even a blip on the radar screen.

The SBC is changing because the leaders of the resurgence are aging and moving off the scene. I think Frank Page is fairly representative of the direction the convention is going, though there may be some bumps along the road, as there always are in transitions, and if that's the case, then it is fairly safe to say that there won't be a split over Calvinism. Eventually, if Calvinists continue to become more visible in denominational circles, they will make a place for themselves proportionate to their numbers. It is, after all, easier to accept Calvinists if you are not one, than it is for Calvinists to accept those who aren't.

[Stephen Fox]

Mostly in Response to Sandy and BDW; the SBC does what a spiderpig does if some of you remember the ditty from the Cable Cartoon show.

I think Bryant Wrightmay be more the poster child of thenew SBC than Frank Page. Wright has more "style" more urbane than Page. SBC is turning into a hybrid of Campus Crusade and FCA. Hip and light; no offense to FCA in particular.

Bryant Wright will continue to be proud of his products who go to SOCON Schools, UGA and Bama, even Auburn. What they don't talk about in church don't hurt him. He is in not too big a hurry seems to me to get into to the Nelson Price imbroglio at Shorter; nor to have a conversation with Marilynne Robinson about Calvinism.

Jerry Vines is saying some things;most likely not much deeper than his aside to Adrian Rogers in the snack shop at NOBTS in the 60's when Carlyle Marney came on campus.

To that extent SBC rank and file is like the kenotics in the emerging Orthodox Church in Russia in the 1500's. Just give em some icons and have some congregational singing--don't matter what the words are if ever so often one of em is Jesus--keep the TV and Fox News and Roll On.

[Timothy Bonney]

When the more liberal mainline Protestants do this same thing, they call it "dialogue." Getting together, spending money on a high class hotel, most likely near a good golf course, giving the appearance of "doing something" while actually planning to ride the middle of the road and avoid taking any decisive action if possible, that's what they call "dialogue." This looks a lot like that.

Sandy, have you ever actually been to a "liberal mainline Protestant" Conference or Convention? I'd say no because you don't have a clue what goes on at Mainline Protestant gatherings. I just returned from four days of the Iowa Annual Conference. Much of that time was spent voting on hours upon hours of business, budgets, and ministry needs. There were also worship services, communion, sermons, mission and ministry presentations. We personally raised over $60,000 just from our about 1,600 Conference attendees to fight malaria and ordained or commissioned more than two dozen new UMC leaders. There were no "golf courses" And by the way, most of us stayed in cheap motels, in college dorms, or at the homes of friends and were allowed less than $500 for a week of expenses.

I don't mind you having a low opinion of Mainline Christians. But I do mind you maligning us with out and out falsehoods that you've made up whole cloth. More fundamentalist falderal.

[Timothy Bonney]

First of all, this isn't fundamentalism. Fundamentalists generally operate in completely independent churches, avoiding any ties from which they might have to walk away.

That is a neat and convenient way to define fundamentalism but it doesn't wash. In fact independent Baptists like Falwell joined the SBC fold when they realized that basically now there was no difference between his fundamentalism and SBC fundamentalism. There are other fundamentalist denominations out there such at the GARBC and the Missouri Synod Lutherans who are certainly not "independent" churches without a denominational affiliation.

It was long predicted that fundamentalists in the SBC would end up having one fight after another because for fundamentalists it is always necessary to seek absolute doctrinal purity. As BDW has indicated this is just another skirmish in the fundy wars. If the current crop of Calvinists wins the day they'll probably call it the "Calvinist Resurgence" and teach the next generation of SBCers that the denomination was always 5-point Calvinist just like the current fundamentalist takeover crowd re-wrote history to laud its own victorious conquest.

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.abpnews.com/faith/theology/i ... -calvinism

[Sandy]

When the more liberal mainline Protestants do this same thing, they call it "dialogue." Getting together, spending money on a high class hotel, most likely near a good golf course, giving the appearance of "doing something" while actually planning to ride the middle of the road and avoid taking any decisive action if possible, that's what they call "dialogue." This looks a lot like that.

Sandy, have you ever actually been to a "liberal mainline Protestant" Conference or Convention? I'd say no because you don't have a clue what goes on at Mainline Protestant gatherings. I just returned from four days of the Iowa Annual Conference. Much of that time was spent voting on hours upon hours of business, budgets, and ministry needs. There were also worship services, communion, sermons, mission and ministry presentations. We personally raised over $60,000 just from our about 1,600 Conference attendees to fight malaria and ordained or commissioned more than two dozen new UMC leaders. There were no "golf courses" And by the way, most of us stayed in cheap motels, in college dorms, or at the homes of friends and were allowed less than $500 for a week of expenses.

I don't mind you having a low opinion of Mainline Christians. But I do mind you maligning us with out and out falsehoods that you've made up whole cloth. More fundamentalist falderal.

Oh, come on Tim. First of all, I haven't attended a liberal mainline conference or convention, largely because I've never been a member of a liberal mainline Protestant church, and those are generally clergy conferences, and aren't even open to regular members. But I do read, and several of those denominations have good press departments. In making a comparison here, I'm not comparing SBC meetings to the annual state conference of Methodists, or a scheduled annual meeting. What you have here in the SBC is a difference of opinion that is beginning to affect leadership of the denomination at its related institutions and agencies. So there have been meetings, discussion, press releases and an attempt at putting out some kind of "statement" that will keep the peace. BDW shared what is a fairly typical moderate Baptist perspective on the subject, more or less that moderates predicted this would happen, and that it is typical of fundamentalists who always must be fighting. I'm simply pointing out that in the United States today, it seems that there is a whole lot more fighting over issues that are a whole lot more divisive among the more liberal Mainline Protestants than this is among Southern Baptists. The Episcopalians, PCUSA and ELCA are fighting as whole clusters and groups of churches are departing over liberal stances on the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy. In criticizing the SBC, moderate Baptists seem to avoid such comparisons because they don't help them make their point. Clearly there is a debate going on over Calvinism in the SBC, and it may get fairly heated before all is resolved. But to classify the SBC as a bunch of "fightin' fundamentalists" and make it sound like it is just the inevitable result of the nature of the thing, well, the evidence flies in the face of that.

I've read plenty about the discussions, "dialogue" is generally the term that is applied, that go on in many liberal Mainline Protestant circles. Separating the discussions from the pews by having them take place at the clergy level does take the heat out of the argument, but the dialogue of most religious groups like that rarely concludes or resolves anything. "Dialogue" is a way of appearing to take action when you aren't planning on doing anything controversial. And, Tim, while it may not necessarily apply to all, I was in Chicago a few years ago doing some continuing ed when the PCUSA was having a dialogue of some kind at Fourth Pres, corner of Michigan and Delaware on the Mag mile in Gold Coast. I heard that the two different "camps" wouldn't even stay in the same hotel with each other. Maybe they stayed in cheap hotels, though the Four Seasons is right across the street and the Drake is just a block away.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: So Sandy, where are you reading and who is writing it. And why are you so interested in what the "Mainlne"
denominations are doing since you hold them in such disdain?

Neither have I ever been a member of a liberal mainline Protestant church. We are now in our 5th local congregation of the ABC-USA since 1998. two years in one, 6 months in another, one and a half in another, six years in 2 church parish and now nearly two and a half years in the church where we are now. And yes the ABC-USA does have some rather liberal churches but the denomination as a whole is not liberal.

In that time we have attended 3 of the denominations biennial national meetings. In Richmond Va, Denver Colorado and Washington DC. the two of us have always gotten by on under $150.00 a day. The hotels have had a decent to very good breakfast . We stay out a ways and use public transportation.(Richmond was an exception we drove to and from the motel and paid $ 5.00 to park.) We do lunch in the local places near by. Usually have dinner at a national chain. True there are more clergy than laity but not by a lot. There are worship services, Bible studies, sessions to discuss proposed business, and business meetings where the decisions are made. And of course there are the resource centers with a variety of vendors selling every thing from Clergy vestments to fiberglass Baptismal units, insurance plans, Suits, Dresses and Ladies Hats that would make Dorthy Patterson envious, and the Colleges & Universities and Seminaries promoting their services. No Golf outings.

Now the Mercer Preaching Consultation on St Simmons Island in Ga. does offer a free afternoon, and golf is available. The meeting are at the King & Prince Hotel which is quite pricy but we have always stayed at one of the chain motels. usually on the island but once on the mainland some 9 mile away. Parking is free at the K&P to all attending the meeting. We sometimes have lunch at the Waffle House or Burger King or one of the local restaurants. We do attend the major banquet (great food) living up to the King and Price Name. This meeting is a great opportunity to hear outstanding preaching in a variety of styles.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Sandy,

I'll let you have your own definition of fundamentalism.

I realize you like to poo-poo on scholars and experts, so this statement will hold no weight for you (your loss): but the overwhelming majority of scholars of Protestant fundamentalism don't hold to your strict, narrow definition that requires separatism.

So, your statement that this isn't fundamentalism means little. I know even historians and theologians in the SBC who will tell you that there are indeed many fundamentalists in Southern Baptist life. Even their definition of fundamentalism is not nearly as rigid and strict as yours.

When Jerry Falwell decided to come out of his shell and found the Moral Majority in 1979, he didn't just up and cease being a fundamentalist. Even the concept of "separatism" is extremely complex with varying definitions of what separatism requires and entails.

Since you like to throw out numbers. I'll throw out this chart for everyone. Take what you will away from em.



Analysis is here.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

By the way, one need not agree that the Southern Baptists are just a bunch of "fighting fundamentalists" to agree with my statement.

I said that this is fundamentalism at its finest. As I see it, there is only one aggressor here. There's one-side that's starting a holy war with the other. So, I'm not charging the Calvinists with being fundamentalists. I'm charging these "Tradtionalists" with fundamentalism. And if you look at the list of signatories, it's a Who's Who list of the "Conservative Resurgence."

And from what I hear, it is Jerry Vines - front and center - who is pushing this thing.

[Sandy]

It would be interesting to put up a chart of the percentage of US population that is part of left wing Protestantism, and how that has fallen off since liberal theology has taken hold. But of course, that doesn't help you make your point.

"Fundamentalist" can be a broad term, even with application outside the realm of Christian denominationalism. I would certainly apply it to the little group of disgruntled Baptists who got their feelings hurt when the denomination got tired of their elitist control and attempts at diluting the gospel and elected new leadership. There's some frowning faces and scowling expressions among them that would make Falwell look like a peacemaker.

[Gene Scarborough]

Jerry Falwell built his church by bussing and bashing any other church in his town as not being "spiritual enough."

He also had a gift for conning 4 asphault contractors to "give 1/4 of the parking lot paving since 3 had already agreed to do it." When they all happened to be there the same day, they found out the same "stuff" had been told each one---starting with the first one!

Somehow God spoke to Jerry in ways he didn't to others. When the SBC became so like him he could join---it was obvious it was not the SBC theology of old which spoke to him!!!!

I am always suspicious when "God speaks" to any preacher and then he "speaks that same word" to the congregation.
Is it God---or the preacher pretending to be God????

[Timothy Bonney]

I've read plenty about the discussions, "dialogue" is generally the term that is applied, that go on in many liberal Mainline Protestant circles. Separating the discussions from the pews by having them take place at the clergy level does take the heat out of the argument, but the dialogue of most religious groups like that rarely concludes or resolves anything. "Dialogue" is a way of appearing to take action when you aren't planning on doing anything controversial. And, Tim, while it may not necessarily apply to all, I was in Chicago a few years ago doing some continuing ed when the PCUSA was having a dialogue of some kind at Fourth Pres, corner of Michigan and Delaware on the Mag mile in Gold Coast. I heard that the two different "camps" wouldn't even stay in the same hotel with each other. Maybe they stayed in cheap hotels, though the Four Seasons is right across the street and the Drake is just a block away.

Yes, one event you are aware of was held by one mainline denomination in which they happened to be across the street from a good hotel therefore most/many/or all mainline dialogues involve fancy hotels, golf, and goofing off. Boy is that a leap of logic Sandy. Why don't you just admit that you were trying to be insulting and move on?

As to how dialogue occurs in mainline denominations it has indeed resolved issues for several mainline groups. The ECUSA took an official position on homosexuality, the ELCA took an official position on homosexuality, the PCUSA recently took a new position on homosexuality and clergy and the UMC maintained its current position at a vote of General Conference. It looks to me like things are resolved in those denominations in their own polity in the way they make decisions.

The fact that those issues are decided at a different level than the local congregation is a matter of polity and not liberal/conservative theology. There are also a fair number of conservative religious groups that don't follow congregational polity as well. It has nothing to with being "mainline" or "liberal" it has to do with what churches believe about how the Church is to be organized.

[Timothy Bonney]

"Fundamentalist" can be a broad term, even with application outside the realm of Christian denominationalism. I would certainly apply it to the little group of disgruntled Baptists who got their feelings hurt when the denomination got tired of their elitist control and attempts at diluting the gospel and elected new leadership. There's some frowning faces and scowling expressions among them that would make Falwell look like a peacemaker.

So now you are entirely redefining the word "fundamentalist" to pretty much anything. Yep. Very helpful.

For years I've said the SBC definition of liberal="anyone who disagrees with me and/or anyone who disagrees with the SBC takeover." Now you are defining "fundamentalist" as anyone who disagrees with takeover (people you call liberals) so you are basically saying "fundamentalist"="Liberal"

If Republicans were spouting this kind of nonsense talking about Democrats you'd have a fit about it.

[Sandy]

As to how dialogue occurs in mainline denominations it has indeed resolved issues for several mainline groups. The ECUSA took an official position on homosexuality, the ELCA took an official position on homosexuality, the PCUSA recently took a new position on homosexuality and clergy and the UMC maintained its current position at a vote of General Conference. It looks to me like things are resolved in those denominations in their own polity in the way they make decisions.

It depends on how you define the term "resolved." If taking an "official" position resolves the issue, and the dissenters are left the choice of either conforming or leaving, and the leadership is content to see thousands of their members depart, then I guess things are resolved. It just seems a bit hypocritical to sympathize with that position when it comes to some Christians, but to bash the SBC leadership for essentially taking a much more lower key approach to resolving a doctrinal issue. Seems to me CBF has had a growing tiff and loud debate over the refusal of its leadership to bow to a small, shrill group of dissenters who continue to push a pro-homosexual agenda and insist that they open up to hiring gays and lesbians. Of course, conservatives predicted twenty years ago that CBF would fall apart over the issue of welcoming and affirming homosexuality. Seems like there was a conference attached to that issue as well, "unofficial" of course, at least, as far as any direct connection to CBF was concerned.

I realize you like to poo-poo on scholars and experts, so this statement will hold no weight for you (your loss): but the overwhelming majority of scholars of Protestant fundamentalism don't hold to your strict, narrow definition that requires separatism.

"Scholars" of Protestant fundamentalism? Don't you contend that term is an oxymoron? Are these scholars actually inside what they define as "fundamentalism" or are they on the outside doing some kind of observation and study and drawing conclusions from little slices of presupposed theory and hypothesis? There is a vast difference between fundamentalism that exists among separatists that identify as "independent, fundamental" and the conservative theology of the SBC. It doesn't take a "Protestant scholar" to observe it, if you're up close.

Most SBC leaders are as highly educated as any "scholar," in fact, many of them are, by definition, scholars themselves, with a list of advanced and terminal degrees, many from the same institutions as other recognized scholars. I think they are capable of handling, and resolving, a doctrinal debate over Calvinism from within their own ranks.

Vines, BTW, is a graduate of Mercer University.

[Timothy Bonney]

Sandy, you've obviously confused me with someone else. I'd support Vines and others who would pull the SBC away from the Calvinist brink if I were a Southern Baptist. I see Calvinism of this stripe as a dangerous false doctrine that was not part of the long term SBC viewpoint. So I've not been critical of the approach other than suggesting that it just won't work because Baptist have no overarching authority to make things stick. It isn't the approach that is the problem, it is Baptist polity that is the problem.

For many mainline denominations decisions are made at the national or regional level. The PCUSA, UMC and other do have "official" positions. Baptists really can't have "official" positions on much of anything. And yes, the "official" position does "resolve" the issue until such a time as a different "official" position is taken. And just like Baptist churches do at the local church level, majority rules. So you may think it is some virtue for each church to have a majority vote on each issue other Christians don't.

For Baptists no issue can be "resolved" because no one has to agree on anything to be a Baptist. You can hold that up as a virtue if you like Sandy. But I don't. I see it as making individualism and personal autonomy an idol.

[Gene Scarborough]

Timothy---what you are saying is absolutely accurate!

Now we do have a move in NC to oust churches ministering to homosexuals and calling lady pastors. It is a new Financial Policy which can return funds to that church and, thereby, exclude them from NC mission giving and participation in voting at the anual meeting.

The churches having received such treatment have just been freed of criticism and move to relationships they enjoy. My last church, Lakeside in Rocky Mount, had been on the criticism list for accepting members without requiring they be immersed. When the ordaination of women became another criticism point and they have ordained women deacons, the church voted to leave the NCBSC. They are CBF, but still allow any member wanting to direct their gift to the SBC or NCBSC that priviledge. They have taken Baptist off their sign and enjoy great respect in their town.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

There have been many scholars who have studied fundamentalism up-close-and-personal. Nancy Ammerman was an outsider who studied fundamentalism extensively from the inside. Randall Balmer was an evangelical who was brought into the political fundamentalist fold. There are many more examples.

Your eagerness to dismiss the work of actual experts in a particular field is quite telling.

There are fundamentalists within the SBC. There are fundamentalists in leadership positions in the SBC who have influence. This is a fact that even actual Southern Baptists themselves will concede.

Who said fundamentalists are without education? I'm not sure why you are citing the terminal degrees of SBC leaders (funny how education and degrees matters to you when its helpful for your argument).

Many fundamentalist leaders are well-educated. No doubt about that. Level of education does matter from a sociological perspective. You can look at Ammerman and Wuthnow - who names that get respect from the right and left (but probably not you).

[Sandy]

There are fundamentalists within the SBC.

In a denomination composed of independent, autonomous churches, institutions and agencies, with various layers of denominational relationships largely based in the Southern and Southwestern states, I'll concede that point. Some are within local churches where they've found a niche, some pastors have found their way into pulpits. Their practices and doctrines distinguish them from what I would call Traditional Southern Baptists in many ways and they would represent a very small fragment of a percentage of the whole in Texas, Missouri and Kentucky. Interestingly enough, the few fundamentalists you would find in Kentucky, mostly in the eastern mountains, are also Calvinist.

There are fundamentalists in leadership positions in the SBC who have influence. This is a fact that even actual Southern Baptists themselves will concede.

What I have read from moderate Baptists who have attempted to define the term "fundamentalism" as it pertains to the SBC is based on the misconception that they themselves are the Southern Baptist traditionalists. They have allowed an evolving definition of their own theology to be overlayed on top of the pre-1979 SBC and then define "fundamentalism" out of what remains when they are extracted from the equation. Essentially, anyone who is to the right of their version of Baptist history or theology is, by their definition, "fundamentalist." If you reject women serving as pastors, or ordaining gays and lesbians to the ministry, and hold to the belief that the Bible "has, for its matter, truth without any mixture of error and is entirely trustworthy in matters of faith and practice," then you are a fundamentalist. I have difficulty discerning whether or not Nancy Ammerman is a universalist, and I'm not sure that her definition of fundamentalist might just include a fair number of CBF'ers as well.

The recent attempted merger between the SBTC and the American Baptist Association (ABA) is an excellent example which illustrates the clear differences between fundamentalist Baptists and Southern Baptists. There is a fraternal relationship that didn't exist before, mainly for the benefit of the institutions and agencies of both groups, but neither group is willing to accept without caveat the doctrinal statement of the other. The ABA insists that the BFM2000 doesn't cover everything it should related to the fundamentals of the faith, and the SBTC isn't going to go along with the ABA statement which binds its churches to closed communion, rejects the practice of miraculous spiritual gifts, and requires premillenial dispensationalism, among other things. Those are all defining doctrines of Independent Baptist fundamentalism, and most Southern Baptists aren't going to buy at least two of the three.

So I'm wondering what definition of "fundamentalist" the majority of Southern Baptists would accept that would apply to themselves, and then who among the more influential leaders in the convention fits it. Maybe there are a few in some of the more obscure corners of the trustee boards and committees. Currently at the top, Frank Page and Bryant Wright are clearly not fundamentalists. On the executive board, the Vice-chair, Ernest Easley, who is just down the road from Wright, is not fundamentalist. Roger Spradlin, current chair, doesn't appear to be. If the convention elects Fred Luter as its next President, he isn't.