These Fundamentalist won't claim SBC

[Ed Pettibone]

http://www.faith.edu/generalinfo/location/index.html
and
http://www.faith.edu/seminary/faithpulp ... 2004_01-02


faith pulpitPrinter Friendly

Are Conservative Southern Baptists Fundamentalists?

January/February '04 - George Houghton, Th.D.


Any fundamentalist who has kept up with the conservative resurgence within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is glad for conservatives' advances and rejoices with them in their success. There are several books and articles which have been written from various perspectives about what has happened within the SBC since 1979. Perhaps one of the most significant is The Baptist Reformation (The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention) by Jerry Sutton, written from the conservative point of view and published in 2000 by the SBC's denominational publishing house, Broadman & Holman Publishers. The book's significance is indicated by the endorsements it has received from many of the leading Southern Baptists today, including Morris H. Chapman, James T. Draper, Jr., Kenneth S. Hemphill, Richard D. Land, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Paige Patterson, Adrian Rogers, Jerry Vines, Ed Young, and others.

Still, fundamentalists have raised an important question: "Are these conservative Southern Baptists really fundamentalists?" The question is important, for its answer will largely determine whether those professing fundamentalism ought to embrace the SBC and its leadership. Organizations which have begun as fundamentalist in orientation, such as the Baptist Bible Fellowship International (BBFI) and the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (GARBC), are currently facing this issue. Therefore, the question is not only important, it is also timely.

.....................

Conclusion

Clearly the answer to the question, "Are conservative Southern Baptists fundamentalists?" is "No." This answer does not mean that Southern Baptists are not good people who genuinely want to serve the Lord or that the conservatives have not made advances within the Convention. Rather, the answer reveals that the conservatives are not going in the same direction as fundamentalists. Organizations which have been historically identified as separatist and fundamentalist need to decide whether they are willing to partner with conservative Southern Baptists and thus depart from their historic direction. If they are willing to do so, they should drop the fundamentalist identification.

[Sandy]

The idea of separation, and the fact that it is a core tenet of fundamentalist Baptists is not the only distinguishing factor between SBC conservatives and fundamentalist Baptists but it is an important one. The doctrine of premillenial dispensationalism is also mentioned, and while there have always been Southern Baptists who are premillenial dispensationalists, there have been plenty who were not, and it hasn't been made a provision of the BFM. Nor is premillenial dispensationalism exclusively conservative.

This particular group doesn't have a clear understanding of Southern Baptist polity, and I don't think most independent, fundamental Baptists do either. The cooperation between the churches and the convention, which includes the institutions which receive its support, is strictly voluntary. There are doctrinal parameters set for the operation of the convention and its institutions, but churches are not required to adopt them in order to be in full cooperation, and in fact, there are state convention bodies, associations and local churches all over the SBC that have not adopted the BFM 2000, or the BFM 1963 for that matter, as a doctrinal statement. In fact, I would say that the BFM is not anywhere near being adequate as a local church's statement of faith. There is no denominational "control" over local churches, associations or state conventions in the SBC.

[Tim Bonney]

Ed that is the very nature of fundamentalism. To be a good fundamentalist you always have to be yet more conservative, yet more "pure" and than the next guy (or the next denomination or the next church). Fundamentalist thinking leads eventually to ultra-fundamentalism or extremist fundamentalism because there is no constraint on how conservative is conservative enough.

The fundamentalist Baptist church in Rushville near where I pastored routinely heard sermons on the liberalism of both the SBC church in town and the ABC church in town. Then there was the even more fundy KJV church that preached that the other fundamentalist church, the SBC Church, and the ABC church were all hell bound liberals.

[Dave Roberts]

Labels are so hard to apply and largely meaningless outside the broader context of Christianity as a whole.

[Matt Richard]

"Rather, the answer reveals that the conservatives are not going in the same direction as fundamentalists."

That is a very broad statement to make, and is certainly true in some respects, especially in regards to denominational separatism. However, I believe the fact that fundamentalists (like the late Jerry Falwell) are more willing to cooperate with the SBC, demonstrates a like-mindedness recognized by fundamentalists, that previously was not.

The article interestingly points out that cooperating with the SBC marks a historical shift for fundamentalists. The next obvious question is "what has given rise to this shift?" I seriously doubt it has anything to do with fundamentalists becoming more open-minded and willing to cooperate. There is only one other obvious option.

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Gene Scarborough]

Great topic and post, Ed!!!

I think CR has more to do with power and friends than anything theological!

The Disciples were all followers of Christ, but even they could not get along when it came to washing one another's feet = too busy fighting and fussing over who would sit in the places of honor.

In EVERY pretense of theological righteousness there exists a leader whose mother never busted his hind parts for refusing to obey or listen. He learned he was "always right / all powerful / loved the riches associated with position / had underlings willing to do whatever he said so they might be powerful as well one day."

If you are not of mega church quality forget about any real place in the new SBC---except to kiss their kingly feet!!!!

[Sandy]

[Gene Scarborough]

[Tim Bonney]

[Gene Scarborough]

Paul: "It is by grace that you are saved and not of your works."

[Tim Bonney]

[Gene Scarborough]

[Dave Roberts]

[Gene Scarborough]

NC is in the process or has already accomplished it to eliminate the 3-way choice of plans. I saw it as encouraging "unity within diversity," but all has changed here over the last 5 years.

The new "NC way" is in compliance with the SBC directives put into place within 10 years of the 1979 "takeover."

Our latest NC controversies have to do with the change in editors of the Biblical Recorder / firing of a DOM in the western part of the state near Charlotte / excluding a church which called a female pastor.

The takeover was supposed to bring growth and unity. It has done neither. The only reason we do not see financial crisis yet is the deep pockets developed pre-1979.

For me, we just continue to climb the monkey tree and show our monkey tails in the process!!!!

[Stephen Fox]

is smoother but more driven than his father to move the country and his faction of Baptists to the Right

[Gene Scarborough]

So----tell us what you really mean and what is the significance for this discussion!!!