Baptists Today and the souls of pickles...

[William Thornton]

kosher, dill, hot garlic, sweet, bread and butter or any other kind of pickle.

Bruce Gourley, our Fearless Leader here at Baptist Life wrote a piece for the 30th anniversary of Baptists Today news Journal in which he summarized with a paragraph or two events and comments from the pages of BT. I am unsure if the text is from BT or Bruce. Here is a good one:

In 1987, SBC president and Memphis pastor Adrian Rogers summarized the demands of fundamentalists.

Concerning Southern Baptist seminary professors, he said: "If we believe that pickles have souls and they can't teach it, then they shouldn't take our money."

For moderate Baptists, the statement was viewed as encapsulating fundamentalists' raw desire for power and disrespect for sound theology and dissenting perspectives."

Here is what David Rogers, son of Adrian, said of the pickles quote of his father:

One of the most referenced (and misinterpreted) quotes of my father, Adrian Rogers, by those who opposed the "Conservative Resurgence" is that SBC seminary professors much teach "whatever they are told to teach. And if we tell them to teach that pickles have souls, then they must teach that pickles have souls!" Of course, the point he was making, and with which I agree, did not have anything to do with whether or not pickles have souls, nor whether or not a small group of people in the SBC ought to be able to dictate what others believe – but rather the need for those who receive their salary from the Cooperative Program to be accountable for their doctrinal views to those who pay their salary: the churches of the SBC.

I do not have immediate access to the exact quote (I've seen several variations over the years) nor to the context but I think Bruce and/or BT has it right, and although it is blunt and straightforward it expresses exactly, precisely what should be a bedrock principle of our denominational work: Those who pay the bills have a right to expect of their employees behavior consistent with their desires and not contrary to them. If foolish Southern Baptists who believe that pickles have souls have sufficient voting power among seminary trustee boards and wish to implement that teaching in the schools they own and operate, then those who receive paychecks from them should resign and find employment in a place where they can teach what is consistent with their own beliefs.

The faculty members are employees. They teach what the owners say to teach and not otherwise. Even CBF partner seminaries adhere to this principle.

Which CBF leader will the the one to say, “If we believe that Scripture teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful and that one of our bedrock principles of human relationships is that marriage according to God’s design should be between one male and one female, then those who receive our money should reflect this belief in their teaching and, if not, then they should not take our money.”

I will be happy to send a jar of pickles to that person.

[Dave Roberts]

I'm afraid that Rogers is just a victim of what he and others so often practiced in their use of selected and out of context quotes to prove that professors and others were not faithful to the scriptures (as they understood them). Just reference the attacks on Glenn Hinson, Randall Lolley, Dale Moody, and Henley Barnette that were published by Robert Tenery or "General" Pinkney. Then look back at the contexts to see what was intended. Also, there is a difference, William, between behavior and belief. You referenced how people "behaved." If that were the standard, then what about "half-truths in service of the greater good?"

[William Thornton]

I'm afraid that Rogers is just a victim of what he and others so often practiced in their use of selected and out of context quotes to prove that professors and others were not faithful to the scriptures (as they understood them). Just reference the attacks on Glenn Hinson, Randall Lolley, Dale Moody, and Henley Barnette that were published by Robert Tenery or "General" Pinkney. Then look back at the contexts to see what was intended. Also, there is a difference, William, between behavior and belief. You referenced how people "behaved." If that were the standard, then what about "half-truths in service of the greater good?"

Better put, those profs who take our money should in their teaching behavior reflect the beliefs of those who pay their salaries. If the profs are asked to affix their signatures and thereby assent to certain beliefs as a requirement of employment, the statement of belief should be that which the owners desire. No one is forced to believe anything.

[William Thornton]

In principle, mods agree with the pickle quote, although they would never admit it. They would only differ with the application of it.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

They teach what the owners say to teach and not otherwise. Even CBF partner seminaries adhere to this principle.

That's just not true. My dad has never been told what to teach or what not to teach. I don't know professors who are told what to teach or not to teach.

SBC seminaries have a fundamentally different view of Baptist Higher Education and really just education in general.

Your phrasing actually reveals this rather fundamental difference. The moderate/progressive Baptist professors that I know well expose their students to a diversity of perspectives. They will often share what they believe and put beliefs in a proper historical context. But they don't tell anyone what they must believe. That's not how higher education is supposed to work.

For example, all undergrads at Baylor have to take a Christian history course. For that course, all are required to purchase a "reader" which includes selections from Tertullian to Martin Luther to John Calvin to James Cone to Billy Graham. James Cone is read and discussed. But it is not presented as "this is something that you must believe in order to be a Christian, etc." Same is true for Billy Graham.

At conservative seminaries, they read books about James Cone not by James Cone. Big difference.

[Dave Roberts]

In principle, mods agree with the pickle quote, although they would never admit it. They would only differ with the application of it.

Except for the fact that mods allow for the prophetic voice of a challenge to the status quo--most of those accused of being "liberals" were those who challenged the status quo on race, war, civic religion, and corrupt politics. Often the battle was as much about orthopraxy as it was about orthodoxy. Does God condone bullying?

[Tim Bonney]

William, how do you avoid this coming down to its most absurd conclusion, that doctrine is decided by whomever has the money, gives the money, and controls the money?

Since Baptists have no official church law or doctrine the answer is that professors teach doctrines based on what the people who give the money believe? This seems contradictory to what conservative Christians always tell me they believe, "we should teach what the Bible says no matter what people say." Apparently that doesn't carry over to "no matter what people give."

I don't really think this is what you mean but it appears to me that the unavoidable conclusion of what you are saying is the money determines doctrine.

What I think you may mean is that Southern Baptists should get to determine what doctrines are taught in SBC seminaries. I can only see one way to do that with integrity, and that would be for the SBC to adopt official doctrinal guidelines that would be binding on pastors and churches, and church members as well as seminary professors.

But what you are appearing to say is the Southern Baptist can believe whatever they want, SBC pastors can believe and teach whatever they want, but if people are giving money then the money trumps all.

[Haruo]

Well, in a Capitalist Christian country like our Land of Hope and Glory, market forces should be allowed to freely shape and direct doctrine, shouldn't they?

Cajun spice pickles have soul.

[Tim Bonney]

Well, in a Capitalist Christian country like our Land of Hope and Glory, market forces should be allowed to freely shape and direct doctrine, shouldn't they?

Cajun spice pickles have soul.

I know as the lone Methodist around here I'm out on my own limb, but I only think there are two choices. You either have an official doctrinal position on issues that you want/need/require to have everyone agree on or you quit trying to control the viewpoints of professors at seminaries. But if you do that it has to apply to pastors, denominational leaders, church members, et al.

And if you do that then likely the Neo-Calvinists, among others, in the SBC will have to mend their ways since the majority of SBCers don't appear to agree with them.

But to say that the people in the pew can believe whatever they want and then force with the almighty dollar what those with actually theological training will teach is a recipe for popular but bad doctrine to become the standard. After all, by popular vote I bet a lot of profs would have to teach the Left Behind Series in their classes since it appears to be the most popular eschatology out there.

[Sandy]

SBC seminaries have a fundamentally different view of Baptist Higher Education and really just education in general.

You're using a couple of terms without much of a context or definition. I have written a thesis on "education in general," concluding that what passes for that, under the term "education" in this country, is an abysmal failure, with plenty of documentation to prove the thesis. If you're talking about higher education "in general", that's a different animal. As far as defining "Baptist higher education" goes, the supportable evidence would indicate that most of what falls under that category, at least in this country, is quite similar to what the SBC seminaries do, along with a host of educational institutions among conservative, Evangelical denominations, and independent schools. Many colleges and universities, and all seminaries and theological schools, have directed student outcomes and specific educational purposes, in which the free-for-all, open, "anything goes" approach just doesn't fit.

Since Baptists have no official church law or doctrine the answer is that professors teach doctrines based on what the people who give the money believe? This seems contradictory to what conservative Christians always tell me they believe, "we should teach what the Bible says no matter what people say." Apparently that doesn't carry over to "no matter what people give."...What I think you may mean is that Southern Baptists should get to determine what doctrines are taught in SBC seminaries. I can only see one way to do that with integrity, and that would be for the SBC to adopt official doctrinal guidelines that would be binding on pastors and churches, and church members as well as seminary professors.

That's really a complete mischaracterization of the way things are, and I don't think that's what either William, or Adrian Rogers, was saying.

The convention is not a "church." Therefore, it cannot pass doctrinal guidelines that are binding on churches. It can, however, and does, pass doctrinal guidelines that are binding on the institutions and agencies it owns, including the six seminaries, and those guidelines are the result of consensus agreement, through the convention body, of the supporting churches. It is the responsibility of the seminary administration to communicate with the faculty where the limits are on the doctrinal guidelines that have been established. That requires more than just a reading and interpretation of the Baptist faith and message, it requires knowledge of the whole constituency of Southern Baptists. The invitation to teach to a professor should include a thorough orientation to that, and in fact, I would consider it a requirement, or at least prerequisite to being hired, for a professor to be completely thorough with the Southern Baptist convention's churches, and all of the major theological perspectives that are part of that, before being hired. I would think that, in the hiring process, questions would be asked that would identify the candidate's own position, and how they perceive that issue within the context of a denomination linked together by voluntary relationships rather than ecclesiastical "law" or higher authority.

And it's not like the SBC has just drifted here, there and everywhere, and changes at the whim of a few convention votes. The doctrinal history of the past 75 years, at least, by the written evidence, has not changed as much as most major denominations. Collectively, Southern Baptists still provide the most comprehensive financial support for theological education through its seminaries than anyone else does, by far, and they, through the convention, have the right to determine the curriculum objectives and student outcomes. And there were outcomes, in the days prior to 1979, that were not consistent with the clearly stated consensus positions of the convention.

[Tim Bonney]

The doctrinal history of the past 75 years, at least, by the written evidence, has not changed as much as most major denominations.

Foo. When I was a SBTS women in ministry was being encouraged. When I was a Southern Baptist no particular theory of inspiration was expected or required. In the past 75 years there have been three revisions to the BFM. On a doctrinal/denominational scale that is pretty rapid.

[Haruo]

The doctrinal history of the past 75 years, at least, by the written evidence, has not changed as much as most major denominations.

Foo. … In the past 75 years there have been three revisions to the BFM. On a doctrinal/denominational scale that is pretty rapid.

Yeah, you can just never tell which direction the Holy Spirit will flit next! (John 3:8)

[Tom Parker]

The doctrinal history of the past 75 years, at least, by the written evidence, has not changed as much as most major denominations.

Foo. When I was a SBTS women in ministry was being encouraged. When I was a Southern Baptist no particular theory of inspiration was expected or required. In the past 75 years there have been three revisions to the BFM. On a doctrinal/denominational scale that is pretty rapid.

Tim, the changes in the SBC towards women over the last 30 years are unexplainable scripturally IMO but those in charge put them into place any how!

[Tim Bonney]

Yeah, you can just never tell which direction the Holy Spirit will flit next! (John 3:8)

It can be the winds of the Spirit. Or it can simply be the whims of popular (or power fueled) opinion.

[Tim Bonney]

Since Baptists have no official church law or doctrine the answer is that professors teach doctrines based on what the people who give the money believe?

The convention is not a "church." Therefore, it cannot pass doctrinal guidelines that are binding on churches. It can, however, and does, pass doctrinal guidelines that are binding on the institutions and agencies it owns, including the six seminaries, and those guidelines are the result of consensus agreement, through the convention body, of the supporting churches.

Sandy I'm well aware of that. Remember I was a Baptist for a lot of years. I said above that Baptists have no official church law or doctrine. That is part of the problem. The SBC DOES have official doctrines for seminaries yet where did the SBC get that official doctrine? It got that doctrine from Messengers from local church that voted for it. Right? Or denominational officials hired on behalf of those messengers. So the local church messengers who are not bound to believe anything in particular come from churches that are not bound to believe anything in particular to tell employees that they have to believe particular things that they voted they have to believe.

It is a hybrid and problematic polity. I use the term hybrid polity because in most denominations, including other congregationalist denominations, seminaries are not owned lock stock and barrel by their denominational affiliate. So they have academic freedom. But Southern Baptists who claim freedom for local churches, individual members, pastors and just about everyone else don't grant the same freedom to seminary professors many of whom know a heck of a lot more about the Bible than the people who are telling them what they have to teach. And those same people who are telling them what to teach aren't bound by the same rules they are placing on others. Thus the dumb pickle remark by Adrian Rogers.

So local autonomy and priesthood of the believer exists until you are educated, trained, and hired to be a teacher of other pastors and then you suddenly can't teach what you've learned, only what you are approved to teach often by people with less training and education than you have. What a mess!

[Sandy]

The doctrinal history of the past 75 years, at least, by the written evidence, has not changed as much as most major denominations.

Foo. When I was a SBTS women in ministry was being encouraged. When I was a Southern Baptist no particular theory of inspiration was expected or required. In the past 75 years there have been three revisions to the BFM. On a doctrinal/denominational scale that is pretty rapid.

No particular theory of inspiration is required now. Biblical authority, i.e. inerrancy and infallibility, which require no specific "theory" of inspiration, appears in all three documents, consistently. Support for women in ministry, specifically in their preparation for the pastorate, was never a serious or widespread movement among Southern Baptists, and at Southern and Southeastern was one of the issues cited as evidence of the leftward leaning faculties and administrations. Nor is it, apparently, receiving much encouragement now among those in CBF. It seems their other priorities have crowded that out.

[Sandy]

Since Baptists have no official church law or doctrine the answer is that professors teach doctrines based on what the people who give the money believe?

The convention is not a "church." Therefore, it cannot pass doctrinal guidelines that are binding on churches. It can, however, and does, pass doctrinal guidelines that are binding on the institutions and agencies it owns, including the six seminaries, and those guidelines are the result of consensus agreement, through the convention body, of the supporting churches.

Sandy I'm well aware of that. Remember I was a Baptist for a lot of years. I said above that Baptists have no official church law or doctrine. That is part of the problem. The SBC DOES have official doctrines for seminaries yet where did the SBC get that official doctrine? It got that doctrine from Messengers from local church that voted for it. Right? Or denominational officials hired on behalf of those messengers. So the local church messengers who are not bound to believe anything in particular come from churches that are not bound to believe anything in particular to tell employees that they have to believe particular things that they voted they have to believe.

It is a hybrid and problematic polity. I use the term hybrid polity because in most denominations, including other congregationalist denominations, seminaries are not owned lock stock and barrel by their denominational affiliate. So they have academic freedom. But Southern Baptists who claim freedom for local churches, individual members, pastors and just about everyone else don't grant the same freedom to seminary professors many of whom know a heck of a lot more about the Bible than the people who are telling them what they have to teach. And those same people who are telling them what to teach aren't bound by the same rules they are placing on others. Thus the dumb pickle remark by Adrian Rogers.

So local autonomy and priesthood of the believer exists until you are educated, trained, and hired to be a teacher of other pastors and then you suddenly can't teach what you've learned, only what you are approved to teach often by people with less training and education than you have. What a mess!

"Academic Freedom" is a nebulous and undefined term. What it meant to those who were teaching and leading the SBC seminaries prior to 1979 was an elitist, "we know it all and you are ignorant bumpkins" attitude toward the people in the pew. It set aside what the Apostle Paul talks about in I Corinthians as "wisdom from the Spirit" in favor of human reason and intellect, imitating the secular academic hierarchy in methodology drawn more from a classical model, the enlightenment, and secular humanism than from the Biblical context itself, based in the Biblical languages, on the educational model found in the Bible itself, in a literal-historical context. The natural assumption that because someone has a formal education in the classical sense, with a piece of paper that says they have X number of hours of credit they know more than someone whose formal education may be in some other subject area, or ended before they got a Master's degree is a false and patronizing assumption.

The list of seminary profs in SBC schools with post-graduate and terminal degrees from a wide variety of the most snobbish, prestigious ivory towers in English-speaking academia is a long one, and many of those schools are way out in left field when it comes to their approach to Biblical studies. And yet, even after spending time in the bastions of so-called academic freedom, they understand their teaching assignment in terms of the context of a Southern Baptist seminary and the expectations of the people of the churches. That's because 1) most of them have been members of Southern Baptist churches for most of their lives, and they understand the relationship between the denomination, its agencies and its churches, and 2) they understand that teaching in a seminary is a spiritual and ministry calling, rather than just a post or a job. And just like faith itself, the bottom line is that it's not about you, it's about who you serve. Academic "freedom," which in any context is really not truly freedom, is nothing more than pure selfishness.

[Tim Bonney]

"Academic Freedom" is a nebulous and undefined term. What it meant to those who were teaching and leading the SBC seminaries prior to 1979 was an elitist,

Translation for those who aren't fundamentalists in the room - "theological education is of no value and if you believe it is better to have PhD in theology than a simple Sunday School education of the Bible than you are an 'elitist' because obviously knowing something and knowing you know something makes you an elitist snob."

I suggest you use the same litmus test the next time you have medical care choosing to allow some guy with a high school only education to perform heart surgery on you rather than going to some elitist snobby heart surgeon who is arrogent enough to think he knows more about heart surgery than a high school only graduate. Yep, go for that. I'll toss in a free funeral if you take me up on it. But then what do I know. I have an M.Div. obviously I'm an elitist snob.

[Sandy]

"Academic Freedom" is a nebulous and undefined term. What it meant to those who were teaching and leading the SBC seminaries prior to 1979 was an elitist,

Translation for those who aren't fundamentalists in the room - "theological education is of no value and if you believe it is better to have PhD in theology than a simple Sunday School education of the Bible than you are an 'elitist' because obviously knowing something and knowing you know something makes you an elitist snob."

I suggest you use the same litmus test the next time you have medical care choosing to allow some guy with a high school only education to perform heart surgery on you rather than going to some elitist snobby heart surgeon who is arrogent enough to think he knows more about heart surgery than a high school only graduate. Yep, go for that. I'll toss in a free funeral if you take me up on it. But then what do I know. I have an M.Div. obviously I'm an elitist snob.

Not a valid comparison. Medicine is a skills occupation. Vocational ministry is a spiritual calling. And an education, without the Holy Spirit, is exactly what Paul says it is in more than one place. I Corinthians 2 comes to mind, as does "holding the form of religion, but denying the power of it" from 2 Timothy 3:5. The Biblical model of education is discipleship, and theological education that doesn't follow that model is of no value.

Jesus, because of who he was, didn't need a degree. But then, none of his disciples had one. Paul had the best theologial education available in his day, and yet, it only possessed value in his eventual ministry after a dramatic conversion experience, and a complete re-interpretation of its content.

Translation of Tim's statement: "Anything I disagree with will be labelled fundamentalist, even if it doesn't fit the definition."

My simple "Sunday School education" put me way ahead of most of my classmates in college level Bible classes, especially those who didn't bother with going, and I learned a whole lot more about character and conviction from my parents, and from a nice grandmother named Janie Batchelor, who only had a high school education, but taught the beginners Sunday School class in my home church for 20 years, than I ever did at seminary.

[Tim Bonney]

Jesus, because of who he was, didn't need a degree. But then, none of his disciples had one. Paul had the best theologial education available in his day, and yet, it only possessed value in his eventual ministry after a dramatic conversion experience, and a complete re-interpretation of its content.

Sandy, the Disciples had Jesus training them for three years. You don't think that constitutes theological training? Do you think Jesus walked around with the for three years for the heck of it? Or that he might have thought the training was necessary?

Translation of Tim's statement: "Anything I disagree with will be labelled fundamentalist, even if it doesn't fit the definition."

Nope. An anti-education attitude is actually a well known hallmark of fundamentalism. If you don't want people to figure out that fundamentalism doesn't make sense it is easier if you keep them from studying theology, church history, Biblical languages, or anything outside the fundamentalist world view.

My simple "Sunday School education" put me way ahead of most of my classmates in college level Bible classes

Then it wasn't much of a college Bible class.

[Tom Parker]

Tim: Sandy sure goes out of his way to support the FUNDAMENTLIST approach of the SBC. Only one way is allowed on whatever the issue is. I do not understand what the purpose of thinking is under this approach.

[TrudyU]

Jesus, because of who he was, didn't need a degree. But then, none of his disciples had one. Paul had the best theologial education available in his day, and yet, it only possessed value in his eventual ministry after a dramatic conversion experience, and a complete re-interpretation of its content.

Sandy, the Disciples had Jesus training them for three years. You don't think that constitutes theological training? Do you think Jesus walked around with the for three years for the heck of it? Or that he might have thought the training was necessary?

Translation of Tim's statement: "Anything I disagree with will be labelled fundamentalist, even if it doesn't fit the definition."

Nope. An anti-education attitude is actually a well known hallmark of fundamentalism. If you don't want people to figure out that fundamentalism doesn't make sense it is easier if you keep them from studying theology, church history, Biblical languages, or anything outside the fundamentalist world view.

My simple "Sunday School education" put me way ahead of most of my classmates in college level Bible classes

Then it wasn't much of a college Bible class.

Ed: Tim, what do you know about either Sandy's Sunday School Education, or his college classmates? Shoot! I have been in some moderate Louisville churches in the 1950's and 90's that had Graduate students teaching SS, and VBS.

And Sandy, you are looking a bit thin skinned on this one. I do not see Tim labeling any thing you have said as fundamentalist in this thread. If you are going to attack what Tim says, you need to take the openings that he gives you.

[William Thornton]

"Academic Freedom" is a nebulous and undefined term. What it meant to those who were teaching and leading the SBC seminaries prior to 1979 was an elitist,

Translation for those who aren't fundamentalists in the room - "theological education is of no value and if you believe it is better to have PhD in theology than a simple Sunday School education of the Bible than you are an 'elitist' because obviously knowing something and knowing you know something makes you an elitist snob."

I suggest you use the same litmus test the next time you have medical care choosing to allow some guy with a high school only education to perform heart surgery on you rather than going to some elitist snobby heart surgeon who is arrogent enough to think he knows more about heart surgery than a high school only graduate. Yep, go for that. I'll toss in a free funeral if you take me up on it. But then what do I know. I have an M.Div. obviously I'm an elitist snob.

To get back to the pickles, if a medical school is funded by those who believe that it should be taught that bad air causes malaria, then that is what should be taught. No one is forced to attend the school. No prof of edidemiology is forced to teach at the school. Such teaching may repulse the better teachers and make graduates less attractive to employers and patients. But those who own the school determine what should be taught.

BTW, how is it going for graduates of the array of CBF partner seminaries? Are their graduates preferred over those of the SBC's six seminaries and the several SBC-friendly independent ones? Have Baptist churches began to jettison SBC seminary grads in favor of those from schools that my mod/lib friends here approve?

[Dave Roberts]

To get back to the pickles, if a medical school is funded by those who believe that it should be taught that bad air causes malaria, then that is what should be taught. No one is forced to attend the school. No prof of edidemiology is forced to teach at the school. Such teaching may repulse the better teachers and make graduates less attractive to employers and patients. But those who own the school determine what should be taught.

BTW, how is it going for graduates of the array of CBF partner seminaries? Are their graduates preferred over those of the SBC's six seminaries and the several SBC-friendly independent ones? Have Baptist churches began to jettison SBC seminary grads in favor of those from schools that my mod/lib friends here approve?

There is one major difference. For medical schools, the accrediting agency shapes the content as do the state exams that must be passed to be licensed to practice medicine. Neither applies at a theological institution. The content is not prescribed for accreditation, only the process.

As to CBF schools, generalizations do not work. I can only speak as one whose son graduated from BTSR who has found his education quite valuable in the local church setting. Also, where I am concluding my interim, we have a last year's graduate from a CBF institution as youth minister who seems to be meshing well with the youth and has hopes of pastoring one day. I know several BTSR and Campbell graduates who are well loved in their ministries and doing well. I also have experienced two recent SBC seminary grads who have not done well. One was a Calvinist who began to tell deacons they were not among the "elect." He was assisted in packing. Another recently left his church because they challenged the dictatorial style in which he wanted to work. The record on both sides is mixed.

[KeithE]

Those who pay the bills have a right to expect of their employees behavior consistent with their desires and not contrary to them.

So ultimately the person with the money can deny anyone he pays off their basic freedom of speech and action.